Wiktionary talk:Votes/bc-2015-11/User:Chuck Entz for bureaucrat

Pinging user:Dvortygirl, user:Eclecticology, user:EncycloPetey, user:Hippietrail, user:Paul G, user:Ruakh, user:SemperBlotto, user:Stephen G. Brown to inform them of the existence of this vote. ​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. Just let us know when it passes, and we'll implement. :-)  —Ruakh TALK 02:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction: I'm actually going to be away just then. Hopefully another bureaucrat will be around, or else this will be an embarrassing demonstration of why we need another bureaucrat. :-P  —Ruakh TALK 21:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The incumbency should not blatently [sway voters] even if Wiktionary has never failed to elect a bureaucrat, even one such as User:Eclecticology. [This] is not Nigeria. Riverstogo (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but I suggest that you learn how to spell and review WT:B for past elections. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have absolutely no idea perhaps you should read more what I am talking about? I am prepared to review WT:B likewise. I have already searched the timeline of archived votes and see blatently that I struck a nerve. This was not my intention I was simply in a hurry, profuse apologies to anyone I offended. If you are not in a hurry can you explain for any confused voters what "Just let us know when it passes, and we'll implement." User:Ruakh Appointed Bureaucrat July 22, 2012 means? Riverstogo (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ruakh was referring to the obvious outcome of the vote, and thus confirming that he received the ping as well as the fact that Chuck will get his user rights changed, which can only be done by a bureaucrat. Your style of writing, irrelevant links, and out-of-place allusions make you very difficult for me to understand, so I may not continue responding in this thread. In any case, it doesn't appear that you are eligible to vote yet (see the top of WT:V). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As Μετάknowledge says, my comment was intended as an epistemic prediction (since the vote already had 13 votes in favor — albeit one with a procedural condition — and none opposed), not a deontic instruction. I'm sorry if it sounded otherwise to you; I've lived in democracies my whole life, so am not used to thinking about how my comments might come across to people who expect tyranny. (And, I mean, I myself did not vote either way, so I thought it would be clear that I was not making any endorsement.) Rest assured that I do not intend any retribution against anyone who wishes to vote in opposition to this nomination. —Ruakh TALK 23:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)