Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report

message: Support? Object? No Opinion? It would be nice if things like this were explained to make Wikipedia more inclusive.  And I am by no means a noob. Superbfc 03:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, Oppose and Neutral, respectively. Pretty obvious if you follow the links, imho. Errabee 04:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pretty obvious" is really only a matter of opinion.  I happen to be good at spotting what acronyms and abbreviations mean as it goes with the territory of where I work, but it's incredibly frustrating.  How hard would it be to add one row to the bottom of the table explaining the meaning?  Wikipedia is supposed to be a global project and not supposed to be run for the sake of admins/beaurocrats, so why not? Superbfc 11:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this page is primarily meant to be of help for bureaucrats, who need to monitor RfA's. If others (like me) would like to use it to monitor that as well, they're welcome, but they are not the targeted editors. Furthermore, this page is copied to other pages and adding a line like that would possibly destroy the lay-out of those pages, so it's more complicated than just adapting this page. Errabee 12:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What do S, O, and N mean? 

message: For some reason not immediately apparent to me, the bot is not picking up Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2 in the summary. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind.  I see that StuffOfInterest snuck the fix in while I was investigating it, so I was looking at an already fixed page.  Sneaky, sneaky.  :-) —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parsing issue (BUG?) 

message: Is there a reason that it's not showing any oppose votes, if there is only a single oppose vote?
(See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jc37 - 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GRBerry to see what I mean.) - jc37 13:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that the one opposer in mine didn't use the word "oppose" or any of the natural variants on that.  The bot prepared discussion summaries are usually based on keyword analysis.  That isn't an issue for Jc37's page.  GRBerry 02:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot doesn't actually analyze the content of the votes at all (it only looks at the "#"s), so I'm guessing it's a parsing bug. I'll take a look when I come back from my wikibreak; sorry for the inconvenience. If you see anything else, please report it here. Thanks, Tangotango 20:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: Can anybody explain why Wikipedia:Request for adminship/TomStar81 2 isn't showing up on Tanogbot's page? ElinorD (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might have been because there wasn't a horizontal bar between the RfAs transcluded onto WP:RFA. We'll see. WODUP 12:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfA missing from page

message: Whether a !vote counter should be included at the top of every RfA request is, perhaps, a moot point. I know it has been discussed. But if we are to have one, is it not possible to programme it to update automatically, given that the software appears perfectly able to instantly count the Support/Oppose/Neutral opinions? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The software knows the tallies "automagically" only because the "#blah blah" format is interpreted as an ordered list, but that's restricted only to the page itself (and can be screwed up easily; just put a line break, and the page renders the list as two separate ordered lists). There's no way for the software to update an area of text based on an ordered list elsewhere, which is why a bot is needed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter 

message: Hello, my RFA was scheduled to close 5 hours ago. After the scheduled end time, 3 more people casted their votes. I was wondering if these late ballots count or not. OhanaUnitedTalk page 11:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they can help determine consensus until the listing is closed, the verbage is 'wait at least 7 days' the time to end is just the marker to know when 7 days is up, relevant info here and here. Dureo 15:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing RFA 

message: On my RFA, Ssbohio has opposed, but this report is still showing 33/0/0 at 100%.  It should be 33/1/0 at 97%. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose not showing up 

message: Can someone please make it so that Current nominations for bureaucratship shows up in this template as well?  Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can transclude Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfB Report here and remove all transclusions of that from pages that already transclude Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report. –Pomte 19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So can someone please do that?  Cirt (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current nominations for bureaucratship 

message: Is there an automatically updating version that goes on the left?  George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 08:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report. Gary King (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Align left 

message: That is strange. This is showing no RFAs right now. Ikip (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No RFAs currently?