This is an RfA talk page.
While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.
|
I didn't see one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"not hint the editors interested in this project are a bunch of hooligans that are prone to doing every sort of abuse. It's patronizing, a bit offensive and discouraging". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You are not allowed to strike through votes ... You are not allowed to alter the comments left by other people. You are not allowed to alter votes left by other people" - can you cite a policy for this? Thanks - wolf 11:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@wolf have you not noticed that it is the responses to the opposes that are disruptive nonsense? The opposes themselves (less than a handful, with over 240 support votes) have not caused any disruption. They don't have any effect on the result whatsoever. The people who respond to those opposes (and the way they chose to do that in) are the problem. You are allowed to think that the opinions of others are nonsense, but that does not give you the right to silence those you disagree with. You seem to think you are part of the solution when it should be obvious you are part of the problem. Libby Kane (talk)
have you not noticed that it is the responses to the opposes that are disruptive nonsense?" -Surely that is an attempt at a joke? A very bad joke. "
The opposes themselves (less than a handful, with over 240 support votes) have not caused any disruption. They don't have any effect on the result whatsoever." - As I've already said numerous times; the numbers don't matter. A thousand support !votes does not justify a single disruptive oppose entry. "
The people who respond to those opposes (and the way they chose to do that in) are the problem." - You've come no where close to demonstrating that as a fact. "
You are allowed to think that the opinions of others are nonsense, but that does not give you the right to silence those you disagree with." - slow down there, Meiklejohn. The only entry I was looking to "silence" was that silly post by "Izzy", which was in no way intended as a sincere contribution and, as it turns out, has been struck from the RfA. "
You seem to think you are part of the solution when it should be obvious you are part of the problem." - Oh Puh-leeeze. Take your canned rhetoric elsewhere, this has become boring. The only thing of interest you could possibly contribute at this point is a reply to Bbb23's question to you above. Good luck with that. - wolf 00:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)