Wikipedia talk:Peer review/United States/archive1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Peer review. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Moved into talk because it isn't directly related to the article: If it wasn't unfair, then someone should explain why it failed whereas other country articles, like India, Australia, South Africa, and Cambodia, passed.--Ryz05 t 23:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thems the breaks. People vote what they see, and the process is not exact. Expecting it to be is your problem. There was near unanimous opposition, mostly based on the quality of the writing, but also likely fueled by your approach. Articles on amazingly controversial topics are regularly passed with unanimous support if the quality of the writing is high. So you can't claim bias against the topic as the problem. - Taxman Talk 23:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- So you are saying the nomination was unfair because People vote what they see. I guess that makes elections in general unfair. --Ryz05 t 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I did not say it was unfair. I explained why the fact that you think it was unfair is a disconnect from what goes on. The problem is the way you see the process. - Taxman Talk 23:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Then you should just explain how the US article failed while other country articles, like India, Australia, South Africa, and Cambodia, passed. Just admit it, the election process was unfair, plus it was closed after only 5 days! Whereas two weeks might have seen it pass. And when it was renominated, an adminstrator closed it simply because other people suggest that it should be closed, without even looking at what's going on. How unfair can you get with that?--Ryz05 t 00:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I direct you to assume good faith. --Golbez 00:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's an excuse people always use when something is wrong or unfair and they don't have an explanation.--Ryz05 t 00:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I direct you again to read it, and also to read WP:CIVIL. Perhaps you are the wrong one here, could that have possibly occurred to you? You're just irritated because, even though you did a lot of work on the article in the last few weeks, it still isn't up to snuff, and you're taking it as a personal insult. Don't. --Golbez 00:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not taking it as a personal insult, just complaining that the election was unfair on Wikipedia. It is a fact that I did a lot of work on the US article, including the summarization and the introduction, but someone should just explain how the US article failed whereas other country articles, like India, Australia, South Africa, and Cambodia, passed.--Ryz05 t 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Since that is now the third time on this page you have listed those articles, I do indeed think you're taking it personally. --Golbez 01:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not taking it as a personal insult, just complaining that the election was unfair on Wikipedia. It is a fact that I did a lot of work on the US article, including the summarization and the introduction, but someone should just explain how the US article failed whereas other country articles, like India, Australia, South Africa, and Cambodia, passed.--Ryz05 t 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I direct you again to read it, and also to read WP:CIVIL. Perhaps you are the wrong one here, could that have possibly occurred to you? You're just irritated because, even though you did a lot of work on the article in the last few weeks, it still isn't up to snuff, and you're taking it as a personal insult. Don't. --Golbez 00:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's an excuse people always use when something is wrong or unfair and they don't have an explanation.--Ryz05 t 00:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I direct you to assume good faith. --Golbez 00:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Then you should just explain how the US article failed while other country articles, like India, Australia, South Africa, and Cambodia, passed. Just admit it, the election process was unfair, plus it was closed after only 5 days! Whereas two weeks might have seen it pass. And when it was renominated, an adminstrator closed it simply because other people suggest that it should be closed, without even looking at what's going on. How unfair can you get with that?--Ryz05 t 00:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I did not say it was unfair. I explained why the fact that you think it was unfair is a disconnect from what goes on. The problem is the way you see the process. - Taxman Talk 23:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- So you are saying the nomination was unfair because People vote what they see. I guess that makes elections in general unfair. --Ryz05 t 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
And also to mention the difference has already been explained enough times to know for sure that you won't listen to anything people tell you. You're too emotionally involved to see the faults in your "baby". It was not unfair, you just can't see it. - Taxman Talk 03:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- The US article does deserve to be featured if those other countries articles are featured. The "election" was an unfair one at best.--Ryz05 t 12:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Just because another country article was featured doesn't mean this one should automatically be. The election was completely fair. Now let's work on the peer review, shall we? --Golbez 12:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- And by the way, it's not an election. It's a discussion. Articles are never made featured based solely on # of votes - the closing admin looks at the arguments and acts accordingly. --Golbez 12:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy. Wikipedia works by concensus, not by voting. AndyZ t 00:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)