Template talk:Failed policy

Where is a vote by the editors of the wiki? -- Peej 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Its the community that votes, not just the admins. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Point me to a vote taken. -- Peej 19:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, none was taken, but it was agreed that the policy was un-needed. Its always worked this way. But if a policy is so evident that it is un-needed, one only has to say so. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 19:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think 10 users, some of which were personally involved, represents the entire wiki community. I'm guessing most of the community never even saw the policy in question. -- Peej 19:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Holy crap I just beat Peej's edit to the page from RC O.o --Gimmethegepgun 19:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, peej, there are only about 10 active wiki users. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 19:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Please tell me you are. -- Peej 19:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On behalf of the large community of anonymous wiki readers, I approve this non-approval of the policy. ;)  But seriously, re: "I'm guessing most of the community never even saw the policy in question."  Those community members who would be interested enough in deciding wiki policy do follow the Recent Changes page, and thus, you're wrong -- we saw the policy.  If we objected to what was going on, we would have said something on the talk page.  We didn't, because we saw the way the wind was blowing, and saw no need to spam the page with a million more "I also think it's unnecessary" messages.  The policy is obviously unnecessary, and the discussion on the page seemed to indicate most agreed, so for the most part, we didn't get involved in the debate.  In short, the lack of a public outcry is good indication of our general approval.  If we were against it failing, we would have said something.  Anyhow, that's my US$0.02. --68.187.144.197 22:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, 68. =]. The wiki has a much better community then GWW does, but unfortunately for unknown reasons activity has become scarce over the past month or so. Though we've had good IPs (As above) contributing, we dont have so much activity as we used to. Not since GWW stole all of our people =P --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 19:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)