| Revision as of 12:59, 4 August 2012 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 7d) to User talk:GrahamColm/Archives/2012.← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:51, 8 August 2012 edit undoCassianto (talk | contribs)37,404 edits →Disruption at FAC: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| Don't block a multi-use account in educational use. ] (]) 12:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | Don't block a multi-use account in educational use. ] (]) 12:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Disruption at FAC == | |||
| Graham, I am a nominator for ] which is currently at FAC and it has been listed for about a week now. We have six supports and IMO, the article is doing very, very well. Can I bring to your attention ]. {{u|Br'er Rabbit}}, {{u|Wikiwatcher1}} and a host of other pirates are instigating a discussion about an info box which was subject to an RfC and numerous consensus finding discussions on the Sellers talk page. The agreement was that the info box stay but as it '''was''' and to have nothing added or removed. This morning an editor has added some information to it which, quite rightly, was reverted by my co-nominator. The infobox Gestapo have now waded in and are rebuking my co-nom, clearly ignoring discussions which have previously took place. | |||
| I have omitted to get involved at this point as, IMO, FAC is far more important. I am going to advice my co-nom to swallow the bitter pill so as not to let these idiots ruin '''another''' FAC (such as they did with ]) My question is, would such discussions on the talk page scupper the FAC chances? -- <span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 08:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:51, 8 August 2012
 Archives |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Kappa Kappa Psi FAC
The Kappa Kappa Psi FAC has been open for a month now and has two supports and no opposes; the source review and image review are done and all issues fixed. I solicited reviewers on the Marching Band and Fraternity and Sorority WikiProjects and on the talk pages of a few active WP:FRAT members, but it doesn't seem like there's much interest from any other potential reviewers. Is there anything else that needs to happen before it is promoted or archived? If it's slated to be archived again, I'd like to be notified first so I can try to drum up some interest, but my entirely unbiased opinion is that it's ready for promotion. Sycamore (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, it's not ready yet. Spotchecks of the sources still need to be done by an independent reviewer. And, two declarations of support aren't quite enough to secure promotion, although this is not a hard-and-fast rule. Graham Colm (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
What happens now?
Hi, thank you very much for promoting Poppy Meadow. As this is my first FA, what happens now? A bot will update the talk page, will it give me a notification on my talk page, like when a DYK appears on the main page? Also, what can I do know a article is FA class, do I have to nominate the article to appear on the main page, or will it appear on it automatically? Thank you very much! — M.Mario (T/C) 16:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) You have to nominate it for the main page. No, it will not appear automatically. TBrandley 16:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- You can nominate it here. A bot run by an extremely helpful editor will update the article's talk page and add the little bronze star. Please do not delete the FAC template on the talk page, as the bot needs to "see" this. Graham Colm (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think I have nominated it correctly. — M.Mario (T/C) 17:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- It looks OK, but I rarely visit that page :-) Best of luck! Graham Colm (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think I have nominated it correctly. — M.Mario (T/C) 17:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- You can nominate it here. A bot run by an extremely helpful editor will update the article's talk page and add the little bronze star. Please do not delete the FAC template on the talk page, as the bot needs to "see" this. Graham Colm (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
FAC permission
Hi Graham, I was wondering if I could get permission to have two FACs open at the same time? My open FAC has three supports at the moment and I'd like to get my next candidate nominated soon if that's alright. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good morning Mark and congratulations on your very successful RfA. Yes, go ahead. I'll look at Clarence this evening when I get home – can you save me a little time and remind when you last had a spotcheck? I've just woken up and my memory hasn't yet :-) Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks, sounds good. My last spotcheck was on June 4, at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Lynching of Jesse Washington/archive1 by Ian Rose. Thanks for the support at Rfa, I was quite surprised with how well that went--I kept thinking about some of the horror stories I've heard. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The Concert
hello,
please withdraw my nomination as I would like to nominate Otis Redding for 9th September. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Multi-Use IP
Don't block a multi-use account in educational use. 212.121.210.45 (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Disruption at FAC
Graham, I am a nominator for Peter Sellers which is currently at FAC and it has been listed for about a week now. We have six supports and IMO, the article is doing very, very well. Can I bring to your attention this]. Br'er Rabbit, Wikiwatcher1 and a host of other pirates are instigating a discussion about an info box which was subject to an RfC and numerous consensus finding discussions on the Sellers talk page. The agreement was that the info box stay but as it was and to have nothing added or removed. This morning an editor has added some information to it which, quite rightly, was reverted by my co-nominator. The infobox Gestapo have now waded in and are rebuking my co-nom, clearly ignoring discussions which have previously took place.
I have omitted to get involved at this point as, IMO, FAC is far more important. I am going to advice my co-nom to swallow the bitter pill so as not to let these idiots ruin another FAC (such as they did with Ian Fleming) My question is, would such discussions on the talk page scupper the FAC chances? -- Cassianto 08:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)