User talk:Aaron Schulz/New RfA method

Threaded sections[edit]

Why no threaded sections? --FloNight 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I am not really sure on that. Its nice to have all of the opinions laid out to get a good idea of people's views of them, and they should update them as their views change (ie "strikeout"), but would also be nice if maybe people could respond to the opinions in one or two threads. The problem is that that can get really messy, fast. Responding, the way I have it now, would be done by listing it in the discussion section with the title "response to statement by X". Perhaps, opinions could all start of with "Comment/statement by X" to make it more easy to follow.Voice-of-All 02:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German wiki[edit]

Just to note that in the de-wiki 200 mainspace edits are a pre-requisite for RfA-voting. Agathoclea 00:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse[edit]

I Endorse this way of putting the RFA back up to scratch! Dreamafter ^⇔ 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still relevant[edit]

There are some very good suggestions. Incredible how RfA has just got worse rather than better over the lat four years. The closures system seems to be rather bureaucratic (no pun intended). --Kudpung (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]