User talk:2600:1004:B161:F80D:B9BC:F15E:F101:6CC1

Requests for closure
Just wanted to let you know, repeatedly attempting to prioritize a discussion you participated in for closure over all the others is considered poor form, there are many discussions needing closure of which that is just one, thank you. S p e c t r u m  UV 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That isn't a fair comparison, because almost all of the RFCs listed on that page are occurring on article talk pages, not at a noticeboard. At a noticeboard, after a certain amount of time the discussion will automatically be moved into the noticeboard archives, after which it can no longer be modified and a formal closure will become impossible. Thus, if the RFC is to be closed at all, it will have to be closed before that happens. 2600:1004:B161:F80D:B9BC:F15E:F101:6CC1 (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, archived discussions can be and are routinely closed, so your concern is moot, for that matter very few archives are even protected and so can be edited by anyone, though as with any non-(auto)confirmed user, your edits will be tagged, which is likely to result in a rapid block so I advise against doing that without good reason. Even if that were not the case, the discussion could be preserved through the use of dnau. I encourage you to ask any additional questions you have about this process at the help desk. You may also want to consider a hosted subpage in someone else's userspace that you use as a personal point of communication to facilitate future discussions as many users find it difficult to interact with someone on a dynamic range otherwise, I'm sure you would find many users who are willing to do so if you asked.  S p e c t r u m   UV 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)