User talk:Graham Beards: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:23, 11 August 2013 editTonyTheTiger (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers400,502 edits →Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1: Sandy too← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:30, 11 August 2013 edit undoGraham Beards (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators35,514 edits 48 OKNext edit →
Line 44:		Line 44:

	I sort of understand your reasoning behind closing ]. However, once upon a time {{user\|Raul654}} and {{user\|SandyGeorgia}}, would at times immediately restart a nomination that was getting muddled. In this case, we have a very special potential 50th anniversary ] on September 28th. I understand you have granted special exception for a one-week relisting. However, that still cuts things very close in terms of trying to achieve ] in time. Is it possible to request immediate relisting or a much shorter window such as 48 hours. After over 350kb of discourse during the FAC, expecting a resolution on the talk page with no process to encourage people to come to a decision is a little much to ask. This article needs a FAC to force people to crystallize their opinions and this candidate needs to be relisted ASAP in hopes of achieving a 50th anniversary. This 350kb+ FAC is a very special case and should be given special consideration.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 16:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)		I sort of understand your reasoning behind closing ]. However, once upon a time {{user\|Raul654}} and {{user\|SandyGeorgia}}, would at times immediately restart a nomination that was getting muddled. In this case, we have a very special potential 50th anniversary ] on September 28th. I understand you have granted special exception for a one-week relisting. However, that still cuts things very close in terms of trying to achieve ] in time. Is it possible to request immediate relisting or a much shorter window such as 48 hours. After over 350kb of discourse during the FAC, expecting a resolution on the talk page with no process to encourage people to come to a decision is a little much to ask. This article needs a FAC to force people to crystallize their opinions and this candidate needs to be relisted ASAP in hopes of achieving a 50th anniversary. This 350kb+ FAC is a very special case and should be given special consideration.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 16:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
			:(EC) I considered a restart, but decided that a cooling-off period was needed. I will allow 48hours rather than a week. Please link to this discussion when you renominate so folk know. ] (]) 16:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:30, 11 August 2013

Archives

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

FL Nomination for List of AFC Wimbledon seasons

Dear Graham, thank you for your help regarding my featured list nomination. This is my first time submitting one and I appreciate your help. with kind regards, Jodie25 (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Transclusions can be confusing. Graham Colm (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Perseus (constellation)

Hi mate, have you had a chance to revisit this one lately? I gather it's been copyedited since you raised your prose concerns... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I still have a few concerns, which I have raised at the FAC a few moments ago. Graham Colm (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1

I sort of understand your reasoning behind closing Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1. However, once upon a time Raul654 (talk · contribs) and SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), would at times immediately restart a nomination that was getting muddled. In this case, we have a very special potential 50th anniversary WP:TFA on September 28th. I understand you have granted special exception for a one-week relisting. However, that still cuts things very close in terms of trying to achieve WP:FA in time. Is it possible to request immediate relisting or a much shorter window such as 48 hours. After over 350kb of discourse during the FAC, expecting a resolution on the talk page with no process to encourage people to come to a decision is a little much to ask. This article needs a FAC to force people to crystallize their opinions and this candidate needs to be relisted ASAP in hopes of achieving a 50th anniversary. This 350kb+ FAC is a very special case and should be given special consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

(EC) I considered a restart, but decided that a cooling-off period was needed. I will allow 48hours rather than a week. Please link to this discussion when you renominate so folk know. Graham Colm (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:23, 11 August 2013 editTonyTheTiger (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers400,502 edits →Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1: Sandy too← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:30, 11 August 2013 edit undoGraham Beards (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators35,514 edits 48 OKNext edit →
Line 44:		Line 44:

	I sort of understand your reasoning behind closing ]. However, once upon a time {{user\|Raul654}} and {{user\|SandyGeorgia}}, would at times immediately restart a nomination that was getting muddled. In this case, we have a very special potential 50th anniversary ] on September 28th. I understand you have granted special exception for a one-week relisting. However, that still cuts things very close in terms of trying to achieve ] in time. Is it possible to request immediate relisting or a much shorter window such as 48 hours. After over 350kb of discourse during the FAC, expecting a resolution on the talk page with no process to encourage people to come to a decision is a little much to ask. This article needs a FAC to force people to crystallize their opinions and this candidate needs to be relisted ASAP in hopes of achieving a 50th anniversary. This 350kb+ FAC is a very special case and should be given special consideration.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 16:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)		I sort of understand your reasoning behind closing ]. However, once upon a time {{user\|Raul654}} and {{user\|SandyGeorgia}}, would at times immediately restart a nomination that was getting muddled. In this case, we have a very special potential 50th anniversary ] on September 28th. I understand you have granted special exception for a one-week relisting. However, that still cuts things very close in terms of trying to achieve ] in time. Is it possible to request immediate relisting or a much shorter window such as 48 hours. After over 350kb of discourse during the FAC, expecting a resolution on the talk page with no process to encourage people to come to a decision is a little much to ask. This article needs a FAC to force people to crystallize their opinions and this candidate needs to be relisted ASAP in hopes of achieving a 50th anniversary. This 350kb+ FAC is a very special case and should be given special consideration.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 16:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
			:(EC) I considered a restart, but decided that a cooling-off period was needed. I will allow 48hours rather than a week. Please link to this discussion when you renominate so folk know. ] (]) 16:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)