| Revision as of 07:03, 26 August 2012 editEustress (talk | contribs)19,429 edits →GA Review: relative, not absolute← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:21, 26 August 2012 edit undoRschen7754 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users123,234 edits →GA ReviewNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :::::I think the definition of a significent contributor for starters would be more than 53 article edits and more than 275 talk edits. Just my 2♮. – Sir ], ]<sup>(])</sup> 06:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC) | :::::I think the definition of a significent contributor for starters would be more than 53 article edits and more than 275 talk edits. Just my 2♮. – Sir ], ]<sup>(])</sup> 06:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::"Significance" is a relative measure, not an absolute one. Amadscientist ranks #1 in terms of talk page edits and #9 in terms of main page edits. That is significant in my opinion. Please don't misinterpret my point... I applaud Amadscientist's zeal, but an uninvolved editor is needed to ensure the integrity of the GAN review. —''''']''''' <sup>'']''</sup> 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC) | ::::::"Significance" is a relative measure, not an absolute one. Amadscientist ranks #1 in terms of talk page edits and #9 in terms of main page edits. That is significant in my opinion. Please don't misinterpret my point... I applaud Amadscientist's zeal, but an uninvolved editor is needed to ensure the integrity of the GAN review. —''''']''''' <sup>'']''</sup> 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::I fully agree that Amadscientist should step aside as the reviewer. --''']]]''' 07:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:21, 26 August 2012
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 05:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I will begin review shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Amadscientist, I recommend you withdraw as the reviewer. WP:GAN states that "you cannot review an article if you... have made significant contributions to it prior to the review," and the count tool identifies you as a top contributor to this article. —Eustress 05:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have only been editing the article since the 15th or 16th and count 23 edits, not amounting to a significant contribution to the article in my opinion. Edits are not additions of content and are edits to the lede for brevity, one header title that changed a few times before it settled and a few edits concerning the return of content since removed. It does not say that an editor that contributes to the article cannot review and most of my contributions are on the talk page where my main activity here has been discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- The edit counter referenced above says you have made 54 edits to the article and a whopping 276 edits to the article's talk page (the most talk page comments of any editor). Please step aside and let an uninvolved editor conduct the GAN review. —Eustress 06:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well thank you for that. But please demonstrate how this makes me a significant contributor in comparison to the other editors now. I would also request you show exactly where the clear definition for what is a "significant contributor" for a GA review.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think the definition of a significent contributor for starters would be more than 53 article edits and more than 275 talk edits. Just my 2♮. – Sir Lionel, EG 06:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Significance" is a relative measure, not an absolute one. Amadscientist ranks #1 in terms of talk page edits and #9 in terms of main page edits. That is significant in my opinion. Please don't misinterpret my point... I applaud Amadscientist's zeal, but an uninvolved editor is needed to ensure the integrity of the GAN review. —Eustress 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I fully agree that Amadscientist should step aside as the reviewer. --Rschen7754 07:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Significance" is a relative measure, not an absolute one. Amadscientist ranks #1 in terms of talk page edits and #9 in terms of main page edits. That is significant in my opinion. Please don't misinterpret my point... I applaud Amadscientist's zeal, but an uninvolved editor is needed to ensure the integrity of the GAN review. —Eustress 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think the definition of a significent contributor for starters would be more than 53 article edits and more than 275 talk edits. Just my 2♮. – Sir Lionel, EG 06:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well thank you for that. But please demonstrate how this makes me a significant contributor in comparison to the other editors now. I would also request you show exactly where the clear definition for what is a "significant contributor" for a GA review.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- The edit counter referenced above says you have made 54 edits to the article and a whopping 276 edits to the article's talk page (the most talk page comments of any editor). Please step aside and let an uninvolved editor conduct the GAN review. —Eustress 06:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have only been editing the article since the 15th or 16th and count 23 edits, not amounting to a significant contribution to the article in my opinion. Edits are not additions of content and are edits to the lede for brevity, one header title that changed a few times before it settled and a few edits concerning the return of content since removed. It does not say that an editor that contributes to the article cannot review and most of my contributions are on the talk page where my main activity here has been discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)