Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est

Latest comment: 16 years ago by Justallofthem in topic Moved

Moved

edit
  • Oppose - I am going to repeat my previous comment and I will expand a bit: "I think it is a lowering of standards here to feature a book report, especially one so blandly written. We can do better." While Cirt seems to think I have it in for him and my comment on the prior nom was akin to "wikistalking and insulting me" (see this thread) that is not actually the fact and Cirt might want to note that I have not opposed his previous FAC nominations. Frankly, when it comes to featured status I do not think a bland and formulaic book report (same unimaginative template as previous work) cuts it. I have no problem with this being a Good Article and well done to Cirt on that. I do object to it being considered on a level approaching featured content. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Durova, please keep off-topic disputes off of the FAC page; we evaluate content here, not editors. I think we've covered this before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Justallofthem, Laser is right: Opposes must be actionable. A valid oppose will contain specific examples of prose that you think needs attention so the nominator can do something about it, so I/we can evaluate the strength of your argument, and so other reviewers can comment. Opposes must be something the nominator can fix. That doesn't mean you need to know the numbers; you do need to present a problem that others can see, discuss, and address. You can't oppose a FAC just because YouDon'tLikeIt: FAC is not a vote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you all continue your dispute on the FAC page, I'll move the comments to here on talk. Please do not disrupt the FAC with off-FAC disputes again. Comments here are evaluated based on one thing: WP:WIAFA. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Sandy. I tried to keep that as brief and neutral as possible, and followed up in user talk space. Due to some developments in user talk I am taking this to a noticeboard; the problem is only tangentially related to FAC and under the present circumstances AE appears to be the path of least drama. DurovaCharge! 03:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for understanding. Justallof them, this sentence:
  • While Cirt seems to think I have it in for him and my comment on the prior nom was akin to "wikistalking and insulting me" (see this thread) that is not actually the fact and Cirt might want to note that I have not opposed his previous FAC nominations.
is not appropriate on the FAC, but I haven't refactored it because it is part of your original Oppose declaration. Please strike or, preferably, remove it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
No prob, Sandy. Sorry to be a bit contentious but the action taken related to my oppose on the previous nom raised my hackles. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much, Sandy. Justa, I have offered to withdraw the AE thread. DurovaCharge! 04:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
You mean the AE thread that you did not bother telling me about? The one where you try to "persuade" me to drop my complaint against you? It has already been closed. I am asking you again to agree to mediation. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please do not continue this conversation here: it is unrelated to the FAC. User talk pages are more appropriate. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
OK. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply