Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronjohn: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronjohn: other RfA Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:{{u|Ronjohn}} - I would recommend replying to {{u|Floquenbeam}} on your usertalk. [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 01:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC) |
:{{u|Ronjohn}} - I would recommend replying to {{u|Floquenbeam}} on your usertalk. [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 01:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
*Just for the record, there is [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ronjohn]] from 2012. In case this (2020 RfA) is deleted, it should be redirected to 2012; with both titles being fully protected given the history of improper RfA transclusion by the candidate. —usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 14:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC) |
*Just for the record, there is [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ronjohn]] from 2012. In case this (2020 RfA) is deleted, it should be redirected to 2012; with both titles being fully protected given the history of improper RfA transclusion by the candidate. —usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 14:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' I don't see any reason given why this should be deleted, nor why it falls within the deletion policy, nor why anyone would want it deleted. Preserve history, talk page seems to be in use. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|<sub>DESiegel Contribs</sub>]] 22:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:25, 28 September 2020
Well, I have G6'ed this but the G6 tag was removed, so now I have no choice but to send this RfA to MfD. The user has not responded to the question at User talk:Ronjohn#Your RFA, either. Anyway, given that the ORCP was closed as "not ready", I think that the RfA should be deleted for now, and if conditions improve, the RfA may be recreated. Either that, or userfy the RfA to User:Ronjohn/RfA. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Withdraw That's not true; you also had a choice to be patient and wait until the editor replied to the question on their talk page.
They have not edited since it was asked, and in the mean time this page is not hurting anything. Why you chose to start an MFD on something that probably only required a few days of polite patience is beyond me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I responded--Ron John (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ronjohn - I would recommend replying to Floquenbeam on your usertalk. SQLQuery me! 01:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just for the record, there is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ronjohn from 2012. In case this (2020 RfA) is deleted, it should be redirected to 2012; with both titles being fully protected given the history of improper RfA transclusion by the candidate. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any reason given why this should be deleted, nor why it falls within the deletion policy, nor why anyone would want it deleted. Preserve history, talk page seems to be in use. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)