User talk:TheresNoTime: Difference between revisions
→Question: Re |
Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) →SoWhy: new section |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
:::{{re|Hasteur}} May as well, gives me something to delete -- [[User:There'sNoTime|There'sNoTime]] <sup>([[User talk:There'sNoTime|to explain]])</sup> 14:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC) |
:::{{re|Hasteur}} May as well, gives me something to delete -- [[User:There'sNoTime|There'sNoTime]] <sup>([[User talk:There'sNoTime|to explain]])</sup> 14:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::These are notices that a page is coming eligible for G13 in at most 1 month. This runs 1 month in advance of the G13 nominating bot process to give people an opportunity to look at the page before the bot goes through and nominates. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 14:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC) |
::::These are notices that a page is coming eligible for G13 in at most 1 month. This runs 1 month in advance of the G13 nominating bot process to give people an opportunity to look at the page before the bot goes through and nominates. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 14:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
== SoWhy == |
|||
(I'll take this offline from the debate as it'll get in the way) |
|||
Key debates that swung it in my direction were [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive287#Deletion of Micaela Schäfer]] (plus follow up on [[User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 54#Micaela Schäfer]]), [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dodger67 2]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CaroleHenson]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeneralizationsAreBad 2]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing]] (plus follow up on [[User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 56#RfA]]). I think that's about five debates were I've ''strongly'' disagreed with SoWhy, and I've seen enough debates to know where I reach the point of saying "you know what, forget it, this isn't working, let's do something else (or worse)". I've ''never'' had that with this guy. To take something like CaroleHenson's RfA, where I'd done some prep, got a co-nom on board, and see it tank with 24 hours, and ''still'' [[User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive 11#Your Rfa|come out of the other side amicably]] is nothing short of miraculous. |
|||
The reason I'm bringing it up is not because I want you to change your !vote (I've opposed enough RfAs and got flak for it - as long as you're polite, say what you think) but rather I've got this nagging doubt that the next RfA that they oppose due to CSDs might well involve an arbcom case for a desysop. I was kind of hoping that putting them in the 'crat position would mean they'd stay away from the coalface of RfA and just concentrate on doing the closures (as and when they turn up) diligently. Or something like that. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 15:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:52, 26 July 2017
| This is TheresNoTime's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 21 days  |
Question
I was looking through User:HasteurBot/G13 OptIn Notifications and saw [1]. Is there a reason for this? Can I remove this non-entity from the opt in because it doesn't seem like a right fit. Hasteur (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: That was my previous username if you're wondering, but please do feel free to remove it :) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hm... Do you want to be opted in on this name? Hasteur (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: May as well, gives me something to delete -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- These are notices that a page is coming eligible for G13 in at most 1 month. This runs 1 month in advance of the G13 nominating bot process to give people an opportunity to look at the page before the bot goes through and nominates. Hasteur (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: May as well, gives me something to delete -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hm... Do you want to be opted in on this name? Hasteur (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
SoWhy
(I'll take this offline from the debate as it'll get in the way)
Key debates that swung it in my direction were WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive287#Deletion of Micaela Schäfer (plus follow up on User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 54#Micaela Schäfer), Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dodger67 2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CaroleHenson and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeneralizationsAreBad 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing (plus follow up on User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 56#RfA). I think that's about five debates were I've strongly disagreed with SoWhy, and I've seen enough debates to know where I reach the point of saying "you know what, forget it, this isn't working, let's do something else (or worse)". I've never had that with this guy. To take something like CaroleHenson's RfA, where I'd done some prep, got a co-nom on board, and see it tank with 24 hours, and still come out of the other side amicably is nothing short of miraculous.
The reason I'm bringing it up is not because I want you to change your !vote (I've opposed enough RfAs and got flak for it - as long as you're polite, say what you think) but rather I've got this nagging doubt that the next RfA that they oppose due to CSDs might well involve an arbcom case for a desysop. I was kind of hoping that putting them in the 'crat position would mean they'd stay away from the coalface of RfA and just concentrate on doing the closures (as and when they turn up) diligently. Or something like that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)