| Revision as of 21:16, 30 November 2013 editGraham Beards (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators35,514 edits →Seriously?: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:17, 30 November 2013 edit undoGraham Beards (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators35,514 edits →Seriously?: fixNext edit → | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| Why again? Archiving my FAC for ]. It's THanksgiving weeknd, you seriously couldn't give ppl some time? I asked several to review, some of which said they would (], ]). WTF is the rush! I don't know what the process is, but it cant be set in stone. Cant it be "unarchived"? Do I seriously have to wait again and bother ppl with requests for comments again b/c of some BS technicalities? ] (]) 20:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | Why again? Archiving my FAC for ]. It's THanksgiving weeknd, you seriously couldn't give ppl some time? I asked several to review, some of which said they would (], ]). WTF is the rush! I don't know what the process is, but it cant be set in stone. Cant it be "unarchived"? Do I seriously have to wait again and bother ppl with requests for comments again b/c of some BS technicalities? ] (]) 20:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Ermm.. a less aggressive request might have persuaded me. There is no need for profanities. First, wrt your comment on the FAC page, I do have a life, a very full and busy one. Second, I have little idea what Thanksgiving is and certainly didn't know it this weekend. Your nomination failed to attract sufficient reviews in a reasonable time. That's why I archived it. One of our "BS technicalities" says ''None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.'' So as this is the case, I think you qualify for an exemption. ] (]) 21:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | :Ermm.. a less aggressive request might have persuaded me. There is no need for profanities. First, wrt your comment on the FAC page, I do have a life, a very full and busy one. Second, I have little idea what Thanksgiving is and certainly didn't know it is this weekend. Your nomination failed to attract sufficient reviews in a reasonable time. That's why I archived it. One of our "BS technicalities" says ''None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.'' So as this is the case, I think you qualify for an exemption. ] (]) 21:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:17, 30 November 2013
 Archives |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Withdraw FAC nom
After consideration of some of the reviewers comments, I feel I need to withdraw the nom for Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl to allow it to go through a copy edit. I also dropped this same note at the other FA coordinators talk page. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 17:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose: I have withdrawn this FAC (and manually archived it, since the bot still doesn't recognize my process-closes as valid). Thanks for letting us know, Greg. Maralia (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Maralia! @GregJackP:, that was three watchlist entries that could have been one (post withdrawal requests to WT:FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Test FAC coords ping
@FAC coordinators: This is a test notification -- let me know if you see it in "Your notifications" at the top of the page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- @FAC coordinators: Well, Ian, if you're posting on his talk page I think he'll get the notification from that. Maybe a third page? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well it depends on how sophisticated notifications is -- for instance I was notified of this msg but I have Graham's page watchlisted anyway -- since you're obviously interested (!), how about you try it from your talk page (which I don't have watchlisted)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Tried. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- ...and succeeded (for me at least) -- tks Crisco! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well it depends on how sophisticated notifications is -- for instance I was notified of this msg but I have Graham's page watchlisted anyway -- since you're obviously interested (!), how about you try it from your talk page (which I don't have watchlisted)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Seriously?
Why again? Archiving my FAC for Of Human Feelings. It's THanksgiving weeknd, you seriously couldn't give ppl some time? I asked several to review, some of which said they would (User_talk:Sabrebd#FAC_comment.3F, User_talk:Hzh#FAC_comment.3F). WTF is the rush! I don't know what the process is, but it cant be set in stone. Cant it be "unarchived"? Do I seriously have to wait again and bother ppl with requests for comments again b/c of some BS technicalities? Dan56 (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ermm.. a less aggressive request might have persuaded me. There is no need for profanities. First, wrt your comment on the FAC page, I do have a life, a very full and busy one. Second, I have little idea what Thanksgiving is and certainly didn't know it is this weekend. Your nomination failed to attract sufficient reviews in a reasonable time. That's why I archived it. One of our "BS technicalities" says None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions. So as this is the case, I think you qualify for an exemption. Graham Colm (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)