Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive2

I do not think that re-nominating the article so soon was the right thing to do. Editing an archived nomination is also very uncommon, to say the least. Discussion about a nomination is to be done on the talk page of the FAC nomination, not within the nomination itself. Lupo 07:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Lupo, I asked for clarification on your talk page, but, since you have not answered, here's a reprint below.-- GordonWattsDotCom 19:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not online 24/7. Here's my answer. Lupo 07:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Neither am I; I replied here. Thx.-- GordonWattsDotCom 10:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

3 Questions: Meta, Re-nom, and which-page-is-which?
Here you say:

I do not think that re-nominating the article so soon was the right thing to do. Editing an archived nomination is also very uncommon, to say the least. Discussion about a nomination is to be done on the talk page of the FAC nomination, not within the nomination itself. Lupo 07:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I have questions about this:


 * First what is a "meta-comment" (diff) (hist) . . N Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo; 07:59 . . Lupo (Talk) (Meta-comment)


 * Second, I address re-nomination: I fixed the past problems --also Schiavo was suggested as a Featured Article in the Last Two peer reviews. It improved since then, and then more with recent edits. The "Edit war" is temporary," and does not reflect on quality.


 * You say: "Discussion about a nomination is to be done on the talk page of the FAC nomination, not within the nomination itself." What is the difference between the two? I discussed it on the nomination talk page -what other pages are there?

Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)