User:Obtund/Samsung

Samsung Galaxy S III[edit]

Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has just been promoted to GA, and I think any remaining issues would be ironed out during this FAC. I'd like to promote it to FA status as quickly as possible. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you have a cat in hell's chance. Your WP:OWN issues meant that it was very difficult to get this article to GA. I suggest you leave the article to develop further with a few more editors providing input before looking for promotion to FA. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Posting rude comments in FA nominations is really poor form. I've just looked at the article's history and talk page and the GA review, and what you claim doesn't seem to be the case (and if it is, take it up at ANI rather than attempt to torpedo a FA nomination). That said, I don't think that the article can be considered stable at the moment given the extent to which it changed during the review; it probably needs a few weeks to settle down. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. While I find your accusation of ownership offensive, I will provide a level-headed perspective from my point of view. During my two and a half years on this site, I have busied myself with the development and maintenance of numerous neglected articles, something I am very proud of. In particular, I had helped promote more than 20 articles to GA status, 2 to FA, and one to FL. During the development of those works, I have never been accused of exhibiting ownership symtoms, although that does not mean I haven't done so; nevertheless, I have been largely successful at promoting articles to GA.

During the GA review, I encountered Obtund, who suggested a lot of improvements to the article, most of which I was happy to apply. There were a minority of the suggestions which I disagreed with, and as I have done before with previous articles, I vehemently voiced my opinions. When you yourself made changes to the article, I was very receptive of it. However, like Obtund, I did not think some of those edits were rational. Some of your edits removed bits of information which contradicted with a discussion we both had a month previously. During this time, you and Obtund began a mass purging of text and references which caused me some concern, but I let it go ahead, although I did restore some of the info removed because I thought Obtund and youself were too caught up in what you were doing (such as the removal of info which should have been included, the consolidation of references that I thought would make claims harder to verify, the several other reference removals [1], [2], [3]). At that time I thought Obtund was editing in bad faith, so, as a first, I threw accusations at him. In retrospect, I realised that what I had done is not in accordance with WP policies, so I offered my apology to Obtund. I have to admit, some of my edits were non-constructive.

If you still think I have been acting in bad faith, I would terminate this FAC immediately, and wait for 5--10 days for others to work on the article. Please note that I have placed a request for a copy edit, but so far, nobody has responded. Out of curiosity, could you tell me who these people that will work on this article might be? During the six weeks, I have only noticed you and Obtund make edits to this article. It's puzzling to me that, with the article essentially complete, I don't know what more is to be done except to nominate the article for FA. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 21:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sp33dyphil, WP:OWN behavior can be defined as many things, but when you challenge 23 out of 56 comments, pretty much anyone would say that is acting like you own the page. An some of the twenty three you challenged me so much with some of them I was about to fail the article. You would challenge me and I would comeback with a reason. But that wasn't good enough, some of them took going back and forth 10 times for you to understand. When I tell you something it is fine to ask for a reason, but when I tell you where it is I should not have to put cherrios on the ground for you to follow to find it, you should be able to look through the article and subpages without me doing it for you. Phil, we had to remove so many sources...there were 217 references, I told you that was way to many and you said that the iPhone 4S was a great example of a overlinked article. I was shocked that 65 references is equal to 217 references. I was asked so many times why I set "110" references to get down to, and I had to tell everyone, "it's like a kid, you have to give them a goal or they will never understand." It was embarrassing that I had to say that. Biker Biker and I were removing references because if we didn't this article would have failed easily. I will not terminate this FAC because I do not believe it is appropriate for the GA reviewer to fail the FAC. On the GOCE front, I tagged it as done because I went through the article with a fine tooth comb after the GA review and there were no issues to be copyedited since I took care of most of them in the GA review. Obtund^Talk 22:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

GA reviewers can't 'terminate' FACs: that's the exclusive responsibility of the FA delegates. If you're going to descend to attacking Phil in this forum, then I'm going to point out that the extent to which you edited the article is highly unusual for a GA reviewer in my experience (even if almost all of these edits were tweaks to references), and I think that you shouldn't have continued with the review once you became involved in it. Your high-handed and rude comments above do you no favours whatsoever. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I note that you claim partial credit for the article's promotion to GA class despite being the reviewer, which is also rather unusual. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Agreed with Nick, the recent history is active and contentious, so waiting a few weeks seems prudent. Would Peer Review work for you, Phil? - Dank (push to talk) 11:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dank. My plan was to get this article to FA by 10 September, but if you think it's in the best interest of the article to have it peer reviewed, I'd withdraw this FAC and put it up for PR for two weeks, and to let the article settle. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So are you withdrawing your nomination? Obtund^Talk 06:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Reviewer Hi I am the one who reviewed this for GA status, and it took almost three weeks to get the article to be GA status. This is way to soon since it was just passed, the article is a bit away from FA status. This is the GA Review. Also, although Biker Biker's comments may be rude, the article had WP:OWN issues, which made almost everything I wrote to be challenged, which upset me and made the review very difficult to be completed. Obtund^Talk 15:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see what is rude about pointing out WP:OWN behaviour. People need to learn. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think saying, "I don't think you have a cat in hell's chance." is kinda rude. Obtund^Talk 20:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but as a motorcyclist I was being positively restrained saying that. Wikipedia is a place for grownups and if the young ones find it difficult being in the team with the big boys then that's their problem, not ours. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Nick is a young one... Obtund^Talk 20:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Biker Biker, the whole 'you have to have a thick skin to edit here' trope which was briefly popular years ago is really uncool now. There's no excuses for being uncivil, and posting stuff like that is pretty silly. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)