Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism/Swastika

message: I think we should remove this questionaire.  I don't think it is the Wiki way.  We should focus on the arguments, not on the editors who raised them.  Other RfC's do not require editors to describe themselves before commenting.  --BostonMA talk 13:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The questionnaire isn't focused on the editors. It is instead trying to give those who will ultimately decide the matter as much information about the respondents as possible. Again, as stated before, it might be possible (unlikely, but possible) that some editors who might consider working with the project might respond more favorably if they saw the swastika. Also, as the question is basically about the effectiveness of the template as an advertisement, it makes sense to follow standard practice in the advertising industry and get together a group who will respond to questions. In effect, this isn't a standard RfC, but an advertising focus group. And, again, it seems to make sense to me that we follow the existing procedures in the outside world for such matters. On that basis, I am adjusting the text of the page a little to clarify the matter. Badbilltucker 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no problem with the questionnaire. It does not seem to be in conflict with "the wiki way". Some people didn't respond by numbers or respond to all the questions asked, which is fine. I feel it's an optional thing. If answering the questions in that way helps explain the situation, then why not? I fail to see the negative here. It is also the wiki way to try new things and be bold. (that being said I think the part that asks to respond 1-10 is a bit silly, which is why I responded with a comment rather than a number) -- Ned Scott 17:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, apparently Bill believes the questions are not optional, and has singlehandedly reverted my good-faith effort to correct the text accordingly, with the lovely and contrived edit summary "reverted non-consensus changes which might constitute vandalism by a non-project member regarding a specifically project-related matter)"  -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The questions were optional. Clearly, no one has to do anything. However, it is generally better to have more and clearer information, and the requested answers to give more than just someone's expressed opinion to go on. You did know that knowledge is good, right? Badbilltucker 21:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionaire in Guidelines for Commenting 

message: The question that remains is how long to run this request for comment. I was initially thinking about a month, as per the project talk page. That would allow enough time to get (I hope) enough responses to be close to significant enough to be potentially useful. I would welcome any responses or alternate timeframes. Badbilltucker 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said February 20 on the Hinduism Project talk page, I think we should get enough responses by then, an extension may be asked for if we don't get enough, but there's still a lot of time before thinking about that. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 23:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of time to run "poll"