Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Death of Jimi Hendrix/archive1

Note: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Harrison/archive1 - this is therefore a violation of the two-week rule since you did not get permission from the delegates. --Rs chen 7754 06:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was a two-week ban on me at FAC, I thought it was on the article. Also, the Harrison FAC was a co-nom. Rschen, you've never before made a comment at one of my FACs, why this one now, within 10 minutes of it's nomination? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the top: "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions." For the record, I've noted this at quite a few FACs. --Rs chen 7754 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right, its there in the wording. I guess at this point: "a delegate will decide whether to remove it", though why this: "two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them" but not my nom of an unrelated article? Seems like arbitrary red-tape to me (I call it Wikitedium). Artistic people generally do not like to be treated as mindless robots. What harm is this nom doing? Are you more concerned that I didn't suck-up to a delegate first? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I've now attempted to correct my procedural error by requesting "leave" from a delegate. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - Following a request on my Talk Page, this nomination can continue. Please do not use of pejorative expressions in future. Graham Colm (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC comments

My comments were not going off on a tangent. Giving the names of types of food he had that day is unimportant, unless this actually contributed to his death. We must not presume. -- Cassianto ^Talk 20:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you will have to bare with me on this one...I have an analogy:

A car fills up with unleaded petrol, then drives off the forecourt and runs over a famous guitar player on a crossing. In this analogy, unleaded is the Chinese, petrol is the food, car is the vomit. The petrol, indirectly killed the guitar player as without it, the car would not have worked. Describing this guitar players death on WP, we would not have mentioned the fact the car filled up with £40.00 unleaded prior to setting off; we would simply have said "...he was hit on a crossing and died as a result of his injuries."

With Hendrix, food would have indirectly generated the vomit, but we don't need to describe the food as it was not that that killed him. Like a car needs petrol to drive, we can safely assume that vomit needs food for a lot of it to be produced. We certainly don't need to know what kind of food made up that vomit which then indirectly killed him. I think this suggestion is farcical and goes to far. -- Cassianto ^Talk 22:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now expanded the detail in "Post-mortem examination and burial", and perhaps this issue is thusly resolved. FWIW, the sources do mention rice in his stomach, but not in the vomit. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's a lot better. My requests for a discussion have seemingly been ignored by Snowman, which is a shame, but I think we should run with your new variation as it is a vast improvement. -- Cassianto ^Talk 10:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]