| Revision as of 19:44, 3 January 2014 editMiddle 8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,254 edits ns: Why is GERAC a supposed WP:COATRACK? Take a moment to explain this, please, or let it go← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:47, 3 January 2014 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits Uninvolved editors can comment at the RFC and make a determine on the matter. There is no need for me to comment again.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Why is GERAC a supposed WP:COATRACK? Take a moment to explain this, please, or let it go== | |||
| Quackguru, I just asked you (again) on this page why you think ] is a ]. You just wrote in your ES -- which is all I have to go by since you refuse to leave anything on this page -- this non-answer: "." No, they sure haven't. Or on the off chance that I've missed it. So I'm asking you to explain it, briefly, in a sentence or two. See ], bottom of RfC discussion. | |||
| What's so hard about this? I'd me more than happy to let it go, but you keep bringing it up, so apparently it's important to you for some reason. Giving non-answers is ] and poor ]. And I'm not joining any consensus that agrees GERAC is a coatrack. Just answer already, or stop bringing it up, please. --] (]) 19:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC) | |||