On 30 Sep 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:
==~~~~== does work, but there are apparently certain
combinations which had problems with the Unicode representation on Meta
and copy and pasted it in a way that doesn't work. To avoid this from
occurring repeatedly I changed the template at some point to just say
==[[User:Foo]]==. In any case, most invalid ballots have been marked as
invalid long before the vote ended, and all invalid ones are listed on
[[International logo vote/Invalid ballots]]. The rules for what type of
ballot is acceptable and what type is not have been made very clear
repeatedly, and, to my knowledge, nobody has voted for Pat Buchanan.
No, but some have voted in the reasonable expectation that their vote was
valid, whereas it was not. The rules were laid out to ensure that people
were a valid user (i.e. with at least 10 contributions) on some Wikipedia.
They were not laid out to make voting more difficult by creating
People have linked directly to their elsewhere user page rather than through
their meta page, people have had links on their meta page to Wikipedia pages
because they were so long users, people have given their
nick and said "I am from the English Wikipedia". Those have all not been
counted. Why? Because there is the possibility they cheated? No. Because
they did not go with some random rule. Or in some cases, like the one we
are describing now, because they simply had technical problems.
Note that some people refused to accept the first
round of voting because
the rules were too lax and cheating was too easy. If some people refuse to
accept the second round of voting because the rules are too strict and
cheating is too difficult, then I think these complaints can be fairly
considered to negate each other.
In other words, that people may have cheated on the first round does not
matter, because on the second round there were people who did not cheat
who were counted as cheaters? And that in the second round there are people
whose vote did not count whereas some (many?) think it should does not matter
because in the first round there are people whose vote did count whereas
some (many?) think it should not?
That's a strange definition of complaints negating, in my opinion. If you
had said, there are people who think the _second round_ rules were not strict
enough as well as people who said they were too strict, then you would have
had a point. But not this way. It's like saying, "Wikipedia has too much on
A and too little on B. But that cancels out, so we're not going to change