did: unpass Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Removing vote requirements for policy changes create Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/Vote requirements for policy...
DCDuring TALK 18:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC) And indeed, [[coal mine]] had already passed RFD by the time [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-12/Unidiomatic multi-word...
(talk) 03:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Well now that the vote has started, it's a bit late to do that. I think. -- Liliana • 03:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Sorry...
between policy pages and common practice. As an example, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Patronymics_and_stylistic_edits_of_CFI is a perfect way to go about...
"Further semantic relations (except See also)". —RuakhTALK 23:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC) "Synonyms, Antonyms, Other allowable -nyms" looks better to me than...
that the BP one was the actual vote? ... There are twelve support votes to six oppose votes, and this is a rather major vote. Maybe a bureaucrat should close...
sections. Problem is, one implies the other. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC) The discussion linked to was AFAICT about whether to link language...
this vote. To obscure this fact from the vote is highly biased. —Michael Z. 2012-03-14 02:01 z Some editors have expressed their preference that votes not...
5 July 2012 (UTC) It seems odd to let people vote in votes about themselves. However, we could ask on his talk page which way he'd like to vote. - -sche...
replaced by another extension. Shouldn't we be voting for the new one, instead? —CodeCat 17:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC) The extension is still available to be...