User talk:PheonixRMB

Welcome!

Hello, PheonixRMB, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Biggin Hill airport

Hi. I've hidden your edit re the plane crash today. BBC News and Sky news give two different roads, and your location is different to both of them. Until it is known for definite where the exact location is, it is better to not name any potential exact location. Welcome to Wikipedia! Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no offence intended. The crash has its own article now, as it meets notability criteria with two notable casuaties. Mjroots (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a talk page, but you haven't got a user page! :-p Mjroots (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St James' Park

Are you 100% certain that it is a UEFA 5-star venue? Kaboooz LUFC ^T_C 10:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry going a little mad and followed an odd link, dropped the ballPheonixRMB (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doron Ofir Casting

How do I make it stick, or am I wasting my time? viralwriter (talk)

Lewis Hamilton FAC

Hi PheonixRMB, I noticed this and was wondering whether you'd be willing to voluntarily withdraw. FAC doesn't function well as a peer review process and reviewer time/resources are quite scarce (i.e. it would be helpful to allow them to focus on other candidates, if you feel the Hamilton FAC can't be salvaged this time around). Peer review or a Good Article review might be good next steps. If you're ok with withdrawing, just enter a comment at the FAC. Best, ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add my twopennorth to elcobbola's comments, I appreciate you're acting in good faith but it really is best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. This way they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar with the sources to make any suggested improvements. Someone who hasn't worked on the article can't provide this input, so the FAC rumbles on until the opposes become so overwhelming that the article is failed, taking a lot of reviewers' time. To be honest, the prospect of this article becoming a featured article seems remote. We are desperately short of reviewers and it's a disheartening process for nominator and reviewer alike to see the "opposes" pile on. I have left messages with the four biggest contributors and asked them to comment/input on the FAC's talk page. In the meantime, I strongly recommend that you withdraw the article from the featured article process. This is quick and easy: you merely type "withdraw" on the article's FAC nomination page and sign. Best wishes, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it appears I am 2p richer PheonixRMB (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that :) I've done the necessary preliminaries and the bot will come along to do the rest shortly. There's no need to remove the {{FAC}} template from the article's talk page: it's needed to make the bot function and the bot will remove it as part of the archiving process. Clever stuff, huh? Anyhow, thanks again for your swift action! Much appreciated, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]