User:Deryck Chan/Useful Templates

To give Barnstars:
 * I put this link here in September 2005. From August 2011, this is superseded by Wiki-Love.
 * I put this link here in September 2005. From August 2011, this is superseded by Wiki-Love.

Edit-count and related:
 * Interiot's tool for local edit count
 * Luxo's tool for global edit count
 * Quentinv57's SUL utility
 * Pathoschild's stalktoy
 * HelloAnnyong's range-contributions tool

Edit button for templates:
 * [ +/-] which produces [ +/-]

Discussion closure precedent:
 * Deletion review/Log/2016 January 18

As for RfA, it's an election, and although I agree that it shouldn't be, those among us who think that it is not are being naive. There are many ways we could make it a discussion to determine genuine consensus, but at least as of now it's functionally an election. We require electors to identify (IPs aren't allowed to vote), we encourage candidates to recruit high-profile nominators (campaigning), and we've set an arbitrary "post" whereby we measure whether or not a candidate has won, coincidentally roughly a two-thirds plurality. We even have our own version of an Electoral College, in the form of crat chats for very close elections (within the "discretionary range"), in which we trust the appointed electors to enact what they interpret is the decision of the fractured electorate. And furthermore we have no generally accepted qualifying criteria - every elector invents their own, and then within each election we debate what the issues should be for that election. Sometimes the electorate selects the candidate who will build the most roads, or who will fund public libraries, sometimes the electorate chooses the candidate who won't blow up the stadium, and sometimes we pick the candidate who yells the loudest or looks the nicest on TV. It's incredibly broken, but it seems to be exactly what the community wants. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wise words from Ivanvector on RfA