User talk:FishGF

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Failed GA at International System of Units
You just failed the submission at Talk:International System of Units/GA1. I think you demanded too much of the article, far more than needed to satisfy Good article criteria. Look again at that guideline and see how humble it really is. The GA does not have to cover every single possible element of the topic, but this kind of coverage is what you insisted upon. I think your close was not fair to the article or to the many editors who were still working on it as recently as yesterday. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Binksternet, I'm sorry you feel that way. I spent many, may days labouring over that review, and trying to reconcile it with the Good article criteria. I thought I was very generous in accepting most of it with few challenges. However there were a handful of issues to do with ambiguity or insufficient detail or clarification which I believed needed a few extra words here and there to bring up to the GA standard. I tried very hard to get the proposer to agree to making these small, but essential changes, even offering suggestions which I believed would be adequate. But the proposer refused to budge though, and didn't offer any acceptable explanation or commitment to resolving the problem areas. I reluctantly had to give up waiting in the end. FishGF (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As a brand-new user, FishGF, you should consider listening to some experienced Wikipedians on this; it's unusual for someone to leap directly into GA reviews and to make that process so contentious. I would recommend that you consider going through the GA reviewer tutoring process here and also consider writing and getting passed a GA of your own before further reviewing. While any editor is welcome to review, it's very difficult to do this well until you have some experience with Wikipedia. Thanks and all best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Khazar2, thanks for the advice; but I think you're wrong to say that I made the process contentious. If you do the research you will see that Martinvl seems to have decided to be confrontational, including making baseless allegations of sock-puppetry against me, even before I had started the review! If you trawl back through his talkpage and contributions history, you might notice, as I have done, that he seems to specialise in stubbornly refusing to compromise or cooperate with other editors. FishGF (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then that's all the more reason for you not to have taken on two of his articles for review as your first-ever Wikipedia edits. I appreciate your desire to contribute, but on Wikipedia as in life, it's generally best to do some work of your own and gain experience before judging that of others; why not take on one of the many articles that need improvement, or sign up for the GA recruitment center to work with some experienced editors? There's plenty of work to be done, so I hope we can all put this review behind us. Best of luck in your future edits, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't know until after the fact what he was up to behind my back - that's the point. I thought reading the policies and guidelines and reviewing a couple of articles would be a good way to learn the ropes before starting to write. I chose two articles to review from areas in which I have not had much previous interest or experience so that I would be working without preconceptions or bias - and thus with an open mind. To be honest though, my treatment here has left me disillusioned. FishGF (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not believe this attempt to imply that you have little interest or experience in the metric system. I stayed current as the GANs progressed and it became clear to me that you zeroed in on these two article because you had your own ideas of what they should cover. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well Binksternet, that personal opinion, coming from someone who less than an hour and a half after I committed to review that article, and after I had written just one sentence about it (which although based on first impressions, I would still stand by after five weeks of reading and re-reading the article), wrote of me: "FishGF appears to lack the skill required of a GA reviewer, so this review will become a community effort rather than the sole responsibility of one GA reviewer.", will, no doubt, be considered by most who read it as a despicable example of bad faith. And that will be my last word on that. FishGF (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear it. All I can say is that like any volunteering, Wikipedia takes time to learn the ropes, and like any volunteering, it's best not to insist that you know those ropes on your first week better than people who have been around for years. You'll find content writing to be a very different experience, and once you've learned how the policies are usually applied (remember, it's not just Martin who strongly disagreed with your interpretations here), you'll be able to return to GA reviewing with new confidence if you choose. I hope you do decide to try your hand at content work but wish you the best either way. This'll be my last post here--cheers, and enjoy the weekend, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for International System of Units
International System of Units has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)