User talk:CurlyLoop

Welcome![edit]

Hello, CurlyLoop, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! J Milburn (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas Gage[edit]

If you renominate Phineas Gage, User:Pyrotec has offered to review it, and User:EEng appears to be interested in going through with the review as well. In the future please don't nominate articles without first trying to communicate with the main contributor - it may lead to uncomfortable reviews, although it doesn't seem to be the reason this first review went off track.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will need to go back and re-read the talk page, review page and what happened on various noticeboards (as I was forced off Wikipedia and did not keep up to date) before doing anything to understand exactly what happened. Obviously it would not be productive (but quite embarrassing) to have a repeat of all this, even though I do understand that the argument that derailed everything was apparently nothing to do with the review. Like I said, I'm not 100% clear on the facts but I will endeavour to read everything. I understand your point about not nominating articles without broaching the topic first but remain unconvinced that it's in general a bad idea, as I can't help feel that it somehow conflicts with WP:OWN. CurlyLoop (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it conflicts with WP:OWN to recognize that if an editor has knowledge enough about a topic to write a high quality article about it then they are probably also a good ally in a review. And that by nominating an article without them risks offending them and get the review off to a bad start from the outset. It is not article ownership to be invested in one's work. It is ownership to exclude others from contributing. I don't think there is any real risk of this mess happening again here - at this point everyone involved seems to be interested in getting the article to its best possible state, and willing to cooperate to get there.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you think someone would be offended by a GA nomination? CurlyLoop (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because most article creators and writers would prefer to participate in making decisions about what happens to their work? Or because they may feel that the expertise they presumably have on the topic and which probably let them write the article in the first place is being dismissed? Or because they might just like a heads up and someone saying hey good work, i think i will nominate this? Or because they would like to be warned that their work is going to be put on public trial so they have a chance to brace themselves? One thing I have learned editing wikipedia for the past 8 years is that it takes much less for people to get offended than one may think.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]