From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"It makes voting on RfA somewhat difficult..." Then, er, don't vote :) Al Tally talk 14:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Or don't notVote, for that matter. =) xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- You try doing it thoroughly then. Or are you one of those who doesn't read through the whole thing properly? :-( Lradrama 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was just making a joke based on the votes-are-not-votes-thing. I'm not going to lie - I'm still pretty new to the whole RFA thing and I've actually been abstaining most of the time for lack of time to thoroughly review (huggle or not) =) xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 16:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The 2nd draft
Makes a lot more sense now, the problem is (which I now see digging deeper) is the tool would have to ignore native rollbacks because Huggle invokes them. (is this a problem?) xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 16:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- No. A tool is a tool. Makes sense. All automatic edit summaries should be removed. Lradrama 16:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant it would have to filter them out too, but what about the native rollbacks the user performs manually? xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 16:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yes, manual rollbacks aren't automatic & should thus be kept in. I think. It's pretty hard to achieve an old-school vandal patrol successfully these days anyway. Lradrama 17:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
