Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Front matter

Proposed minor addition

As we all know, a number of eager users like to self-nom immediately after signing up. They inevitably get met with a barrage of "Oppose" votes and probably get very discouraged, possibly from future editing. To that end, does anybody mind if I add the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph:

"If you just registered an account today, for example, it is best not to nominate yourself until the community can get to know you better, as many people have nominated themselves right away and have not passed." Kansan (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It already tells them to read the criteria which has the three month bar listed. I'm not against adding it as we have had new users nominate themselves right away, but am not sure it's necessary. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently they're not clicking on the page it recommends they read, but maybe they would see this even without clicking (and would save us a lot of time from opposing, closing, explaining, etc.) Kansan (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

content dispute about scripts

@FNAFPUPPETMASTER and Djsasso: About the addition of user scripts that let you rollback with reasons, the statement that it's not "true rollback" is confusing, because rollbacking does take a summary parameter (mw:API:Rollback#API_documentation), it just doesn't show on the UI. See this for an example of rollbacking with reasons. Keeping the description breif and simple is a valid point though. My opinion is that we could simply say that it's not usually possible to rollback with reasons, but provide a link to a script. This at least busts the myth that rollbacking with reasons is not possible without psuedorollback, but also doesn't drag on and on about the technical details. This could also be done with <ref> footnotes. Thoughts from the two people involved so far? Computer Fizz (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This is already documented on Wikipedia:Rollback feature. I don't think the RfP page needs to go into full detail on everything about the role. Chenzw  Talk  01:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chenzw: That's fair. I just felt like the current version was saying something that's not true, however if someone wants to do in-depth research about rollback this probably would not be the place (and, this text is also targeted at people who do not have rollback, when this would only be made use of by those who do). Computer Fizz (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The API takes one. The Tool does not. Regardless the point went right over your head. This isn't the place to talk about technical aspects. -DJSasso (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)