Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl/Archive3: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:58, 4 December 2005 editGeogre (talk \| contribs)25,257 edits →[]← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:31, 4 December 2005 edit undoHollow Wilerding (talk \| contribs)1,484 edits CommentNext edit →
Line 22:		Line 22:

	*'''Object''' as well as '''Oppose''': This is the ''third'' nomination, and all without addressing the objections raised. While other folks mildly take their articles off and work on them, this one just keeps coming back. With no insult intended for the nominator, I have to say that we really shouldn't see a return to FAC so quickly. There are no policies on waiting and the amount of time necessary to lick wounds and repair the body, but what common sense exists suggests that this is far too soon and far too many. ] 13:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)		*'''Object''' as well as '''Oppose''': This is the ''third'' nomination, and all without addressing the objections raised. While other folks mildly take their articles off and work on them, this one just keeps coming back. With no insult intended for the nominator, I have to say that we really shouldn't see a return to FAC so quickly. There are no policies on waiting and the amount of time necessary to lick wounds and repair the body, but what common sense exists suggests that this is far too soon and far too many. ] 13:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
			:*Once again, inactionable. Please provide a reason for you objection '''here'''. Do not redirect me to the old nomination. —] 14:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:31, 4 December 2005

Second attempt. Let's see what kind of controversy the article can stir this time. —Hollow Wilerding 21:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Inactionable. Please be more specific. :) —Hollow Wilerding 22:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. It's too soon to renominate this. It rolled off less than 4 days ago, and even then Raul had given it an extra go. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It's never too soon to do anything. I will continue to bring this article back into the nomination process until it is passed. —Hollow Wilerding 23:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Will you? Object, misuse of process. Bishonen | talk 00:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Your objection is unactonable, and therefore will be ignored. —Hollow Wilerding 01:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Your zeal is commendable, Hollow, and you've done a lot of good work on that article. Give the issue some time to rest and then people will take a fresh look. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Support. Enough about the little things, this article has met featured article status. --DrippingInk 01:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Object per bad-faith nomination whereby objections unaddressed from the previous two FACs, both of which took place in the last fortnight, may not be mentioned again as the objectors would rightly believe time would be taken to deal with them properly. This is a very poor performance by the nominator, and an attempt to undermine the community's consensus. I move to have Raul654 remove this nomination. Harro5 04:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Please support your objection with valid reasons. Bad faith is a horrible assumption. —Hollow Wilerding

From the above statements, I hear that the nomination had been failed previously. Please direct me to the previous FAC nom. (The link should have been on the article talk page too). =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment

Object until the objectors to the two previous recent nominations have confirmed here that their objecitons have been addressed to their satisfication. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I'd like to make this as clear as day: this is a new nomination. Please do not direct me to the old FAC(s), and address your new objections here. It is—currently—easier to read due to the fact that there is almost no socializing going on here, but oh, I guarantee its increase. —Hollow Wilerding 13:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Object as well as Oppose: This is the third nomination, and all without addressing the objections raised. While other folks mildly take their articles off and work on them, this one just keeps coming back. With no insult intended for the nominator, I have to say that we really shouldn't see a return to FAC so quickly. There are no policies on waiting and the amount of time necessary to lick wounds and repair the body, but what common sense exists suggests that this is far too soon and far too many. Geogre 13:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, inactionable. Please provide a reason for you objection here. Do not redirect me to the old nomination. —Hollow Wilerding 14:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)