User talk:Challenger.rebecca: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:09, 11 March 2016 editChallenger.rebecca (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,196 edits →That was a terrible close ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:10, 11 March 2016 edit undoChallenger.rebecca (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,196 edits →That was a terrible close Next edit →
Line 83:		Line 83:
	:There were competing arguments there over the validity of the nominator's claims, but I checked the article myself and found the citations to be fine and the article to be decently organized. No one except the nominator ever said that the article should be delisted. If people want to change the title of the article, they can propose it on the talk page, but there was definitely no consensus and probably no good reason to outright delist.		:There were competing arguments there over the validity of the nominator's claims, but I checked the article myself and found the citations to be fine and the article to be decently organized. No one except the nominator ever said that the article should be delisted. If people want to change the title of the article, they can propose it on the talk page, but there was definitely no consensus and probably no good reason to outright delist.

	:There is no reason why you should be posting attacks on me about this reassessment on other univolved users talk pages. During all the good article reassessments I closed, I took special care to consider all angles and made the best decision possible.		:There is no reason why you should be posting attacks on me about this reassessment on other univolved users talk pages. During all the good article reassessments I closed, I took special care to consider all angles and made the best decision possible. ] (]) 21:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
	] (]) 21:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:10, 11 March 2016

Welcome!

Hello, Challenger.rebecca! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! JustBerry (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Getting Started
Contributing to Misplaced Pages The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

That was a terrible close

Re this.

Two users expressed some opinion as to whether the article was GA-quality, one openly in favour of delisting and the other not opposed to delisting and stating that the original listing was crap. None of the other comments were even related to whether the article as it stood was of GA-quality or not. So why did you close it as a "maintain the status quo" when everyone opposed the status quo.

I understand you probably made a good-faith mistake, but if so it was still a mistake, and I strongly urge you to revert your close.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Users were arguing about the article content, but not all of it actually related to whether or not the article's quality was low enough to delist. Discussion had gone on long enough, and no one but the nominator said that the article should be delisted. No consensus means 'keep'.

Challenger.rebecca (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, firstly I should apologize for my gruff tone above. I was annoyed about some bullshit that had nothing to do with you or the GAR. Secondly, you should know that GARs do not need a broad consensus from a large number of users to delist. The default should be that if an article's GA status is challenged, it will be delisted unless either (a) a defense of the article's current GA status is mounted or (b) the article is improved to fully address the OP's concerns. In this case, one user challenged the GA status, and another user tried to improve the article but still agreed the article should be delisted. A GAR should never be decided on a vote count, but in this case even a vote count was in favour of delisting. If I were closing, I would have said Consensus is to delist. The valid concerns of the OP and first commenter have not been met. All other commenters are trouted and politely reminded that this page is for discussion of whether the article still meets (or ever met) our specific list of Good Article criteria, and is not a forum for general discussion of the topic, or even general discussion of the article and its quality. 'No consensus means keep' is for AFD, not GAR, as the burden of consensus must lie with those who want Misplaced Pages to continue hyping the article as one of the Project's finest. If 'No consensus means preserve the status quo' was a universal standard, the article would never have been promoted in the first place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There were competing arguments there over the validity of the nominator's claims, but I checked the article myself and found the citations to be fine and the article to be decently organized. No one except the nominator ever said that the article should be delisted. If people want to change the title of the article, they can propose it on the talk page, but there was definitely no consensus and probably no good reason to outright delist.

There is no reason why you should be posting attacks on me about this reassessment on other univolved users talk pages. During all the good article reassessments I closed, I took special care to consider all angles and made the best decision possible. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)