| Revision as of 13:37, 22 July 2007 editFT2 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 edits Evidence length← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:14, 27 July 2007 edit undoBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,268 edits May I edit your evidence template, arbs?Next edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 13:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 13:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==May I edit your evidence template, arbs?== | |||
| :''As I'm credibly informed that nobody reads this talkpage, I've crossposted the message to ].'' | |||
| Hi. I've written a couple of tutorials on how to produce diffs and permanent links, and have gotten good feedback about their usefulness. My impetus was the utter practical uselessness, (though perhaps philosophical interest) of ], which is usually linked to when newbies ask how to produce diffs. I don't understand above one word in ten in it, so how's a newbie supposed to? | |||
| Also, ] is only about diffs, whereas it's sometimes a lot more convenient to link one's evidence to a short section on a talkpage or on ANI. If those section links aren't done right, they'll go dead as soon as the page is archived. In the case of ANI, that means after a day or two. I noticed yesterday that one user went into his evidence section in the COFS case and effortfully changed all his section links to point to the archive into which they had just disappeared. I mentioned the tutorials to him, and he said he had been trying unsuccessfully to find that kind of information when he compiled his evidence. So, what do you say, arbitrators, would you like me to mention ] and/or ] at, say, the top of the evidence template? I've discussed it with NYBrad, and he seemed to think it would be helpful. Changing the relevantparagraph to something like this is what I have in mind: | |||
| :''As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a ] or an editor's ], as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See ].'' | |||
| ] | ] 23:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC). | |||
Revision as of 23:14, 27 July 2007
Based on our experience at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence, a thoughouly confusing page, I have made a change in format requiring that each person who enters evidence present evidence in their own section only. Fred Bauder 15:20, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree wholeheartedly. →Raul654 20:42, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Link change
I changed the link to the workshop to ] because when you open cases you won't have to fix the links manually. If there's something wrong with this, please let me know and revert. Johnleemk | Talk 09:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It would please me greatly
It would please me greatly if this template did not use my name as an example. Cute, but... :-)--Jimbo Wales 20:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Evidence length
Updated to reflect two points arising in Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy:
- Length is mostly for the primary evidence, responses should be kept short as well, but are not necessarily part of the "rule of thumb" 1000 words/100 diffs. Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence#Evidence Presentations
- Clerk judgement on reasonable evidence length/layout may apply on cases with unusual complexity. comment clerk opinion
May I edit your evidence template, arbs?
- As I'm credibly informed that nobody reads this talkpage, I've crossposted the message to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration.
Hi. I've written a couple of tutorials on how to produce diffs and permanent links, and have gotten good feedback about their usefulness. My impetus was the utter practical uselessness, (though perhaps philosophical interest) of help:diff, which is usually linked to when newbies ask how to produce diffs. I don't understand above one word in ten in it, so how's a newbie supposed to?
Also, help:diff is only about diffs, whereas it's sometimes a lot more convenient to link one's evidence to a short section on a talkpage or on ANI. If those section links aren't done right, they'll go dead as soon as the page is archived. In the case of ANI, that means after a day or two. I noticed yesterday that one user went into his evidence section in the COFS case and effortfully changed all his section links to point to the archive into which they had just disappeared. I mentioned the tutorials to him, and he said he had been trying unsuccessfully to find that kind of information when he compiled his evidence. So, what do you say, arbitrators, would you like me to mention this simple tutorial and/or this really, really simple tutorial at, say, the top of the evidence template? I've discussed it with NYBrad, and he seemed to think it would be helpful. Changing the relevantparagraph to something like this is what I have in mind:
- As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See Diff and link tutorial.