11WB

LFI RfC

Thank you for this message. You're right, I'm still very unexperienced on some issues. I'm an experienced editor on a different project and even if some things are similar (how you properly manage sources it's the same even if some policies are marginally different), the "community-side" policies and customs are really different. I've surely made a mistake with the first point about the absence of the need to close the RfC and obviously with the length. I thought that explaining all the issues could avoid misunderstandings and that it was better to have a complete rationale rather than a weak one, without realising that people would have simply skipped the message altogether. --Friniate ✉ 17:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Only just seeing this now. Your AN thread, rationale wise, is fine. There are at least three editors who independently agree and have said the close should either be overturned or vacated. The error was assuming that every intricate detail required explanation. We're able to link to other pages for this very purpose. Editors work in a collegial manner on Wikipedia, @S Marshall knows this, as do the other editors on that thread. This will result in an agreeable close ultimately and there won't be any ill will given. Thank you for your message. 11WB 💬 00:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello @11WB. Thanks for fixing the image. I didn't even really realize. Thank you, -- LightningThrower (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @LightningThrower! No problem at all! The old one was just a placeholder, so was surprised to see it hadn't been updated! 11WB 💬 03:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)