MarioWiki talk:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Rawk Hawk: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This failed because the original proposer redacted his vote? This isn't logical nor does it abide by the rules. Please move this nomination back. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 13:20, 18 February 2014 (EST) | This failed because the original proposer redacted his vote? This isn't logical nor does it abide by the rules. Please move this nomination back. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 13:20, 18 February 2014 (EST) | ||
:Based on what? I agree, the process seems to have gone pretty off the rails, but I recall there being something in the rules about the page being removed if the proposer agreed. Then again, I haven't given the rule page a look in a while, and I've not much experience in the feature process, so in the event I'm wrong about that, our bases are still covered. {{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 13:38, 18 February 2014 (EST) | :Based on what? I agree, the process seems to have gone pretty off the rails, but I recall there being something in the rules about the page being removed if the proposer agreed. Then again, I haven't given the rule page a look in a while, and I've not much experience in the feature process, so in the event I'm wrong about that, we'll want to be sure our bases are still covered regardless. {{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 13:38, 18 February 2014 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 13:38, February 18, 2014
This failed because the original proposer redacted his vote? This isn't logical nor does it abide by the rules. Please move this nomination back. 
Ray Trace(T|C) 13:20, 18 February 2014 (EST)
- Based on what? I agree, the process seems to have gone pretty off the rails, but I recall there being something in the rules about the page being removed if the proposer agreed. Then again, I haven't given the rule page a look in a while, and I've not much experience in the feature process, so in the event I'm wrong about that, we'll want to be sure our bases are still covered regardless.
Lord G. matters. 13:38, 18 February 2014 (EST)
