SmashWiki talk:Rollback: Difference between revisions
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→...?) |
Shadowcrest (talk | contribs) (etc) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
What is this useful for? Why do we need this? --<span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadow</span>]][[User talk:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4;">crest</span>]]</span> 22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | What is this useful for? Why do we need this? --<span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadow</span>]][[User talk:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4;">crest</span>]]</span> 22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
:To define who is a rollback'r, what rollback'rs can do, to define their role/responsibility and to set some guidelines for RfR-ing. [[User:Miles.oppenheimer|<font color="mediumpurple"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">'''Miles''']] <font color="mediumblue">([[User talk:Miles.oppenheimer|<font color="mediumblue">talk]])</font></font></span></font> 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | :To define who is a rollback'r, what rollback'rs can do, to define their role/responsibility and to set some guidelines for RfR-ing. [[User:Miles.oppenheimer|<font color="mediumpurple"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">'''Miles''']] <font color="mediumblue">([[User talk:Miles.oppenheimer|<font color="mediumblue">talk]])</font></font></span></font> 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
If you feel this is so important, then I would advocate [[SmashWiki:Requests for rollback/Proposal1]] instead. It's better written, more professional, like and such as. Additionally, if a list of all rollbackers must be given, I would suggest a link to [[Special:Listusers/rollback]] as opposed to an actual list of all the people. Additionally: | |||
*"Has the user contributed to the mainspace? Or are they mostly editing the User, User talk and forum namespaces?" is frankly untrue. People may say this is taken into account... but it's not. Sorry. | |||
*"Additionally, consider that rollback is considered a "stepping stone" towards a request for adminship. While rollback'r status is not required, it is considered a sign that one has already shown themself to be wiki-competent." I'd rather like to change this perception. Rollback has nothing to do with adminship. At all. Zero, zip, zilch, nada... you name it. Concensus is that rollback means basically nothing; this line contradicts that community view. {{clear}} | |||
--<span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadow</span>]][[User talk:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4;">crest</span>]]</span> 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:10, January 6, 2009
Opening/list loosely based off of SW:ADMIN. Miles (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
...?
What is this useful for? Why do we need this? --Shadowcrest 22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- To define who is a rollback'r, what rollback'rs can do, to define their role/responsibility and to set some guidelines for RfR-ing. Miles (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
If you feel this is so important, then I would advocate SmashWiki:Requests for rollback/Proposal1 instead. It's better written, more professional, like and such as. Additionally, if a list of all rollbackers must be given, I would suggest a link to Special:Listusers/rollback as opposed to an actual list of all the people. Additionally:
- "Has the user contributed to the mainspace? Or are they mostly editing the User, User talk and forum namespaces?" is frankly untrue. People may say this is taken into account... but it's not. Sorry.
- "Additionally, consider that rollback is considered a "stepping stone" towards a request for adminship. While rollback'r status is not required, it is considered a sign that one has already shown themself to be wiki-competent." I'd rather like to change this perception. Rollback has nothing to do with adminship. At all. Zero, zip, zilch, nada... you name it. Concensus is that rollback means basically nothing; this line contradicts that community view.
