Editing User talk:Goodone121
Appearance
This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines. |
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
:: I relisted, as "previous suggestions not implemented" isn't a quick-fail criterion.<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Goodone121|Goodone121]] ([[User talk:Goodone121|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Goodone121|contribs]]) 07:11, September 7, 2008</small><!-- Template:Unsigned2 --> |
:: I relisted, as "previous suggestions not implemented" isn't a quick-fail criterion.<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Goodone121|Goodone121]] ([[User talk:Goodone121|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Goodone121|contribs]]) 07:11, September 7, 2008</small><!-- Template:Unsigned2 --> |
||
:::Hi Goodone121, I think it's great that you're eager about getting this article up to GA status and about Bettering the Wiki! However, I agree with the others that the latest nomination is currently premature. It is important that concerns from the second GA nomination be dealt with--to ignore these is an insult to the reviewer, it could be interpreted as "I don't think your concerns are worth dealing with". Also, I think renominating the article without first discussing it with the other people who have worked hard on it is kind of disrespectful to them, and it could cause them stress (presumably they're going to want to spend time working on the GA review, what if now isn't a good time for them?). I'm going to fail the latest GAN; JFW's concerns from the last review really are important to fix, and surely we can all agree that if an article isn't up to the GA standard yet, it should not be rated GA yet. I'm respectfully asking that you not nominate the article at GAN again until you've gotten consensus with the others who've worked hard on the article, both out of respect for them and in order not to be disruptive (I feel that continually undoing other serious contributors' work by renominating would be considered [[WP:edit warring|edit warring]]). The disruption itself and the effort needed to deal with it will both take valuable time away from improving the article. Sorry, I'm not trying to come down hard on you, I just want us all to be able to cooperate smoothly. I'm glad to help however I can with getting the article to the point where everyone agrees it should be nominated, let me know if I can be of any help! Peace, [[user:delldot|< |
:::Hi Goodone121, I think it's great that you're eager about getting this article up to GA status and about Bettering the Wiki! However, I agree with the others that the latest nomination is currently premature. It is important that concerns from the second GA nomination be dealt with--to ignore these is an insult to the reviewer, it could be interpreted as "I don't think your concerns are worth dealing with". Also, I think renominating the article without first discussing it with the other people who have worked hard on it is kind of disrespectful to them, and it could cause them stress (presumably they're going to want to spend time working on the GA review, what if now isn't a good time for them?). I'm going to fail the latest GAN; JFW's concerns from the last review really are important to fix, and surely we can all agree that if an article isn't up to the GA standard yet, it should not be rated GA yet. I'm respectfully asking that you not nominate the article at GAN again until you've gotten consensus with the others who've worked hard on the article, both out of respect for them and in order not to be disruptive (I feel that continually undoing other serious contributors' work by renominating would be considered [[WP:edit warring|edit warring]]). The disruption itself and the effort needed to deal with it will both take valuable time away from improving the article. Sorry, I'm not trying to come down hard on you, I just want us all to be able to cooperate smoothly. I'm glad to help however I can with getting the article to the point where everyone agrees it should be nominated, let me know if I can be of any help! Peace, [[user:delldot|<font color="#990066">delldot</font>]] <small>[[user talk:delldot|<font color="DarkRed">∇.</font>]]</small> 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
(undent)Huh. It's still nommed. Anyways, to fail with the above rationale would, IMHO, be outside proper process.[[User:Goodone121|Bettering the Wiki]] ([[User talk:Goodone121#top|talk]]) 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
(undent)Huh. It's still nommed. Anyways, to fail with the above rationale would, IMHO, be outside proper process.[[User:Goodone121|Bettering the Wiki]] ([[User talk:Goodone121#top|talk]]) 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Done now, I'm just slow. :-) I'm not sure what you mean about being outside process, surely you agree that concerns from GA nominations should be met before passing as a GA? That ''is'' the GAN process. I appreciate that process is important, but I think we can all agree that it's the substance that matters most: articles that are listed as GA really should be of a high quality. I have no doubt that this one will be GA worthy as soon as those issues are dealt with. Anyway, thanks for being willing to discuss. Peace, [[user:delldot|< |
:Done now, I'm just slow. :-) I'm not sure what you mean about being outside process, surely you agree that concerns from GA nominations should be met before passing as a GA? That ''is'' the GAN process. I appreciate that process is important, but I think we can all agree that it's the substance that matters most: articles that are listed as GA really should be of a high quality. I have no doubt that this one will be GA worthy as soon as those issues are dealt with. Anyway, thanks for being willing to discuss. Peace, [[user:delldot|<font color="#990066">delldot</font>]] <small>[[user talk:delldot|<font color="DarkRed">∇.</font>]]</small> 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
I have renominated, for reasons outlined above (I am a strict constructionist, BTW).[[User:Goodone121|Bettering the Wiki]] ([[User talk:Goodone121#top|talk]]) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
I have renominated, for reasons outlined above (I am a strict constructionist, BTW).[[User:Goodone121|Bettering the Wiki]] ([[User talk:Goodone121#top|talk]]) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Well, I'm disappointed to see that. Can you explain which of the problems outlined by JFW you don't feel are important to resolve? Or why you feel it should be GA quality without having dealt with those concerns? I guess I'll have to take the matter to ANI, since as I said, I feel you're being disruptive, but I really hate to do it. As you've seen, I'm very slow at it so this will probably take me a while. I really don't think any reviewer is going to pass it without the previous concerns having been met anyway. I really would love it if you'd change your mind and undo your actions, that way I wouldn't have to go through the whole ANI thing. At any rate, I really hope we can find a peaceful solution to this rather than having blocks and drama. [[user:delldot|< |
:Well, I'm disappointed to see that. Can you explain which of the problems outlined by JFW you don't feel are important to resolve? Or why you feel it should be GA quality without having dealt with those concerns? I guess I'll have to take the matter to ANI, since as I said, I feel you're being disruptive, but I really hate to do it. As you've seen, I'm very slow at it so this will probably take me a while. I really don't think any reviewer is going to pass it without the previous concerns having been met anyway. I really would love it if you'd change your mind and undo your actions, that way I wouldn't have to go through the whole ANI thing. At any rate, I really hope we can find a peaceful solution to this rather than having blocks and drama. [[user:delldot|<font color="#990066">delldot</font>]] <small>[[user talk:delldot|<font color="DarkRed">∇.</font>]]</small> 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Oh, I had one other question: I wondered if you could specify what part of process you thought JFW's and my closes were violating. Thanks much, [[user:delldot|< |
::Oh, I had one other question: I wondered if you could specify what part of process you thought JFW's and my closes were violating. Thanks much, [[user:delldot|<font color="#990066">delldot</font>]] <small>[[user talk:delldot|<font color="DarkRed">∇.</font>]]</small> 17:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::OK, I've brought the matter to [[WP:ANI#Reverting GAN fails]], I hope if someone else gets involved they can help us find a solution that suits everyone. Peace, [[user:delldot|< |
:::OK, I've brought the matter to [[WP:ANI#Reverting GAN fails]], I hope if someone else gets involved they can help us find a solution that suits everyone. Peace, [[user:delldot|<font color="#990066">delldot</font>]] <small>[[user talk:delldot|<font color="DarkRed">∇.</font>]]</small> 17:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*alright. I'm an outside editor (you can check my contributions, I've never contributed to the Huntington's disease article). there is no hard and fast rule as to when you may or may not renominate an article for good article nominations. This is done explicitly because GAN is meant to be an informal process without the imposing nature of [[WP:FAC|Featured Article Candidacy]]. However, the social expectation is that if an editor puts hours of their time in a good faith review, that review should not be discarded. You are free, on the review page, to disagree with individual findings of the review, often reviewers aren't subject matter experts and so may not know what you know about a subject. If you |
*alright. I'm an outside editor (you can check my contributions, I've never contributed to the Huntington's disease article). there is no hard and fast rule as to when you may or may not renominate an article for good article nominations. This is done explicitly because GAN is meant to be an informal process without the imposing nature of [[WP:FAC|Featured Article Candidacy]]. However, the social expectation is that if an editor puts hours of their time in a good faith review, that review should not be discarded. You are free, on the review page, to disagree with individual findings of the review, often reviewers aren't subject matter experts and so may not know what you know about a subject. If you |
||