Hi Ninguable. I think it's usual for someone, preferably uninvolved, to close an RfC, with a summary of the consensus reached (if any) BEFORE the change being discussed is actually made? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- From Ending RfCs: "Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance."
Ample time had passed when a bot cleared the RfC notice, and I thought the sense of the community was obvious. If you disagree Martinevans123, or if you think edit warring might re-erupt unless the outcome is blessed by a voice of authority, then feel free to request adjudication at an appropriate noticeboard. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- You are quite right about a closing statement not being required. And I guess a month is long enough. I see eight nos and two yeses. And I said in the RfC, I have no strong view. So I'm happy to leave it. But I still think some kind of conclusion, at the bottom of the thread. might be advantageous. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
More Panendeism here
Agreeing with your take on it on Wikiquote, there is similar material here, in Deism#Panendeism. Same combination of references to non-notable self-published websites bolstered by quoting a famous person who died long before the word was invented, and wasn't speaking of it. Also this in Personal god#Panendeism, and peppered into a handful of other places. They've been busy. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed they have. Although something does not have to be notable enough for its own article to be mentioned in another article, there remains a question of whether these mentions are WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, or outright WP:SYNTH. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Please help me out. El_C 06:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)