Wikipedia talk:When not to link to WP:NOTNOW

Cross link
I've linked this essay from the WP:NOTNOW page, under a section encouraging caution when commenting NOTNOW at RfA. Pedro : Chat  15:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent essay
This is an excellent essay, and I agree that it is overdue. I actually raised this topic at WT:RFA nearly two years ago, and while (I think, though briefly) it did stop opposes on that rationale for some time, it seems that they creeped back in. I remember when Pedro created NOTNOW as a helpful link for newcomers who didn't understand adminship and needed advice after their RfAs had sunk: he didn't create it as a cheap way to oppose people. However, I continue to support the principle of NOTNOW, even if I do disagree with inappropriate implementation of it. Good work, 28bytes, I hope this will help return NOTNOW to the way Pedro intended it to be. Acalamari 11:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Smiles :). Thanks Acalamari, and I agree this is an excellent and long overdue essay and am grateful to 28bytes for taking time to write it. I guess the only way to move it forward is to start being robust in linking to it when we see poor uses of NOTNOW on live RFA's (I doubt we'll have long to wait, sadly). Pedro : Chat  15:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, Acalamari. This was my first attempt at a WP essay. I may try a couple more (Pedro's observations regarding wrongly tossing around WP:POINT, WP:LEGAL, etc., certainly seem like fertile ground for an essay.) But WP:NOTNOW, since I have to go shovel my driveway. 28bytes (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 28bytes. Thou art a n00b. You seriously missed an opportunity to insert WP:SHOVEL. ..... I think that says it all mate :) Pedro :  Chat  22:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, how could I miss that? A WP:SHOVEL reference would have been WP:PERFECT. 28bytes (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Great Essay
Great essay, 28bytes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Glad you like it. 28bytes (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just an extra comment. Perhaps there could be a list of admins willing to take questions about mopping informally, including letting long serving editors know if they seem to be ready for a mop or if they should stay on their hands and knees using a rag. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Category:Experienced editors willing to offer independent pre-RFA reviews" or something similar? Possibly not a bad idea. Pedro : Chat  14:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Some editors may prefer a small check by an experienced before nominating themselves. If they nominate themselves unprepared... At the very least, it would help the editor know some of the main problems they will have to address when nominating themselves. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Demurer
Given that we all know that when someone says "Oppose: WP:NOTNOW; try again after [list of issues] is resolved.", they really mean "Oppose: Now now; try again after [list of issues] is resolved.", and the experienced RfA candidate who gets this message already knows (or will immediately see) that WP:NOTNOW is written for noobs, and will clearly also understand that the reference to WP:NOTNOW really just meant "not now", because the writer forgot or didn't actually know what WP:NOTNOW really says, I don't see the point of this essay. It simply doesn't matter if someone mistakenly cites WP:NOTNOW in reference to a non-noob candidate, since the intended meaning isn't actually confused or confusing to anyone. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It may well be that nobody is confused. It is still suboptimal to link to an essay that says something you don't mean. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 09:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)