MarioWiki:Proposals

 http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code. This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To
 * 1) Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
 * 2) Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
 * 3) *Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
 * 4) *Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
 * 5) *Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
 * 6) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 7) At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
 * 8) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 9) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 10) If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
 * 11) Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
 * 12) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 13) Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a Sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
 * 14) All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 15) There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a PipeProject.
 * 16) Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 17) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). If a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: , 27 2024 (EDT)

New Features
''None at the moment.

Polls
I think we should remove the archives as some of the polls are still ridiculous and have only not been deleted because nobody can be bothered to oppose them. If we can't remove the archives then howabout just letting us edit them. Some people might want to change their vote as there are still to many polls and they might just want to do away with it.

Proposer: Deadline: July 13, 2009, 17:00

Delete Archives

 * 1) Yoshi! I for one, want to change my vote and see lots of polls deleted because I was trying to be friendly even if they were stupid. Plus, They cause a lot of problems. (see Below in timmy tim's)
 * 2) Those archives are just as problematic as the original poll selection page. Firstly, I had to change a link that had 'Archive 4' linked to 'Archive 1'. Secondly, Archive 1 only has 24 polls in it because one of them was picked and the polls weren't moved along. And finally, Archive 4, the last one, has 22 polls and should be on the main poll selection page.

Keep Archives the same and let rubbish polls stay up.

 * 1) Well, then the users who voted should have cared to oppose them. The archives are already protected, there was too much work that went into organizing the whole thing (which included: Getting them from the original page to the archives, deleting the polls with two more opposes than supporters, deleting signatures that breaks the rules, and getting someone to protect the archives to preserve the original content, as well as moving the pages to another and the deletion of the older redirects). Too many hundreds of edits went into that project, and if the polls are that ridiculous, set up a mini-proposal on the talk page of the Poll Selection page requesting to delete rubbish polls. If they are that bad, the votes will say to delete it, and a sysop/bureaucrat can go ahead with the decision that was made. Some of the polls are really good, and those ones shouldn't be deleted for the rubbish polls that are in there. And, on the same idea you have YY127, if you voted on a proposal, you can't just change your vote after it is archived. That should apply to the polls too.
 * 2) I am Zero! Leave the archive as they are, they made the poll selection more organized. And about the bad polls, leave them alone, sooner or later they will be deleted. Hmphh, I just thought of something funny, if there is a really bad poll Zafum will fly in on his airship with his fleet of opposers (including Timmy Tim) and shoot all of there laser canons at that poll, while doing an evil laugh. Zero signing out.
 * 3) I agree Per Zero
 * 4) The reason wikis have history links is to allow users to see the past of the article, archiving an article preserves all memories of the history of a wiki. These memories are very useful in teaching us what has happened in the past and showing us how this wiki has improved through the ages. Deleting all of this information would be like destroying part of the MarioWiki's history, like burning down a historical relic. Keep them there as a memory to all other users about how the wiki begun and how it has changed. If we delete all records of the past, where will we learn what to do in the future so that we don't make the same mistakes twice. Oh ya, per SMB

Comments

 * 1) Im Kinda neutral as the Archives Should not be Touched but Rubbish Polls so be Smited (EDIT: Lol i mispelled my own name
 * To respond: From what it sounds like, Tucayo's poll supports deleting the archives, that's why he said 100%, there is only one poll on the Poll Selection page, yet there are almost 100 in the archives. As I said above, you could also make a semi-proposal on the Poll Selection talk page if you want a poll deleted, if it is clear that most of the users deem one of the polls "rubbish" and they want it deleted, a sysop/bureaucrat can go ahead (as the archives a protected to prevent other users from editing them). But going ahead and changing your votes after the polls basically passed is not good: If we allowed that on other pages, things can get very hectic. 14:27, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Lol, Zafum.

Splits & Merges
''None at the moment.

No Name, No Vote, No creator's username, deleted poll
Alright, so I was looking at the poll selection page, as everybody know it is becomeing disorganized, cluttered-up, and a mess, so I came up with an idea to fix that problem. I propose that if anybody makes a poll and he/she doesn't leave there username as (under support): #(username here) (creator), or any other way to tell other users that he/she is the creator of that poll, that poll will be deleted. Also, if anybody support, oppose, and/or comment without leaving there username before there vote and/or before or after there comment it will also be deleted, because when users don't leave there username before they support or oppose, everybody elses votes after that user will be altered. If this proposal does pass, it will be easier to keep track of the polls, it will avoid confusion upon the votes and/or comments, and it can eliminate a lot of polls, if they don't follow this rule.

Proposer: Deadline: Friday, 10 July 2009, 20:00

Support

 * 1) I am Zero! This proposal was made to prevent confusion upon keeping track of the polls and confusion of the votes, like I said if this proposal does pass it will be easier to keep track of the polls and it can eliminate a lot of polls if they don't follow this rule. One more thing, the title was last minute, if any of you have ideas please put it in the comments. Zero signing out.
 * 2) This is good,because if there is a poll where a person could support,but then oppose without putting their username,and if the creater's poll is deleted and he didn't put their username,how are we going to know who to tell that their poll was deleted?
 * 3) Yeah, some polls, like that godawful Mario V Godzilla one are so bad that not even their creator will suport them.
 * 4) User:Mario freak Per all. oh and by the way if you go to my page you will know why I put that Mario vs. Godzilla page up. Peace Out!
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) It would help shorten long pages and keep everything in track, so I agree with this proposal.
 * 7) I agree. Per all.
 * 8) - YES to: Delete future polls without a credited user, delete votes without names, and restrict the number of open polls per starter. NO to: removing the archives or applying those new rules to the archives. - My reasons: We really need to regulate it because it is a mess; but I don't see any point in touching the archives. I don't think you can enforce new rules retroactively.
 * 9) Per all
 * 10) Organization=knowledge of users, knowledge of users=appreciation of users, appreciation of users=good!
 * 11)  Though I think that this proposal is kind of silly, I suppose it's for better, not for worse.

Comments
Man, why dont we just delete ALL the Polls, they are a huge problem, they are not updated, they are a MESS. Want me to continue?
 * I would have to say Tucayo has a great point, also, I would like to add that this does not have to be a proposal, it is basically understood that all users need to sign there comments, votes, and the such; and we don't have to create a rule that basically states the obvious. Also, per my above vote.
 * Per Tucayo, so.... where should i paste my vote? i mean i think Deleting all them is a good idea
 * I'm working on splitting the page and removing ones that break rules, I would say oppose right now because all the work I'm doing (and that went into my proposal which passed). Do whatever you feel is right, your vote does not have to be what I want it to be, but you have my suggestion.

Timmy Tim, I already deleted the Godzilla one.
 * Plus, I already split the page. If you still want to go through with the proposal, then most of the unnecessary polls are already gone. I deleted the ones with two more opposes than supporters, which brought the number of polls down to 98. So, if this proposal passes, you need to re-merge the pages, and request a sysop to delete the pages that are left over.
 * I renamed the oppose section because Tucayo made a new section, I now realize that it is not a good idea to delete all the polls. I already went through all the polls, deleted what needed to be deleted, etc.

Cobold, he rewrote the proposal so that it would not affect the archives, I suggest changing your votes. The proposal now seems to be in favor of your vote. 23:23, 4 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Also, Walkazo protected the archives per my request because people were changing them and voting on them, even though they passed.

Um, how come there are 100 that passed? What are the rules for passing again? ok 100?
 * It's an archive of polls that were passed and are waiting to be on the main page. They all followed rules of passing, so that's why they are archived.

Poll/Image Cleanup
I think we should have a specific day of the week to add a different poll to the main page because the latest poll stayed on for about a Month by which time it had got really boring. On the image front I think we should delete an image that has been on too long without being featured because it probably never will get featured as it probably is a Love/Hate Image which wouldn't really manage to get featured.

Proposer: Deadline: July 13, 2009, 17:00

For the cleanup and updation of polls/images

 * 1) Yoshi! I really want to see some polls deleted and new polls every week as it would make the Poll/Image pages less boring.
 * 2) Sounds diplomatic, speeds up the process, though it might be harder on users if it sped up any more
 * 3) Per Marioguy1
 * 4) It's still a mess in the poll selection. And weekly polls actually being weekly would be nice. Why not do them on Thursday like the images?

Against cleanup and updation of polls/images

 * 1) I am Zero! I disagree, even though there is a lot of dumb qestions, I still like the rule about two or more opposers, it's not really that fair for just one vote to get the poll deleted, I say to stick with the two or more opposers rule. But everything else I agree on. Zero signing out.
 * 2) I overall like the suggestions, but I don't think we should apply these rules to the archives, we don't apply newer rules to the Proposal archives (in most cases) or most other archives. Plus, a suggestion, if this proposal does pass, I think you should include the "Majority Rule" which was designed by Walkazo for the proposals page, it can make polls harder to pass.
 * 3) - Wow there are alot of proposals about the polls! One major flaw with this proposal is that if the first person to vote opposes it, then the poll will be deleted. I think that my rule for 2 more opposers than supporters is still good. Something should definitely be done about there being so many polls, but something a bit different than this.

Comments

 * 1) Could you please go more in-depth in what you mean?
 * 2) Yoshi! I mean having the main page updated with a new poll every week, deleting an image if its been on the F.I page for too long (say around 40- days) and reducing the deletion expectance from 2 more Oppsrs than spprtrs to omly 1 supporter (creator) so a bad poll is more likely to get deleted.(Archives as well)
 * Well, I'm not sure about the last point. The archived rules should follow the older rules, any newer Poll nominations should follow the new rules. I hate doing this, but another example relating to proposals are the ones that have signatures. We don't apply the rule about signatures to the older ones that have signatures because they were made before that rule was created, and as of such, if you go to some of the earlier proposals, you will see that votes and comments were signed with signatures. I don't think that applying your proposed rules to the archives would be fair to the older poll nominations, but they would be good to apply to newer nominations. 15:53, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Update One After Another
I propose that everything on the main page like featured article, featured image, poll, and did you know sections should all be updated between one hour to one day after another, it doesn't really matter in what order they should be in, just as long as they are updated, and there time limit should be one week of staying in the main page, Mario news and proposal section should be the only exceptions. I said this because one time the "did you know" section, it had the same three trivias stayed there for about three months and like six months ago on the poll section it didn't work on some computers. The main page is sometimes confusing to keep track of even if your'e a user or just a visitor to the site, so that is why I came up with this idea.

Proposer: Deadline: Monday, 13 July 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) I am Zero! A lot of users will agree on this idea, since its simple but it affects not only users but also visitors coming to the SMW. Zero signing out.
 * 2) PEr Zero
 * 3) Per Zero.

Oppose

 * 1) Per my first 2 comments below.
 * OK, I think it should be more like, the quote updates every hour, the image every day and the article every week.
 * 1) - Just be glad they get turned over at all. The Wiki is very high-maintenance, and the last thing the few people who have enough initiative to update these features need is an arbitrary schedule to try and follow.
 * 2) Per Walkazo

Comment
Not to be rude, but that would screw up the Featured Article and/or Featured Images schedule, each one is only supposed to be up on the Main Page for a week, it's not that simple, even though it seems minor, this would require a lot of work during a day. 18:47, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Plus, we don't control the Quote of the Day, it is randomly selected by a program. I agree with you on the subject of the "Did You Know" section, that could use work. 18:52, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
 * What's funny is that I make 1 proposal about the Poll Selection page, and we get a swarm of them after it passes. 19:02, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Change Poll Selection (Archiving) System
A lot of people seems to have a problem with the archiving system of the poll selection page, so I suggest we change it to the system used by the Proposals archive: We unprotect the archives and we use the scroll box template to put the votes and comments in; and we put failed polls in the archives, but we mark them as such (as in the proposals archive, also). Also, I'm proposing that we keep the archives, do not apply new rules to them, and select a poll from them biweekly (enough time for a lot of people to vote, but not too long) to put on the main page. If there is an archived poll that somebody finds rubbish and a good candidate for being failed, we will set up a proposal type page made for removing polls. This would also require setting up an archive for these semi-proposals. It is not as difficult as it sounds, it would actually be more of a benefit than deleting the archives that we have now. All these proposed pages can be linked to on the main Poll Selection page. When they are set up (if this proposal passes), I will make sure that it is easy to navigate and that they are set up well and are understandable. Also, a few more things I would like to suggest in this proposal. I already made a rule for this on the page, but I want to add a few more things that would go along with the proposal: ''If a poll has been on the Poll Selection page for a week and it has 1+ more opposing vote than support votes, it will be considered a "failed" poll and will be marked as such in the archives. If it has the same amount of oppose votes as support votes, the deadline will be extended for a week. If a poll has 1+ more support votes than oppose votes, it will be marked as such in the archives and can be selected to go on the main page.'' The deadline system would be the same as the proposals deadline system, with Monday-Thursday being 17:00, Fridays and Saturdays being 20:00, and Sundays being 15:00. Of course, the user who suggests the poll must put the deadline on their poll, as well as that they were the creator. The same deadline system would apply to the semi-proposals page. Also, in addition to that, I propose that we use the Clear-Majority Rule originally created by Walkazo for the proposals page. If a poll suggestion has 10+ votes total, it has a pass/fail margin of 3 votes. What this means is if a poll selection with ten (or more) votes either wins or loses by 0-2 votes, the deadline will be extended. If it wins or loses by 3 votes or more, it passes. Any suggestions can go in the comments section. Proposer: Deadline: 14 July 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Per me.
 * 2) Yoshi! Fabulous, this should tidy the polls/archives up a bit more
 * 3) - I totally agree. You're a genius, SMB. :P

Two Polls a Week
I think that we should pass two polls per week instead of one. There is a nice amount of votes that come in, and doing this wouldn't change the amount of votes by much. This would help controll the amount of polls on the selection page, and make sure that visitors will come to the wiki more often. The polls would pass on Tuesdays and Saturdays. If there is a tie, then the passing of a poll would be postponed untill next Saturday or Tuesday.

Proposer: Deadline: 14 July 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - Per me.
 * 2) Yoshi! Despite 2 a week meaning not having enogh time to vote, it certainly would help cut down on polls. Yes and we shall get lots more visitors.

Oppose

 * 1) If you follow the system I proposed in my proposal (the one right above yours), this will be possible to do.

Comments
Is this putting a 2-poll limit for each week, or will this allow more than 2?

Article censorship
I want to settle this once and for all. Do we want to censor the Bob Hoskins article or not? Proposer: Deadline: 11 July 2009, 20:00

Don't censor it

 * 1) We are a wiki dedicated to using full information on Mario, I wouldn't say to censor it
 * 2) - This has been settled once and for all - on many occasions! This is an encyclopedia: our mandate is to communicate as many facts about Mario as we can, and that includes profane quotations. We do not censor anything. Fortunately, in the case of Bob Hoskins, there is a way to communicate his negative attitude towards the Super Mario Bros. film without including the f-word, and we decided to go with option a while ago to avoid this reoccurring nightmare of a debate.
 * 3) &mdash;An encyclopedia's goal is to report accurate information. We are under no obligation to censor facts just because people could potentially be offended by a simple word. It is the parent's responsibility to teach their children right and wrong, not ours. Our only goal is to report facts relating to the Mario series.
 * 4) I guess every body else is right.
 * 5) Per all. Why not put up a warning template or something like that?
 * 6) I am Zero! A warning template will be a better idea. But I agree with this proposal, first of all SMW is a free encyclopedia that gives information on anything Mario[-related], second we are trying to make Mariowiki as close as possible to Wikipedia with alternations on this webpage, I said that because, in Wikipedia, I don't have an account there but I can still go to an article about a vag***, te*******, se*, and pe*** with pictures and detail and a movie article called Fu** without them being cencored, and last of all on a side-note, try to make your proposal more convinsing. Zero signing out.
 * 7) Per All
 * 8) Per Zero

Comments
I think this younger person stuff is bullcrap because if we all know what a swear is then how is exposing us to a swear gonna hurt us? Explain that smb.
 * Well, the young shouldn't have to be subject to your bullcrap, ok? we are supposed to be an age-friendly wiki. Movies and games themselves are rated PG-13 and T for Teens when swear words are present, and we are supposed to be a G-rated or E for Everyone wiki. So why do you want your bullshat so bad, huh?

I wouldn't think it would by true to the quote by changing quotes however. Why would anyone care about a quote with the f-word in it? Yknow I used to not swear at all but when I realized it was pointless to not swear I swear all the time now.
 * Yes, that may be the case for you, but others try not to or don't like to. I myself do not like to curse. I find it vulgar and unnecessary. If we censor it, readers still understand that a curse word is being said, so what is the loss?

This whole edit war is pointless anyway. Its only going on because Max2 acted immature about a little swear

Enough of the flamey remarks, already. We have no mandate to be a "kid-friendly" Wiki, all we are obligated to do is tell the truth. Every time someone goes on the Internet, they run the risk of running into profanity, or worse, and heck, you take the same exact risk everything you go outside. It's not our responsibility to shield little kids from words they are gonna learn sooner or later, and if it interferes with our abilities to communicate all the Mario-centric information at our disposal, we shouldn't even be trying. In the case of Bob Hoskins we can preserve most of that quote without profanity; it was a compromise many agreed on, and it still stands. -
 * And to you, Walkazo, a proposal has been made, I'm not going to be shut up. I find it ridiculous that this is considered flaming, or that you consider this flaming, as I am stating my point of view.

I'm done arguing and wasting my breath about this even though it was pointless in the first place. Go ahead and go eat each other if you want I'm setting this one out.
 * Yeah, ok.

In response to SMB's earlier comment: A) I said "flamey", not "flaming". B) I wasn't talking about the proposal itself, I was talking about the comments: "So why do you want your bullsh*t so  bad, huh?" "Well, the young shouldn't have to be subject to your bullcrap, ok?" "Explain that smb." - that's all egging each-other on, which is "flamey" - you're both rearing for a fight, and that's not acceptable, so just cool your jets. -

In response to Walkazo: Ok. Directed towards CD: Please delete this proposal. If the edit war is pointless, please just delete it. You should have dealt with Max2 yourself or had another user, perhaps sysop or bureaucrat, deal with him.
 * Since it's your proposal, you have to delete it. -

It is not mine, CD created it.
 * True... Sorry, I was just commenting based on the fact CD commented first and usually it's someone besides the Proposer who comments first... Plus it's late and I'm tired... -
 * It's ok. i'm tired too. Ah forget it. I'm just going to remove my vote. i will probably wake up in the morning and realize that everybody else was right. Anywho, sorry for any flaming I could have almost started.

Just to be clear, is this only for Bob Hoskins? Because Princess_Toadstool_for_President has the word "fuck" in it, and it'd be nice to have it set in stone somewhere what happens when this inevitably comes up again.

Per twenty of two seven, walka please look at his points then tell me if we shouldn't have the word "fuck" in the Bob Hoskins article.--Clear Discoherency 01:03, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

The deadline is up now anyway too bad we havn't reached a verdict besides walka's answer
 * That's because the deadline was off. Proposals are supposed to be up for exactly one week. This hasn't even lasted a day. Anyway, it's been fixed. &mdash;

Well, it's 4-0 against censorship, which is a pretty clear verdict. But, if it only applies to Bob Hoskins, then that's not so much of an accomplishment of policy making. Now, I'm not sure why exactly there would be a need for a proposal so specific, but that's what the text seems to imply. After all, we can't really say "no lol it meant this," and expect it not to raise issues. Or, at least, I see it that way. 01:24, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

"walka" is me, right? Pertaining to 2257's example, "jävla" has to be included in order to properly explain Bowser's "Din jäv-" quotation, and if we have the Swedish swear, why not the English equivalent? Still, like the Bob Hoskins quote, I suppose it would be possible to just leave the whole Trivia point as this, and still cover all the bases: In the Swedish dub, when Bowser gets smacked by the kid, he says "Din jäv-", but stops himself, as the word he was about to utter is a profanity. This can be compared to a truncated "F-" exclamation in English. Personally, I think the whole "jävla" exposition is interesting, but it's not essential, so I can see why removing it (and the full Bob Hoskins quote) is a reasonable compromise in the face of these sort of heated debate. "Fuck" is simply not worth the trouble. -


 * My point is that this might will come up again in the future, so it would be nice to have an actual policy about it. Rather than arguing about it later, we could get it over with and use this as a policy for when censorship debates rise up again. And there's actually other pages with profanity, that was just an example. 02:02, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
 * We need a lot more official policies around here... I think the standing unofficial policy on profanity is that "We're an encyclopedia, and as such, we do not censor our articles. However, users are asked to use their discretion when dealing with profanity on the Wiki mainspace." We could easily add some sort of rule along those lines to a policy page somewhere, maybe with links to any text previously written about flaming and vandalism, so that people will know the difference between using curse words academically and using them in an unacceptable, vulgar manner. -

Restart Polls From Zero
Well, i say we restart them all, like what i did with the pipeprojects, erase ALL, the 100% of the polls and start them again with more organization (like the FI's). No more than 2 polls per user would be allowed. Any poll that breaks the rules will be deleted. each 3 days, every poll with more opposes than supports will be deleted. what do you think? and also no sigs. Or, delete the poll selection thing, which means, no more polls.

Proposer: Deadline: July 13, 2009, 17:00

Restart POlls

 * 1) They are a mess
 * 2) Yoshi! Yes, i agree. Plus a lot of polls are just rubbish.
 * 3) They are a big mess
 * 4) Well.... yes, they are a mess
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) As long as they don't touch the archives... But there are no polls to restart!
 * 7) So long as we can put some up again, like those that actually had positive feedback. (My two polls [Sorry for seeming egocentric] are two good examples of polls that could be done again after the wiping. There are several other unique polls I'd like to keep. Also, some the polls contain information about outdated questions such as 'Should the Koopalings reappear?'
 * 8) I am Zero! Alright I change sides, but if this proposal does pass you will need to give a warning to every single creator of every single poll to tell them to remove there polls and delete all the votes in that poll. I'm guessing if you do that, there will be a small percentage of polls removed, but the others will most likely will not move there polls because over 90% of all creators in the poll selection, I don't even see them anymore. Zero signing out.
 * 9) - Per all.

Comments
Zero777: 1. I dont see why to give time to the creators. 2. No, the wiki will load perfectly (well, as normal). 3. We dont need sensibility, we dont damage anybody. 4. yes, better than you, just that the proposer thing slipped out of my mind. SUper Mario Bros: Waste of time? there are many, hundreds of users who instead of editing the mainspace, use all their time in the poll selection page, which is really bad, beacuse polls arent the objective of this wiki. Actually i can name many of those users. Also, do you know Zero and SMB that if your proposal pass, you must take action to do everything you proposed? AndZero, i dont know if you saw this, but we have something that says ALL COMMENTS BELOW HERE and your proposal was above that.
 * Zero777, he does know ho to make proposals, he has actually come up with many good ideas for them. Tucayo, I know that the proposer must take action to do everything that they proposed, that actually ties into the waste of time part... I WAS THE ONE WHO HAD TO REARRANGE, DELETE AND FIX SIGNATURES, DELETE POLLS WITH 2 MORE OPPOSES THAN SUPPORTERS, CREATE THE ARCHIVES AND MOVE THEM, AND ASK TO HAVE THEM PROTECTED. That is what I mean as a waste of time, it took me hours to do and actually caused KPH to move an archive page and delete five redirects. The whole project took anywhere between one hundred to two hundred edits. So yes, if this proposal passes, all the work that I did will be a waste of time that I could have used to make other edits.
 * Ok SMB, sorry. I understand your point, but not Zero's. Also, As we all know the page needs to be in constant mainteinance.
 * It's okay, I'm sorry for exploding. I agree, Poll Selection should be in constant maintenance, but why should we delete the archives? I reorganized some of them, perhaps, as I suggested above, we make semi-proposals on the talk page of the main Poll Selection page. I could see that working, as not all of the polls are bad, we could try to save those ones (the good polls). 15:27, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
 * I never said erasing archives, did I? Archives are good
 * But there was only one poll on the regular page, and it got removed for some reason. I thought that is what you meant based on that. 15:39, 6 July 2009 (EDT)