User talk:Darkfrog24/Archive 1

Chemotherapy cocktail may stimulate rejuvenation of ova in adult women

Hi. Fortunately nothing bad came of it in this case, but, please don't edit the article while it's {{under review}}. (In fact, I quite agree with both edits you made; it's not just a matter of potential edit conflicts, though, it can be confusing, not to say frustrating, to immerse oneself in an article for in-depth review only to have it shift under one's metaphorical feet.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Haven't seen you in a couple years Pi zero. How've you been? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Cooking up something to try to rescue... well, when I started I thought I was trying to rescue Wikinews from neglect by the Foundation, but now I've come to the Awful Realization I'm trying to rescue the entire sisterhood from misjudgments by the Foundation. I'd finally given up on Wikipedia, whose problems I figured were just too big for me so I'd stick to something more modest (yeah, that didn't work out quite how I'd envisioned). (From a quick glance at your en.wp user talk, I think I shouldn't ask how things are going for you over there.) Anyway, to the point.

The article avoids a whole lot of problems that first-time contributors over here often have. The current draft does need work; see my review comments (and, of course, detailed history of edits during review; some of that is personal preference, some not so much). --Pi zero (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Heh, if you've seen my user talk, then you already know. Let's talk about you.

What's the sisterhood? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

{{sisterprojects}}. My understanding of the terminology is that a "sister" cuts across languages (or I'm just wrong about that) — so there are only about a dozen sisters, lots of languages, and the number of projects is something less than the product of those two numbers. --Pi zero (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

So you think that the Wikimedia Foundation is misjudging the Wikipedias, Wikinews, Wiktionary and other projects? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the Foundation is under a number of deep misapprehensions about the sisters, yes. Starting with the relationship between the Foundation and the sisters; it's there to find in the wording of the mission, iirc, but words are what you make of them. The Foundation does not share with the volunteers a mission of educating the world; the Foundation is not responsible for information providing, that's the volunteer's job; the Foundation's job is to empower the volunteers to be information providers. The volunteers come to participate in information providing By the People; it's about ordinary human beings having a voice in the information flow. The thing that makes that possible is wiki markup; I go into that some in User:Pi zero/essays/vision/sisters. The Foundation keeps trying to centralize control of everything, which is directly at odds both with the grassroots, bottom-up nature of the wikis, and with the Foundation's proper mission of empowering the volunteers. The Foundation has this robustly constructed, self-consistent set of answers for everything — including why participation in Wikipedia was going up and up until right about the time the Foundation finished getting set up and kicked its agenda into high gear (this is when the position of Executive Director was filled), after which the volunteer communities have shrunk. --Pi zero (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I really need to develop an elevator speech for that stuff. :-P  --Pi zero (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think membership took a hit? These days I see a lot of people citing increasingly hostile environments, and one guy I know IRL says that's to be expected whenever an online project hits critical mass. I agree, but I think part of it might also be the economy. During the mid-aughts, there was a whole generation of highly educated people starved for intellectual activity who had nothing better to do, but now that the job market's picked up, there are more people willing to pay them for their time, so off they went. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘

Ah, cause of membership decline. I'll take a stab at that, below... after explaining why I think it's the wrong question.

The Foundation has this mindset it's got stuck in; asking certain questions that lock in required assumptions is part of it. I even know better and yet find myself naturally drawn into the game of asking these questions. The Foundation by asking why the membership decline skips glibly over questions of what their role is, what the volunteers' role is, and why the membership ever grew in the first place. I see the Foundation failing to understand any of those things, and once they've got those basics wrong there's no way they can choose right actions. Why did the sisterhood succeed in the first place? Mainly two things: idealism and wiki markup; the Foundation has been undermining the first through not understanding it, and the second through failing to understand its importance and instead trying to move away from it.

Saying this sort of membership decline happens whenever a project reaches a critical mass is completely begging the question of why. Various excuses can be offered, but I do maintain that a crucial factor is a form of Conway's Law: the Foundation is a centralized, top-down organization and creates software reflecting this, which fundamentally fails to meet the needs of the inherently distributed, bottom-up wiki contributor base. Also, the idealism that is crucial to motivating the volunteers is based on the perception that the wikis are information-providing "by the People", and the Foundation seems to think it should be a sort of cheerleader for the wikis but the more it cheerleads the more it destroys the appearance that the wikis are a grass-roots movement and thereby undermines the idealism that is the core source of volunteerism for the projects. It's also, btw, supremely ironic that one of the greatest goods done by Wikipedia was to stem the tide of rampant propaganda on the internet, yet the Foundation's cheerleading has gone systemic so that the Foundation is now itself a source of propaganda. While we're listing reasons for declining membership, I agree that sour social atmosphere (aka "increasingly hostile environments") is also involved, and would add that the principle of AGF, with its surrounding supporting principles of civility and etiquette, have nurtured the problem.

Btw, congrats! You're a published journalist on Wikinews. --Pi zero (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

So you're crediting the Wikipedia interface, as opposed to something like the new visual editor, with helping Wikipedia grow. Because ...you think it's accessible? Because it's accessible only to certain people? And you think the Foundation should be a lot more hands-off? And you think that AGF made things worse ...by allowing certain people to get away with things?

Oh no, the person I know said that the environment becomes hostile when projects reach critical mass.

Awesome!! That oughtta look good on the ol' block appeal. I don't think they were too impressed with my translating the Euryarchaota subcategory into Spanish. That's not-in-English twice over. And here I was ready to give you the old "Oh well. It's nothing personal" speech. Wikinews seems scant on micro and cell biology coverage in any case. I see a niche here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm hesitating to get into the wiki markup issue (because it's such a time sink), and as usual that probably means it'll all come out backwards in dribs and drabs so my position won't end up in its best light. But yes, wiki markup is crucial to the success of the wikis. No software that isn't based on plain text can have real flexibility or real permanence to it; programming languages still use plain text after people have been trying for half a century to make a go of "visual programming languages". And wiki markup is extraordinarily easy — compared to the alternatives; yes things can be done to make it easier to use, but to do so without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs you have to understand why it's worked so well. Part of that is that even the most casual edit — a spelling correction, which as I recall was my first wiki edit — causes the user to see wiki markup that others have written; there's not much to it, and what there is, users tend to pick up by osmosis through constant exposure. Except, of course, that VE systematically deprives users of that exposure and thereby prevents them from learning. While the introduction of other languages such as Lua and javascript (not that I don't think Lua a very nice little procedural language, reminds me of an old-time VW beetle) simply locks ordinary wiki users out of infrastructure development, the sort of centralization I'd expect to be favored by a centralized organization like the Foundation. It's all killing the wiki volunteer community by inches.

AGF. The best thing I can say about AGF is that it's idealistic. Not a small thing to say; idealism is the one thing that can motivate passionate volunteerism. I remember when I first registered at Wikipedia and was presented with (tbh) vastly more rules regulations principles help pages and whatnot than I could possibly read, but quickly sorted out AGF as a key principle. I thought, wow, this is totally unrealistic; this is insane, pie-in-the-sky idealism — count me in. It took me several years to fully grok AGF (discovering WP:ZEN was a milestone), and by then I was so indoctrinated that, when I finally got past Wikibooks (where I was a bit concerned to find they'd never officially adopted AGF, though they treated it as generally recommended) to Wikinews where AGF was actively rejected, I thought that was as crazy as I had originally thought AGF was. After a few years here I understood that the reasons Wikinews gets along as well as it does without AGF are things about news writing that differ from encyclopedic writing, but I was still trying to be tolerant about Wikipedians, I guess, by taking the position that AGF was right for Wikipedia even though it was manifestly wrong for Wikinews (eventually we wrote down what had been done here for years, at WN:Never assume). Until finally I admitted that AGF doesn't work on Wikipedia, either. My short-list of problems with AGF was that (1) if taken literally, it says to assume something, which is a bad thing to teach to information providers; (2) if taken for what it actually means — cf. WP:ZEN — it says to say something different than one means, which is also bad to teach to information providers; and (3) people who don't mean well (in one sense or another) can learn to use it as first a shield and then a weapon, defending themselves by requiring others to AGF, and needling others until their victims are provoked into reacting in a way that gets their victims into trouble from failing to AGF. What one does instead is, I freely admit, difficult to work out; it doesn't seem to me that WN:Never assume in its form here would work there, but just what would work there I don't know (and I don't immediately see a path that would lead en.wp to exchange AGF for something else). --Pi zero (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Aleppo evacuation resumes after claims of weapon smuggling, roadblocks

Alas. Heavily covered developing stories tend to be a difficult fit for the Wikinews workflow model; I remember when Mubarak was overthrown we had an appallingly difficult time covering it (there was little review labor available at the time while the article would repeatedly lose freshness in a matter of hours due to further dramatic developments). In the aftermath of the Mubarak overthrow I put some thought into how we could better cover such things, but I never really came up with much of a solution, and we have more basic infrastructural challenges that I felt/feel need to be addressed first (and that I've been pouring my time into for pretty much all the time since then). --Pi zero (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I imagine this would be less of a problem if Wikinews got more foot traffic. Still, I came into this with a win-some-lose-some approach. If the article on Aleppo has aged out then it's aged out. At least we got all those nice comments about the electoral college article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I remember after the first of the Romney-Obama debates — the one everyone agreed Romney had won, and Republicans crowed about it while Democrats said it was simply because Romney had lied his ass off from start to finish, which Obama hadn't had a prepared strategy to counter — we wrote a (rather minor) article on it, and someone commented that they were being required to write a paper about it for school, and having searched on the subject, they said, we had the only neutral article about that debate on the entire internet. :-P  Moments like that do encourage us to keep going.

One of the regular long-time Wikinewsies (Bddpaux) regularly advises prospective Wikinews contributors to be willing to let an article go — "don't marry the article", I think he once put it — write it, submit it, and move on. Your willingness to win some and lose some (which sounds a very healthy attitude, to me) may help explain why you've been doing fairly well here. --Pi zero (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well yes and no one has filed any heavily falsified complaints about me to WN's equivalent of AE or laid down a sanction without telling me what I supposedly did. That helps immensely.

The impression I'm getting is that Wikinews concerns the news in some way but is not about journalism as it is generally understood. With journalism, it is accepted that there will be some editorializing, but that doesn't seem to fly here. There's also less tolerance for the elements of writing as art that we would see in news features. This is more like Factcheck.org than like any newspaper I've seen. The service that it provides to the reader is very different. If something's tripping up new users, that might be it. They think they're supposed to write news articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Had to look that one up. Arbitration enforcement? As in ArbCom? Sounds like Secret Police.

This is news. Hard news, as opposed to soft news. We resist some trends in current msm, including a blurring of the line between reporting and editorializing. Cf. [1]. --Pi zero (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes it feels that way.

Yes, but "hard news" can still have funnel openings or start with a detail and has a variety of writing styles, some of them quite artistic. If those are trends, they're trends that have been holding for literally centuries. This is a lot more uniform. And editorializing isn't remotely new. If anything, the 20th century saw a decline in the practice (you should have seen what they were printing in the 1770s). Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the ideal of objective news has never existed perfectly (of course, perfection never does), and broadly speaking the closest things have come to that ideal was in the twentieth century. Sure. Wikinews represents a unique strategy at the intersection of journalism and wiki, resulting in something that has some unusual properties as journalism and some unusual properties as wiki. Offering, if I may say, some needed input into the blend of the journalism world, and some needed input into the blend of the wiki world. We grapple with many of the same journalistic challenges as the big msm outlets, and many of the same wiki challenges as the biggest wikis. Other "citizen journalism" efforts with fewer ideals have come and gone while we continue forward. --Pi zero (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I am under the impression that Wikinews doesn't have much readership, that people who get their news from Project Wiki do so through Wikipedia instead. Are there any metrics on this? Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
On one hand, one of the evils of commercial news is to care more about readership than quality. It's good that google news recognizes Wikinews as a news site rather than a blog (thus, in the same class as AlJaz, BBC, AFP, etc. rather than, say, Wikipedia), but I take that as evidence of google being right about something rather than as some sort of needed validation for us. What we do would be valid even if google were to get that wrong. I don't often bother to dig into such statistics; I recall a theory suggested a while back that we may get more traffic from our Facebook page than from gnews, anyway. I don't know all that much about facebook statistics, and don't have access to very much since facebook decided a few years ago that I wasn't human unless I had a desire to give them my phone number, which I found an especially offensive demand from them because they were pretending their reason for asking was about verification rather than advertising (I took that to be essentially a lie and I have much contempt for liars); but I do note, at this writing, our Facebook page says near the top, "119,097 people like this". Somewhere in there we've migrated from one hand toward the other hand, which would be actual numbers. One can, once stats become available following whatever technical delays, get a general sense of article view stats by looking on the article's history page, near the top where it says "External tools: Page view statistics". According to which, for example, our recent article Hijackers divert Libyan passenger jet to Malta got 489 hits yesterday. I see in that no evidence that our readership is dropping off. --Pi zero (talk) 12:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I share your contempt for liars. I was trying to return an item to a store once, receipt in my hand and they kept demanding my phone number. I was all, "I don't want you to call me." "We won't." "Then why do you want my phone number?"

I mean this more along the lines of "Yeah, but is anyone reading this?" Does Wikinews serve the public, the way that we know Wikipedia serves the public? There's also the questioof whether Wikinews is redundant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikinews is definitely not redundant; there's nothing else like it, we produce output and training that nobody else does. Yes, Wikinews does a public service, in both those aspects. Btw, also in the area of stats I don't have at my fingertips, I recall a (now former) Wikinewsie had some impressive statistics on the use of our archives, which get a lot of traffic. --Pi zero (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

There is another aspect to this, btw. I was just making the point that we now provide a valuable public service. There's also the question of our potential. I see the potential for Wikinews to become something that can transform the human condition in as profound a way as (but, of course, differently than) Wikipedia has done. To bring about a vast effect from merely human actions requires a vision of the dynamics of things, where small inputs will have large long-term consequences; determination; and a willingness to persevere despite ridicule because there's no way to prove one is right except after the fact. I'm inclined to immerse myself in the subtle dynamics of a system and find my way to the point from which the behavior of the whole system can be tuned (recalling the punchline of an old joke, "knowing where to tap"). One thing I don't know how to do, thus far, is succinctly explain my vision, or the means by which I'm pursuing it, alas; I do note that what I'm doing seems to me fundamentally not something a centralized org like the WMF would be capable of doing, and my inability to succinctly articulate seems consistent with that — a big centralized organization wants plans, all laid out carefully ahead of time, and therefore about the most alien thing for such an org would be a development effort that inherently cannot be foreseen, requiring improvisation every step of the way. --Pi zero (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to ridicule your efforts here. That's not what I meant at all. But as you've probably guessed, I wouldn't be here if I hadn't been blocked from Wikipedia or if my work at es.wiki had been recognized as valuable, and I'm getting an early start on collecting the information to use to decide whether and how much to continue at Wikinews after the block is lifted. I enjoy the collaboration that we have on project Wiki and I like the contribution that it makes to the accessibility of human knowledge, but whether the articles are read by the public vs. whether we're just entertaining each other (and there's nothing wrong with that) makes a difference. Like anyone who went through standard schooling, I spent years writing essays and reports that were going to be read once and thrown away. It seems that a least a few people read these articles, at least right now.

Don't worry too much about explaining the vision. The plan is that I'm here at least until March. I wouldn't mind talking more about your ideas, but I expect I'll pick a little of it up as I go. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I do understand (and do not take ill) you washed up here because you couldn't get your wikimedian fix from Wikipedia atm. I didn't take your remarks as ridicule; I would not expect that of you, as I recall our disagreements at WP:MOS as quite respectful. My intended point was simply that participation on Wikinews sometimes entails taking some flak for it, as does pursuit of any project with a long lead-time. --Pi zero (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Good to know. There have been too many misunderstandings lately. After all that time at WP:MoS and WP:COPYEDIT, I've got quite a high tolerance for putting effort into things that others do not appreciate (or, if done well, never notice). Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate article

There's an article on the review queue about Debbie Reynolds. --Pi zero (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. I only checked the development page. Fast work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Newsroom has sections for everything prior to publication, if it's refreshed.

Zanimum was writing an article about "Debbie Reynolds hospitalized", then at 2:04UTC renamed it with "Debbie Reynolds dies". Though I'm too tired to do a review tonight, so either someone else picks it up or it waits eight, nine hours or more. --Pi zero (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Nine hours. Whatever shall we do? Wikinews does have more than two reviewers, right? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I recall Gryllida, Bddpaux, and RockerballAustralia doing reviews within the past... few months? Review labor shortfall is a basic imbalance in the dynamic equation of Wikinews, central in my thinking about project infrastructure. --Pi zero (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I like the term "limiting reagent." Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That's quite good, yes. --Pi zero (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Shall I tag this duplicate article for deletion? The other one is pending review. --George Ho (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Might be best if I did it. How does the tag work? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Since intent was clearly expressed here, I took care of it (with sufficient info in the edit description for someone to reconstruct the grounds for deletion). The template would be {{delete}}, anything that clearly expressed the grounds for the request would do in such a situation (e.g., {{delete|author request}}). If you want it undeleted for some reason, of course, we can do that. --Pi zero (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Nah. I transplanted most of the good stuff to the other one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Relative date

Here's what I recommend: When using the term "today" or "yesterday" in an article (or "tomorrow", though we use that a lot less), embed an html comment after it naming the weekday. Such as

Yesterday<!-- On Thursday -->,

This makes it vastly easier for reviewers (and anyone else editing things) to keep track of which day is actually meant as time passes. It's useful not only in case the article doesn't get published the same day it's written, but also, even if it is published the same day, when making it a lead on the main page one edits the lede to use a day of the week rather than "today" or "yesterday" and this makes it much easier to remember to do that and to get it right. --Pi zero (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw a couple of those. Didn't know what they were for. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Election article

....please see my review comments. --Bddpaux (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

{{under review}}

BRS has the Obama farewell address article tagged {{under review}}. Just to note. --Pi zero (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that about a second after the edit conflict. Really have been watching for that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It happens :) BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Need help on "At least 26 killed in another Brazil prison riot"

Hey, Darkfrog. I need your assistance on "At least 26 killed in another Brazil prison riot". I haven't yet submitted a request for review. I hope you can help me on this. Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What does it need? Copyedit? Sourcing? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Knock, knock.

A team barnstar for you! A total of seven news articles were published on January 18, 2017, including yours! Cheers.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 10:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

THANKS! THIS IS SO NICE! Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC) @AGastya: ...is it okay if I fix the typo? I want to display the thing on my userpage and I don't want you to be embarassed. If you don't care, just don't respond. It's just a "yous" instead of "yours." Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess the problem is solved now. I feel like Woody.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 05:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump inaugurated as 45th U.S. president

Was wondering if you are going to write about the story. There is a chance somebody else might jump to contribute to the article, use {{editing}} template. And it seems, AlvaroMolina is writing the same story on other page.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 19:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Replyto I plan to write more when I'm done with my work, but I absolutely don't mind if someone builds on what I've already written, even if it ends up looking completely different. As for duplicate pages, that's the nature of the Wikibeast. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It is the {{ping}} template. When I edited your article, I felt there is a chance of edit conflict, that's why I notified you.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 19:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump inaugurated as 45th U.S. president‎ and Donald Trump assumes as the new U.S. president‎

Hi, I noticed that you were writing the article Donald Trump inaugurated as 45th U.S. president, however, I did not notice and also accidentally created another article «Donald Trump assumes as the new U.S. president‎». I would like to know if you want me to integrate what I have written to your article or conversely. I wait your answer. Regards. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 19:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Sorry if my English is not good.

1) I have absolutely no problem if you want to incorporate your stuff into the article that I started or copy text from the article I started into yours. Yours already has sources.

2) The inauguration is such a big story that there could be more than one article. The one I started could be deleted or shifted to focus on just one part of the inauguration, like the protesters.

Mainly, I was worried that Wikinews wouldn't cover this at all. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I will integrate what I have written in your article, yours also has the advantage of being written in a more fluent English and perhaps mine is not the case. Likewise, these things often happen when one does not look at recent changes. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 19:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

As you have mentioned on your userpage that you have es-2 degree of understanding, Darkfrog24, you and AlvaroMolina can translate from Spanish Wikinews and add more information to the story. I think there will be a good long article about the event. Good luck to both!
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 19:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

How about...

Why do we have two articles (Trump inauguration draws protesters, peaceful and otherwise and Donald Trump inaugurated as 45th U.S. president? I was thinking why not include the reaction to the inauguration article? It can provide the readers overall idea rather than going to the second story to find out. Finally, it is up to you, but /I/ feel one article describing it can also be okay.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 13:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Because they're about two different things. One is about the inauguration in general and the other one is about the protesters. Look at the New York Times or any other major publication. They have more than one article about the inauguration, all focusing on different parts of the day.

This discussion is best made on one or more of the collaboration pages of those articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree there is slight difference in the focus. But it can be included to the other article without losing most of the information and quality. I know that there are so many US based websites, which displays inauguration, protest, reaction, opinions, polls, ... And the same case is with some non American news websites like BBC and The Moscow Times which is kind of annoying because the whole home page of their website is filled with that news and I need to scroll down, make some clicks to find news about other ongoing events. Ah, lot of personal opinions for those websites. Well, I left the message on your talk because you are the author of this article, and co-author of that one. Finally, it is up to you.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 05:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You have a new message

--Svetlana Tkachenko / Gryllida (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Review trough

Alas. Standing back from the details that appear to govern these things in specific cases, it's a very familiar pattern that when we have a big spike in review, as last week with those seven publications in one day, there's likely to be a trough in review activity for a while afterward. Sorry the innauguration-protest article hasn't gotten more prompt attention. :-S  --Pi zero (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Just breathe, remember that you're a volunteer, and think of those dandelion summer slow news days. Hey, maybe Trump will turn out to be a dull and sensible leader and leave us nothing to do but report on scientists making laser-activated ferrets this time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There's been some unfortunate coincidences, too; the use of Spanish sources kept me out of one review, the protests made sense to be published after, and other times stuff has been reviewable have conflicted with Real Life. (I think we should think big, as Trump would have; if he's been quiet and sensible, let's have laser-activated rhinos.) BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

We do have a Category:Rhinoceros, whereas it looks like we've only got one article on ferrets (from 2007). --Pi zero (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering if you would like to write about "Mexico's President Pena Nieto calls off Trump meeting".
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 17:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

If you start it I'll swing by. I don't know how much time I'm going to have. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I will finish German teenager sentenced six years for stabbing police officer in some time, and then, if you are not editing the Peña Nieto article, I would add something to it too. I would suggest using {{editing}} template to avoid editing conflicts.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 15:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion

Thanks a lot for your suggestion. I will surely take that into consideration. Krishna Kaasyap (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Spaces

I have noticed you use two spaces after the period, like typing of a typewriter. We don't use it online. If you want to remove multiple spaces, copy this importScript('User:Agastya Chandrakant/space.js'); to your Common JS page. You will find a link under the Tools section on the left-hand side, which reads Space fix. That will take care of the spaces.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 18:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of removing double spaces, as I see it as losing information (there's no equally simple way to put the spaces back by looking at the text, so it must be losing information). But, we know I first developed the habit of two spaces after a sentence-end by first learning to type on a typewriter (doesn't make it a bad idea, but that is where I picked it up). So I really wonder about the correlation with online culture. I do expect that if the software didn't fail by treating multiple spaces as if they were single spaces, the use of two spaces between sentences would be much more alive and well than it is. --Pi zero (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Is that what all those edits of yours marked "spaces" are for? Thank heck. I thought I was leaving vertical space and then forgetting about it. The Wikicode is actually rendered the same way. Check this out. There is one space after this sentence. And there are two after this one. Use your select function as you roll over. Don't they render the same?

In fact, adding or removing a double space is often used as a dummy edit (when you want to add an edit note but not the edit itself). I prefer two spaces, but if they irk you, I don't mind if you remove them. It's six to one half a dozen to the other. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

They are rendered the same way, yes. The fact that they're rendered that way seems substantially responsible for the decline of the two-space sentence separator. Like you I prefer two, finding it easier to read the raw text (where it is visible); but yeah, I wouldn't consider it worth raising a fuss about. --Pi zero (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I know that only one side is displayed, but that increases the size of the page. Since the two space is visible in the source only, it would not be useful until somebody is using the source, that to in wiki markup. Whatever it may be, it was never my primary reason to built the script. Darkfrog24, just because I remove it does not mean I am against it out I find it annoying.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 07:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Size as in file size and load time on slow connections or size as in just how much space it takes up on your screen? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Pacing

I'm doing this here because I want to talk to both of you. @Pi zero: @Blood Red Sandman:

Do you want me to slow down? I'm having a good time covering American politics and the occasional laser mouse but there is a lot of it. Sometimes even something that we do for fun can feel like an obligation, and not everyone needs that right now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, you can see the rate at which I'm addressing your articles. This Yemen article (now on its last day) is proving very challenging; I think in this case you may have underestimated the level of uncertainty and confusion in the story. In practice this article looks to take up all my review attention for two days. --Pi zero (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay. You can imagine me taking notes here. Basically I don't want to turn off other contributors by monopolizing the review team. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with BRS that it's good to have a collection of articles in the archives providing wider coherent coverage. Atm, though, since we have an article by a Wikinewsie who hasn't been around much lately, I'm reviewing that, with the unfortunate consequence your two queued articles are sliding later. With the weather where I am sapping some of my time/energy/attention, I seem to be getting about one full review in a day. --Pi zero (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Alas and alack. I missed reviewing today entirely; I did a neat ballpark estimate that I moved about five tons of snow, but I really mean to also review that other article. I noticed you updated it, but, I think something more would be needed; I'm going to take a look now. --Pi zero (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it would need some sort of update. :S --Pi zero (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflictx2) I've been neglecting enwn recently, and I know I have. I consider a bulk of US politics articles much more valuable to the archive than simply a sum of the parts contained. Hopefully tonight or tomorrow I'll dig in again. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. One of the things I wanted to know was whether I was spending too much time on redundant articles. I imagine Wikipedia is covering Trump extensively. They're less likely to cover the laser mice.

And as that came out of my fingers I realized how dumb it sounded. I just checked. No we don't cover the laser mice on Wikipedia but we totally would. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

North Korea

Good grief, but that story is seriously moving. --Pi zero (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a nice change, but I wouldn't want them all to be like this. There's not much new information yet.

At least I finally managed to write a short one. It's got almost only two sources and everything. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's actually pushing our minimal length (a bit shy on total text volume, relative to our standard rule of thumb). And yet, in so little text, manages to dredge up some of the murkiest, messiest lexical-neutrality issues around :P.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Erk. In the end I just wasn't comfortable with the length on that item. --Pi zero (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

As hope springs eternal, I still hope I might find a review in me tonight; if so I hope to do the North Korean item. I notice you added to the white supremacist article, giving it a good safety margin over minimum; at this point, though, on Wikinews (which keeps UTC) it's Sunday, making the article appear to be four days old. I usually treat the outer end of the 2–3 freshness threshold as measuring from local date of event to Wikinews date of publication, because that's what's readily visible in the article: if published at this point it would say "this happened on Wednesday" (which is local time) and "this was published on Sunday" (which is Wikinews time), and that sounds like four days even though less it's less than 96 hours elapsed. I see there's something more expected on Tuesday. --Pi zero (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Limited reviewer resources and otherwise publishable articles timing out are nature of the beast on Wikinews. Given the sources and context, shouldn't the number of days elapsed take into account in which time zone the event took place? If Pence gives a speech at 9:00 p.m. on Monday in Washington D.C., it should count as Tuesday for UTC timeout purposes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If Mike Pence gives a speech, it's likely to be so well covered that the article may go stale faster. Freshness is a complex issue. (I'd best not spend a lot of time discussing it just now. Btw, have I remarked how much I appreciate the embedded sourcing comments, on these many-source articles such as the NK one can't help being after focal shifting?) --Pi zero (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The Mike Pence bit was just an example of something likely to happen in the eastern U.S. Let's say that anything Mike Pence does at 9:00 a.m. in Washington D.C. should be considered five hours fresher than anything he did at 9:00 a.m. in Greenwich (and yes he could get there that fast if they brought back supersonic flight, and given that this would be over the ocean it shouldn't be a problem). Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course it was just an example; and I was just using the example as an occasion to remark this subject is very fraught. No way I can cover much of it now. A few small remarks, then. Yes, my formula skews things by timezone, giving more time east of Greenwich, less west of Greenwich. How old an article feels matters to freshness, and by the time an article is that long in the tooth, the biggest feature visible in the vicinity on the psychological landscape is likely the transition from apparently-three-days-after to apparently-four-days-after. Which makes that transition a good fixed reference point for navigation in that vicinity. --Pi zero (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

I recommend a gadget we provide under "User interface gadgets", called "Underline in green categorizable {{w}} links". By making it obvious when a link is localized by the template, it suggests categories to consider adding; for example, viewing this white supremacist article through the gadget, the existence of a local category for the FBI leaps out. --Pi zero (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Where do I find it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Special:Preferences, Gadgets tab, under "User interface gadgets"; atm it's fifth from the bottom of that section. (We have a lot of clutter in our gadgets list; I suspect most of them don't even work, but checking that gadget-by-gadget would be a mess.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Found it. ...wow. That is annoying as hell. I'll try it out for a while. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Lol. I wonder if I felt that way when I first started using it? Nowadays operating with out it feels like flying blind. --Pi zero (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

When you told me about it I figured it would show up in the text editing window and not the shut up I'm trying to read window. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Some conceivably-of-interest background about the motive for {{w}}; I don't think I've described this to you (if I have, well, score another for absent-mindedness). When I came to Wikinews, amongst the systemic problems I found were the following snarl:

• Although local policy says to wikilink locally when a local target is available in preference to targets on Wikipedia (or other sister projects), actually doing it was finicky, tedious, error-prone work — determining for each keyword whether or not there was a local target, and coding [[target]] if there was, [[w:target|]] if not — frankly an absurd burden to put on an article author whose hands should be quite full worrying about content. In practice the practical thing, even for experienced Wikinewsies, was to use local links for countries and US states (because one could be sure those were all locally available) and Wikipedia links for everything else. Reviewers too had more than enough to worry about without such nonsense, so the problem tended not to get fixed during review, either.
• If a new category were created, providing a local target for previously non-local wikilinks, finding the links to be localized would be a big, messy task, far worse than finding all the articles in our archives that should go in the new category (which could be messy in itself). This discouraged creation of new categories.
• Following the creation of a new category, later published articles that ought to be in that new category would only get added if somebody remembered the category was there. Typically, this meant the person responsible for creation of the category would add new articles to it for a while, and then the category would have increasingly spotty coverage after its creator forgot or moved on. Which further discouraged the creation of new categories.
• All these things together meant that most links went to Wikipedia; few local targets and fewer linked to. A project whose wikilinks aren't local subtly fails to feel like a real project. Ideally, a reader should be able to wander about for as long as their attention lasts, and each link they click on will take them to another place on the project. The prevalence of Wikipedia links was a drain on the project identity, and thus community cohesiveness, of Wikinews.

Despite the interconnections, what all these difficulties really have in common is the simple device to fix them. A template, {{w}}, that automatically checks for a local target and links to it if available or to a sister project otherwise, and uses hidden categories to document which was done. The author can just use {{w}} for everything (or, if they prefer, when in doubt). Non-local links automagically divert to a new category once its mainspace redirect is created. Because {{w}} flags its local links, article curators can, sooner or later, consider each one to decide whether the article ought to be added to the targeted category, and then replace the {{w}} with a hard local link so it's removed from the list. New categories are reliably populated as time goes on (provided the categories were chosen to be the targets of keywords likely to be linked). The discouragements to category creation are mitigated, so that over time the number of local targets available increases. Ultimately, the proportion of local links increases dramatically, and the project subtly feels more cohesive. --Pi zero (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Good to know. I thought the {{w|whatever}} thing only sent things to the 'pedia. That is a good tool and far less irritating. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer status

I was kind of hoping I'd get to your article this evening after all; I keep telling myself it's important not to "apologize" for not getting to a review on a volunteer project, but I do admit I'm disappointed I didn't get to it. --Pi zero (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

And if we miss it, some other new craziness will take place, and I'll write an article about that. There's no Wikilaw saying you can't have other stuff to do or even, heck, just not feel like it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

spaceflight article

Unfortunately the article had to be deleted as blatant copyvio. I'm about to write a note to the contributor. --Pi zero (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh darn it. Well that happens with newbs. Ask the guy where the sources were. No reason we can't put together a new one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

A new contributor posts material with no sources, polished prose showing characteristics of news such as a lede sentence, but missing basic characteristics of Wikinews (and even, of wiki) formatting. Plenty of warning signs, there. I've found there is often no malice in it, just an unawareness of what one ought to be doing (and ought not to be doing). --Pi zero (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

While you're here, I've got something that's scheduled to start the middle of this coming week, so I might not be around so much. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Redundant redirects

Insight, from an incident just now: If you rename an article during its development, and wish to nominate the redirect for speedy deletion, put the {{delete}} template below the #redirect line, rather than above. That way the redirect still works. I just had to deal with an (apparently) confused IP who got derailed looking for information on Wikinews about the Kim Jong Nam story when they washed up at the deletion-nominated page and thought it meant our article on the subject had been deleted. (Yes, getting to the deletion more promptly would have avoided the problem too; just figuring the more prevention measures the better.) --Pi zero (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I didn't know it made a difference. Darkfrog24 (talk)

Sessions article

Fwiw, I'd hoped to tackle this right after lunch, and then just before lunch a minor crisis irl called me away. I doubt I'll be able to get to it before midnight UTC, which (unless another reviewer comes along) means either I tackle it this evening (after midnight UTC) or tomorrow morning (after 1200 UTC). --Pi zero (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'll see if I can find time to check the outlets for new developments before you hit the review.

We're actually in the same time zone. You don't have to say UTC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, UTC (1) is the time kept by Wikinews; midnight UTC is when the visible date of publication changes, in this case from Friday to Saturday (which is why if I'd seen a shot at getting it published before then, I would have taken it). (2) keeps me oriented to the globe (I recall Joseph Campbell had some things to say about this sort of outward focus). (3) avoids deeply confusing tangles since we do interact with people in lots of different time zones. --Pi zero (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Series of little crises and distractions here. You got this submitted in an admirably timely manner and I fumbled, repeatedly. But it did get out the door. --Pi zero (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Life is going to be life. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Royal Commission article

Oops. Sorry. I was writing a quick review, and should have known better than to do so without first marking the article as {{under review}}.

Btw, as a matter of curiosity — in case you hadn't deduced what was going on — we've evidently got another UoW class coming through. Generally there's first a trickle of new user accounts created with names with "uow" in them; then more accounts created and a few students get an early start on submitting articles (often needing some basic guidance on the pillars); and then at some point lots of students submitting, typically most of them at some particular time of week, which may reflect when the class meets. --Pi zero (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

University of Wollongong? This is a little new to me for "another" to apply. Do they have a relationship with Wikinews? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

David Blackall (first-listed author of [2]). Cf. Category:UoW. --Pi zero (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The class may be Monday morning (in Australia) this semester; there seem to be a lot of submissions materializing. Looks as if when I wake up in the morning there may be a bunch more; I'm thinking I should take a look at yours (and Ssr's) before spending much time on whatever accumulates overnight. --Pi zero (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of hitting the six-month mark before requesting reviewer status. You think I should go early? And the Kim Jong Nam article is basically "here's what's happened since last time." NBD to bump that back a couple days or punt it to development until the next thing happens. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Deciding when to apply for reviewer status can be a tricky thing. It's guaranteed to be idiosyncratic. In my case... well, when I applied the standards were different. Time was, reviewer was sometimes given out to folks who really weren't ready to do full reviews yet; we don't do that anymore, after we had some problems with someone who was really meant to use the review bit just to sight interwikis, and then... I don't remember exactly what went wrong, but, we're more cautious now. Anyway, when I went for reviewer, I basically said at my nomination I felt I understood the project well enough to not use the review bit for full reviews before I was ready to. And the community accepted that. I think the first full review I did was about half a year later. Iirc it was much longer than that before I undertook to review an OR article, as I wasn't confident I grokked that aspect of things. And of course I was the one who started the water-cooler thread that eventually led to page WN:Tips on reviewing articles. The point was that there wasn't any guidance on how to review; I still don't feel there's as much, or as good, as there should be, and the last time we gave someone the review bit, they used it once to review an article and never again, which might just be distraction from other projects... but I wonder if they just found it too difficult/scary. It is scary.

I was thinking about whether I should offer a suggestion here about what aspect of review you should be most cautious about, but, you know, when I tried to imagine that in my head it just sounded so overbearing. (The thing about "no self-review" is too obvious, and beyond that, well.)

At any rate, when you feel you're ready, I suspect you'll have no problem getting in... though it may prove desirable to leave the nomination open for a while, depending on the number of active Wikinewsies who drop in on it. --Pi zero (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Fwiw, I've reviewed and published the Kim Jong Nam article. I'd rather not waste an article that's by an experienced Wikinewsie and therefore very unlikely to have any fundamental problem (other perhaps than staleness if left too long) that would actually prevent publication; as opposed to articles by folks who haven't got their sea legs yet.

(I looked back over the 'Tips' page, and found it's better on the big-picture issues than I'd remembered; I guess I'd forgotten how many times it's gotten tweaked over the past several years as various issues have come up.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing these influxes of student articles has a distinctive feel to it. They're students; I know that sort from both sides (I spent a good seven or eight years as a TA, so did a great deal of homework-grading). They're earnest (though more distracted in their last year), but they'll also push the envelope; one has to be diligent on "copyright" (which of course also includes plagiarism, and can get quite subtle), focus, and sometimes basic formatting issues. The sheer mass of submissions changes things too; triage gets more brutal, and it's only at low submission rates that I can sometimes try to review everything in the order submitted: when things get crazy, the next one to do is the freshest article that seems likely to pass when reviewed.

At any rate, I managed to get into the swing of things early, yesterday, and keep my pace for most of the day, whereas today I'm having trouble getting into it. I'm hoping I can get into it a bit after lunch, and if I can get started I hope to keep moving as long as possible. It gets kind of discouraging, I admit, when in the evening, just as I'm starting to fade, the students in Australia wake up and start submitting. I'm tentatively planning to do your article first. --Pi zero (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I've got some stuff going on this weekend or else I'd be more in-there, if only with the c/e. Def. got the impression that the hopper is full enough. Just didn't want to skip this issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Pockets of best-practice

Had the subject of single-quotes versus double-quotes never come up? Huh. Lots of little tidbits lying about, I suppose. --Pi zero (talk)

There's some evidence that double outperform single, but I don't think we need a rule about it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

We try for consistency. --Pi zero (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, that's intra-article consistency, not Wikiproject level or Wikipedia-level. Same here? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Consistency within an article is clearly most important. In this case I was actually talking about consistency between articles (what, couldn't you tell by reading my mind?) The preference for single-quotes in headlines actually is mentioned in the style guide (I had to look there to see if it was, but it's standard practice), and the preference for double-quotes in articles is one of those things it had never occurred to me even needed to be said explicitly. I'm not sure I'd ever seen anyone consistently using single-quotes in the article text, but if I had I'd not have blinked at changing it to double-quotes; afaik that's just standard English punctuation. --Pi zero (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see inter-article consistency as necessary or desirable for a project of this kind. So long as it's correct English, let people do what they like. Single quotes are one of the correct options in British English, and the spelling was British, so I kept them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Consistency as totally unimportant is clearly an exaggeration. Consistency as a major priority across the board is clearly an exaggeration. Consistency has some degree of desirability, how much depends on what one is contemplating being consistent/inconsistent about, and there's also likely to be huge variations in what other considerations come into play so that it may get completely overwhelmed and become a practical irrelevance in some cases. This particular issue strikes me as a rather small point of style, which I could easily see different reviewers handling either way (leave it or change it to double quotes). It is interesting to hear there's a variant style of that sort in British usage; I might well leave such a thing alone when encountering it in an article in future (or at least, think seriously about doing so). The part about using single-quotes in headlines is of a different sort, because headlines get viewed en masse so that consistency across articles has a meaningful impact; that seems to me a sufficient explanation of why the headline consideration is in the SG while the handling in the article text afaict is not. --Pi zero (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

depends on what one is contemplating being consistent/inconsistent about Yup. That's it right there. The articles all have the same layout and format because that makes them easier to read. They don't all need to be in the same variety of English or have the same take on the serial comma because 1) learning how to read more than one variety correctly is educational and 2) it doesn't make much difference otherwise and 3) telling people their preferred variety is dispreferred here just alienates them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed (for Wikinews purposes), on those two points (variety, serial comma); other considerations often overwhelm on those. Though the specific issue atm was use of single-quotes versus double-quotes for direct quotation in the body of an article. I'm interested that I hadn't consciously registered the single-quote variant as a coherent style. As a matter of curiosity, do you know if it's recommended in any major news style guides? --Pi zero (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

News? I don't know. I might be able to check The Economist's guide later. But I've seen the single-first in other forms of British writing. I think it might be considered old-fashioned but it hasn't fallen out of correct practice yet.

Single quotes are one of the few correct options within English for which there's any provable difference in functionality. Under some circumstances, they mess up search functions. There's also the idea that the reader's going to "trip" over quotes-vs-apostrophes, but that's anecdotal. Even so, I don't think it's a big enough deal to make a rule against them. Almost no one uses them anyway. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

U.S. judge blocks second Trump travel ban as religious discrimination

Oops. Glitch. --Pi zero (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Was there a software malfunction somewhere? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

London attack

If you have some time ... this is a story we should cover, but I won't be able to, because of internal exams. Going to write about?
acagastya 00:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I think there are two articles already on the queue about it. One of them has a neutrality problem, which I noted on its talk page. The other... well, I suspect it's lost freshness due to later developments. --Pi zero (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

(On second thought, that article may be getting updated.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like the kids gave us plenty of starting material. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Travel ban

Another one for you. Virginia judge backs Trump on travel ban.
acagastya 17:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Sacking

I tend to assume any reader who isn't entirely familiar with the term will pick it up fast enough. Though I've reviewed thousands of articles by English writers of many different stripes, so my idiolect is likely somewhat international. --Pi zero (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh sure, but there are cross-variety terms that would work just as well, and it's such a simple fix. I say teachable moment.

(Conversation in reference to this article submitted by student.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-neutrality

Some of my reviews lately have been, imho, really interesting case studies. There was one about alien moon bases that gave me an opportunity to discuss even-handed treatment of fringe claims; another that looked like it was fake news trying to infiltrate into mainstream media, affording a discussion of warning signs that stronger sourcing is needed; and then this morning a formidable example of non-neutrality. Talk:Trump revokes climate change policies. Despite the effort I put into the review comments, I couldn't quite see how to work into those comments — without sounding non-neutral myself — the observation that in this case, any non-neutral presentation of the pro-environmentalist position plays into the hands of the anti-environmentalists. --Pi zero (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Chimed in. I can try to give it a closer look later. Work's picked up in the past few weeks so I don't have as much time for this as I did. The influx of student articles was opportune. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I added another comment myself. Honestly, I've got a very solid intuitive sense of the whole news-neutrality thing but find much of it — beyond attribution — rather challenging to articulate at a moment's notice, which is a big part of why I've been wanting to write an essay on it. (The WN:NPOV policy page, although I did learn from it, does imho such a poor job of explanation that I think of it as kind of an embarrassment, and, unlike things like WN:Newsworthiness or even WN:Inverted pyramid, I don't link to it when writing review comments.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk page?

didn't you mean to contact those students on their talk pages, rather than their user pages? Btw, I should have set up a semester category for this class (which involves figuring out which semester it is... I'd guess it's Autumn 2017) and been putting {{UoW student}} on their user pages, but I've not found time for it. --Pi zero (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well yes. I wanted to talk to them, so I posted on their talk pages ...you don't actually mean that I did post on their talk pages do you? You mean that I posted on their user pages. Hoo-kay. I'll go fix it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Stuff happens. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of stuff, I've sent in the request for unblock-for-appeal on Wikipedia. I was eligible March 1 but it's taking a long time. If I seem to drop off the face of Wikinews for a week or two, it's because I'm trying to keep the appeal contained. Regardless of the result, I'll be back as soon as the screaming stops. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

International organizations ask Russian government to stop persecution of homosexuals in Chechnya

I had some freshness concerns. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That's all to beexpected. I checked the feeds this morning to see if there was anything new to add. Will check your specific comments later.

British minister claims Chechnyan government plans to eliminate gay community by late May

We need another source to verify the news for the recent events. There is only on source which was published within the time period of 72 hours.
acagastya 19:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Metro okay? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Must be on or after April 22. April 22's story loses its freshness in a couple of hours.
acagastya 22:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that a little later. I was wondering why the Independent didn't include any dates. Still, why post this here and not on the collaboration page? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Better to post stuff on the article's collaboration page, with ping of relevant party.

@Darkfrog24: I admire how you're keeping after this story; I really hope we finally pin it down. (News meandering out of Chechnya in dribs and drabs, I take it, making it hard to bring an article to bear on it while it's still fresh. And mainstream news outlets that really seem to have forgotten that "when" is one of the Ws.) Yes, by all means, "day" word in the lede and two recent sources, so it can't wriggle away from us! --Pi zero (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Shallow hope: Study suggests some corals are adapting to climate change

Hi. Relevant; but, sourcing and freshness issues. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Erk

You'd think I'd learn by now to check the diff before saving a comment on a discussion such as your RFP. I'm really annoyed with myself; although, if it helps to move the conversation forward, that at least may be a net positive. --Pi zero (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

<sigh> I wanted to say something immediately, hence the preceding. I'm really quite disappointed in the comments I wrote on my !vote; despite the long time I spent struggling with it, the comment came out imho quite ineptly. For that, I really feel I own you an apology. --Pi zero (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: If it would make you feel better, I accept your apology in advance but before you feel the need for one more second, let me tell you why I had such a long night: I'm just coming out of my appeal with ArbCom. I've just spent a year and a half being punished because asking someone "Are you okay?" is gaslighting if I'm the one who does it, for personally faking the idea that American and British English differ in the treatment of quotation marks, pushing POV by saying "we should follow the sources even when they say things I don't like," biting the new guys (yes that one over there who thanked me for defending him), ignoring other people's sources (by looking them up, reading them, and discussing what they say), and the ultimate, ultimate disruption, saying that none of the above actually happened and asking if there's any thing that did happen or that I might have done that I need to work on, as in "I'm trying to figure out what I did wrong. Was it this?" And that's nothing to last year when I said "yes" to their demands like six times and they acted like I said no.

You think I should be stricter about Wikinews' rules. Maybe you think we shouldn't make exceptions for science and professional news that work on different schedules. You have an opinion that differs from mine. How fucking dare you? You've poured a lot of energy into Wikinews and you're picky about who gets to be a reviewer is how. Go ahead. I'm pretty picky about a few things myself. At no point did you maintain that my disagreeing with you made me some subhuman monster from whose mouth came only lies. You worked from an alternative opinion, not an alternative fact. It's Wikinews, not opposite land. Reading your comment wasn't fun but it was within the bell curve of reasonable discourse. We're Wikinews not the goddamned Buddy Bears.

What you've exercised here is compunction, the desire to do better even though what you did wasn't actually wrong. I'm in no mood to jump down your or anyone's throat for that.

And in case you were wondering, yes you'd still have a coral bleaching article to review even if I'd been unblocked. It's a small crowd here but it's a good one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. A long night because, dealing with Wikipedian culture as it has become. I realized later, I had joined Wikipedia in its heyday, around 2006 or 7 (which was about the time the WMF finished the paper-shuffling of assembling itself and shifted into high gear), and it was a wonderful, friendly, idealistic place. Even though I moved on, to Wikibooks and then to Wikinews, I still have fond memories, and I still care about Wikipedia. I could weep for how the atmosphere there has soured, and would help it if I knew how I could. --Pi zero (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's around the time I joined. I didn't find it friendly, though. As I recall, the first time I went to WT:MOS there was a knock-down-drag-out about WP:LQ going on. And a now-retired Wikipedian blamed me for starting it. The fight that was well under way before I got there. But that's WT:MoS. People say stuff like that and you just go with it and move on because no one means anything by it and it's not going to go any further than that. If that was as far as any of this had gone, it wouldn't have been a big deal. Right now I feel like I got held down and a plaque reading "Gaslighting, lying piece of absolute filth" got hammered into my head, and they don't get why I'm not okay with that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Chechnya

When marking four-day-inactive developing articles as abandoned, I've been simply skipping over the gay-purge-in-Chechnya one. Do you have thoughts on that article's future? --Pi zero (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about it the other day. Yeah, it's time to go. I'll do it myself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

About your reviewer nom

Um. Hi.

I've been wracking my brains over how this situation can work out well; it's got me deeply worried. Eventually I decided I've been treating this like a "political" situation, when what I really should be doing is talking with you about it; more communication, rather than less. Person to person. So I'm going to try to explain to you how I see the situation. Some of this could be appropriately said at the nomination discussion (and a little of it has been), but much of it seems to me too person-to-person to belong there. (This has gotten rather long; but I fear that when this conversation goes wrong it'll because I didn't say enough.)

You asked me a while back whether I thought you were ready for reviewer. That's one of those moments one can think back on and wish to have done differently. If I had said at the time, no, I don't think you're ready yet — accompanied, we might as well imagine while we're at it, by an eloquent explanation of why I thought that — we would... perhaps... now be in a somehow much better situation. The trouble with that what-if scenario is that I didn't know then how I felt about it, though in retrospect there was something niggling at me. Then, when you applied, it was in the midst of the distracting influx of student articles. And maybe on this occasion I was overly hesitant about voicing my concerns (hesitance while sorting between the living Wikinews tradition I'm trying to preserve, and my personal quirks that I strive to keep carefully separate from the tradition). It was only last week, more than a month into the nomination, that I understood clearly that I didn't think you were ready.

The particular issue that came up — freshness as applied to covering scientific papers — is of concern to me in its own right but also seems to me a symptom of a larger difficulty. Some perspective on both halves of that concern: Several years ago, I wondered about the same issue. Mainstream news orgs publish some kinds of articles that we do not. Some of that difference is our neutrality policy (there's a whole complex mix of wiki and journalism issues there). There's some impact of our neutrality policy on our freshness policy. And then there's also a wiki-political consideration: we do not poach on our sister Wikipedia's territory (even though they routinely try, unsuccessfully, to poach on ours). So I clearly understood good reasons for sticking to our guns on freshness regardless of whether the subject happens to be a science paper. Nevertheless, I wondered, so I asked around, consulting folks whom I think of as "senior editors". I got a resounding no.

But, you perceived this as something that it would be fine to just do differently. Which (by contrast with the above) seems to suggest problems both with awareness of which policies carry most weight within the overall structure, and with attitude toward consulting before acting (if I did really want to do something differently, and there weren't senior colleagues around for ready consultation, my natural reflex would be to hold off on changing anything however long it took to consult).

I don't see that consulting with you after you've done something out of step would work; we both know you're apt to be set in your ways, and even if you were persuadable in each case, review should stop stuff before it happens. And, I'm worried you could cross the line simply by not seeing it.

I'm tempted — and yet uncomfortable about the idea, worrying it might be taken badly — to ask if you would be willing to simply withdraw-without-prejudice for now from your request for reviewer.

Do you have any thoughts/suggestions on this? --Pi zero (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I just came off a long drive and my brain is still on the highway. I got a resounding no. To which question? "No we shouldn't stick to our guns?" or "No we shouldn't make exceptions on freshness?" EDIT: Either way, I would like to read that conversation. Got a link?

Are those senior editors still here or has the composition of the Wikinews community changed since then?

we both know you're apt to be set in your ways Given recent events I'd like to point out that I change my ways now and then but no one notices because there's no fuss.

Pi zero I'm getting the impression that what you're actually afraid of here is offending me/being a dick/etc. Is that the cause of your hesitancy? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're worried that I'm mad at you for even asking me to WwP, I'm not. I thought about it myself once the Australians died down but at that time decided against it. One of the reasons was that the others expressed such confidence in me. I've got some stuff going on this week that demands my focus and I'm pretty emotionally drained from Wikipedia business, so I'm going to let your suggestion settle for a while. If the motion to grant reviewer status carries in the meantime, fine with me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It's true I really hate to offend anyone who doesn't deserve it; being too soft on people has often caused me trouble. But I was referring to a different cause of hesitance. When I stepped in to fill the review gap sufficiently to keep things moving while I worked on a longer-term solution, I had a list of hazards to beware of. One of the points of the exercise being to preserve the living tradition of Wikinews, that would require projecting the tradition I'd inherited from others; but one of the hazards on my list was to avoid letting my personal idiosyncrasies get mixed in with the tradition. I'm not about to suppress my opinions, but need to make clear when I'm talking about site policy versus when I'm talking about personal preference. In the particular case of dealing with you, I may have spent some extra time trying to sort things through.

Consensus does not work here the way it works on Wikipedia. Part of it is that on a spectrum between democracy and meritocracy, Wikipedia is way over toward the first while Wikinews is more toward the second. (Amongst other things, on important votes — such as reviewer — while everyone gets to voice their opinion, outsiders' !votes carry no weight; I don't know for sure as I wasn't here when that was set up, afaik at basically the inception of the project, but I suspect the point was to make it impossible for a gang of Wikipedians to come over and rewrite Wikinews policies to fit their encylcopedia-shaped notions.) Another part of it is that, how to put this, site policies here have vastly more momentum. I've found something similar at Wikibooks, which is a smallish wiki but, moreover, is essentially a confederation of thousands of microprojects, called "books", even smaller than Wikinews (some several orders of magnitude smaller). Small projects have necessarily more respect for the way way things have been done in the past; they have to, for project coherence. Since you arrived at Wikinews I have perceived vibes from you of supposing that changing the rules is a matter of consensus by the small number of people actually visible at a given moment. But even membership in the community has much more longevity here than on Wikipedia. A veteran Wikinewsie who comes by once or twice a year to write an article is, pretty much, active; below that they may still be semi-active; and they're likely still "in the community" well below.

No to extending freshness for certain kinds of articles. One of our most basic slogans, penned years ago by brianmc, is "Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news."

(Btw, my impression of you fwiw is of someone very honest with a great deal of personal integrity, a good colleague to work with, who can sometimes be an intransigent pain. Granted, I like to believe in people, which is presumably why AGF, over at Wikipedia, appealed to me so much at first, and it took me years to conclude that AGF not only doesn't work for Wikinews, but in the long term damages Wikipedia as well.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

need to make clear when I'm talking about site policy versus when I'm talking about personal preference.

Yes, I've noticed some trouble distinguishing between the two in your posts. Well you always give me plenty to think about, Pi zero. Know that I respect your opinion even though I don't take it as a given that you're right like I used to.

I know it's late at night for both of us, but I do want to read that conversation you reffed just now. No hurry but it sounds important. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"[...] even though I don't take it as a given that you're right like I used to."

Heh. I don't remember that. (Am I getting old? No, don't answer that. We all are, steadily.) Anyway, how knowledgeable I am is context-dependent. On Wikinews, one of my sometime hats is de facto lore-master. I keep mentioning the "living tradition"? Yeah. Per the water cooler (wasn't it?) just recently, lots of important stuff doesn't get written down reliably on a small news project. The only way to learn it is directly from someone who knows. (There's a reason much is made of "academic lineage", like en.wp emphasizing Peter Ladefoged's descent from Henry Sweet. Loss of in-person teacher-student connections killed ancient Greek science after the Hellenistic period and made it hard to reboot things in the Renaissance...) So there has to be somebody around to learn from directly. For me to serve as an effective conduit for passing on all this stuff, whilst minimizing attenuation of signal due to passing through the bottleneck of a single mind, means for me a lot of introspection plus consultation with other veteran Wikinewsies.

I honestly forget what I've remarked to you about my history on Wikinews. I wasn't present for the pre-review age; I was around for <coughs> the tectonic events of 2010 and after. An increment in my familiarity with the documentation (for its part in the tapestry) was when, in researching for WN:Tips on reviewing articles, I surveyed most of what is written down on the project outside article talkspace and discussion archives. I later tried to study the early archives, both here and at meta, when I was first nominated for en.wn ArbCom; there was too much of it to get through, but I did pick up some more historical awareness there. I've surely done some thousands of reviews by now —I've specialized, honestly I'm the review guru (and yes, the phonetics of that phrase are odd)— and was startled when someone, brianmc maybe, pointed out my edit count here had passed 100,000; obviously I've contributed to precedent as well as being a diligent student of the living tradition. If it's policy evolution within the past seven years, I'm party as well as witness, which is way more nuanced than just "mine" versus "somebody else's". Perhaps it'd help to think of the policies as a Platonic structure, with naturally coherent patterns that the community, including me, explore.

A great deal of it all doesn't even happen on-wiki; we use IRC a lot, including some limited-access channels. --Pi zero (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, the more likely it seems I would use IRC in this case for an informal exchange of thoughts. Doing things on-wiki can give them weight (not to mention momentum and persistence), and I'd have no reason to want to tediously create an on-wiki fuss and bother about this idea, which I myself could conjure plenty of good reasons against but was curious what others thought. The most likely reason for it not to have been on IRC would be if the conversation predated my acclimation to IRC, which was probably in 2011. --Pi zero (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh it had to do with WP:LQ. I think it was whether "logical" and "British" were the same style or not. At first I thought they were the same, then you said they were different and made your case (but didn't cite any sources) and won me over. Then I read a bunch of sources that contradicted what you said and changed my mind, but it did take seeing all those sources for me to change my mind. You really sounded like you knew what you were talking about and to this day while I think your opinion was wrong, you clearly didn't pull it out of thin air.

I've never used IRC.

I think what you seem to be getting at with respect to science articles is that you think that's more Wikipedia's purview. Not sure I agree but I'll give it some more thought.

Let me know when you come across that link. Sounds like something I should read. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Since I have no memory of whatever specific instance you're talking about in the quotation discussions, I have no idea whether I was wrong outright, saying it wrong, being misunderstood, or what. (I'd guess it was one of the first three, rather than "or what", but even that is only a guess.)

To be clear (in case), the Wikipedia aspect of what I'm saying is that covering things later on belongs to Wikipedia's purview rather than to ours. Nothing to do with whether the subject is science. A way it's put somewhere about the site (and repeated, no doubt, in other places) is that a Wikinews article is a "snapshot in time". Our archives are a photo album, each picture clearly labeled as to just when it's from and carefully covered by a transparent protective cover to preserve it so people ever after can see what it looked like at that moment.

As a practical matter, freshness is how we operate, and there are ways to accomplish one's goals within it. As I may have remarked to you somewhere earlier, and have certainly remarked to others, we usually deal with this sort of problem by interviewing one of the scientists involved. Or sometimes several of them. Like so much of our way of doing things, it's pretty close to the way the msm at its best does things too. (Not I think a coincidence; it looks like a lot of know-how went into our policies-and-practices. I tend to think such a high-quality coherent infrastructure could not have happened if Wikinews had not started out with a much larger day-to-day-active population — we can still function with so few people now because there were more then.) When the msm decides to cover one of those scientific paper publications well after the paper came out, although they aren't as overt about it as we are they generally go out and collect some fresh quotes. We generally do more than a few little quotes if we're going to interview someone, of course; and with full interviews especially, our freshness rules work differently, as discussed at WN:Fresh.

A particular favorite of mine in this vein — which I had to hunt for because it's not technically categorized as an "interview" — is BRS's classic

• "'Fascinating' and 'provocative' research examines genetic elements of bipolar, schizophrenia" — Wikinews, October 1, 2011

(Easy to miss in the massive reporter's notes, down at the bottom of the transcript of the phone interview with the guy in Argentina:

Not directly related to any posed question

Something I thought was very cool: “these are very important questions… are you a geneticist?” With thanks to George Watson (dendodge) who helped me out on question-writing.

We were still getting big numbers of hits on that article many months after it was published; apparently it was some of the best information available on its topic anywhere on the web.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh I gathered later that it was just your opinion. As valid as any other, sure, but I prefer a more direct interpretation of what I can see in sources.

Which MSM do you mean? Mainstream media?

I'd just been about to ask you for a link to an interview. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────┘
If unsure how individual-quirky something is that I've popped out with, ask and I'll try to clarify.

"msm"="mainstream media".

We mostly do interviews presented directly as transcripts.

featured interviewsWikinews:Dialog/do

other featured ORWikinews:Dialog/do

--Pi zero (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, on further reflection I'm not sure what you just said. You gathered what was was just my opinion? --Pi zero (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The idea that British and logical punctuation styles were two different things rather than two names for the same thing. I figured you might also have had some personal experiences that led you to draw this conclusion, but what's firsthand for you is secondhand for me, so I ended up giving more credence to the published sources. So perhaps "your conclusion" is more accurate but it's a little clunky for the conversation we were having. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah. --Pi zero (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hackers hit 99 countries with 'cyberweapons' stolen from U.S. National Security Agency‎

Financial Times is paywalled.
acagastya 14:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Weird. It let me click right in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, it's paywalled now. I replaced it with two other sources. Thanks for the heads-up. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

But next time could you use the article collaboration page? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Why did I leave a message here even though you and Pi zero said about the article's talk: You had edited recently, implying there is a probability that you are online. Sometimes, the Echo notifications would not load, so considering a possibility of that (happened with me, couldn't see the notifications for two months), I should leave a message here. Besides, you are the author, so nobody else can substitute a source for you until you ask them to.
acagastya 21:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

you are the author, so nobody else can substitute a source for you until you ask them to

While it would certainly be easiest for me to be the one to do the substitution, I have no objection whatsoever to someone else performing this task. It's part of what I mean by "collaboration welcome." If you need my verbal permission, that's it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Do not mix collaboration with the principles and guidelines of Wikinews. One must not cite any source which was not referred by the author and information was not extracted from it. Anyone else doing it is wrong, and I don't think that is acceptable.
acagastya 21:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well of course the person replacing one source with another would have to read them both themselves to determine what lines in the Wikinews article came from where and so need to be re-sourced or removed. That's what I mean when I say it would be easiest for me to do it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

U.S. President Trump defends decision to share classified information with Russians

I wasn't comfortable with some aspects of the article. We really want to offer a clean exposition of the story, imho, since we're covering something that's being really intensively covered by the US msm (I have no idea what sort of play it's getting elsewhere). Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not offended if that's what you're worried about. This is why we have at least two people work on every article before it's approved. I already fixed one of the problems you cited and will get to the others later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Personalized messages, and more explanation of one's thinking rather than less, I've found are generally desirable for review. Granted, those things do make it less likely someone will be offended, and generally improve the psychological/social atmosphere. They're also just plain good for communication and thus quality of produced news articles. Since those are all good motives, there's no need to prioritize them. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Almost like you're trying to be a community. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I actually don't know how to interpret that, owing to the awkward reality that I've doubts about your grokking of the Wikinews community. --Pi zero (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It is meant to be grokked as mild sarcasm indicating recognition and approval of conscientiousness on your part. Consider: "It is almost as if you are acting as a responsible adult with a concept of basic manners and courtesy." Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that. :p --Pi zero (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Simulations show planet orbiting Proxima Centauri could have liquid water

Nice. (What can I say? I like science. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Just remember it only might be able to support intelligent life and it would take so long to get there that the current presidential administration would be over by then anyway. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I recall seeing someone suggest (probably on PBS) some years back that there would be no point in a manned mission to another start until one could get up to... I think it was half the speed of light, because at any speed less than that, before you got there people would be whizzing past you in later technology. I'm not sure I entirely buy the evident assumption about how fast future technology will advance in this area, but it's certainly something to keep in mind. --Pi zero (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Depends on the goal. If the point is to place humans anywhere but Earth so that we don't have all our eggs in one basket, then it doesn't matter when they arrive so much as when they leave. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Aye, there's the rub. --Pi zero (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Bill Cosby sexual assault trial enters jury selection

Hi. Hopefully not difficult (for someone other than the reviewer) to fix, but, review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Published. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. And don't worry about the dimming star article. It would be great if we published it but I still think Robert's had an okay first experience on Wikinews, and he's had the idea of holding on to the draft until the next event with this star. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That's helpful perspective on the star article. Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a shame. All the astronomy nerds are really riled up. It would be a great niche piece. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

darn you, green underlining program

Does that rhyme with "Curse you, Red Baron!"? --Pi zero (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The Red Baron was a warrior of such consummate style and valor that even his enemies were eager to shake his hand. The green underlying simply annoys me ...into creating more specific links. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

And yet, it's one of the simplest and most awesome devices I know, changing the shape of the project like a glacier cutting through solid rock. Granted, it doesn't get congratulated much. --Pi zero (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it gets darned, darned to the deepest vats of heck. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, {{w}} checks for the local link, and if the target page does not exists, it will be linked to the Wikipedia page​.
acagastya 12:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it makes a stop there on its way to heck. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

lol. --Pi zero (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Truck bomb kills at least 80 in Afghan capital city center

That was my first review which was published. It is scary: what if I make a big mistake. I could not leave a message yesterday, I am home, and it was time I should be in my bed. Please see the review comments. I had to re-word some sentences, and remove (It was: "As of today, no other organization has claimed credit." because we don't know if hours after submitting the article anyone claimed the responsibility). Have a look at the article, let me know if something is wrong.

Thanks for writing this article. I was planning to write it, but you were quicker.
acagastya 06:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

what if I make a big mistake Well thanks for the vote of confidence. If there was a big mistake, we'd take the article down. We can do that. I'll give it a look if it makes you feel better but I think it's just the first-timer jitters. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there is almost no mistake that would justify de-publishing the article. I think I've done that about three times; one of those times still haunts me because I'm not sure it was the right thing to do, and I'm not sure whether I'd handle the others the same way now that I did then (though they don't bother me the way the one does). It's been suggested that even for a really huge mistake, the thing to do is replace the content with a notice instead of de-publishing; template {{correction}} includes Category:Published. Earlier revisions can be hidden if it comes to it. --Pi zero (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Btw, I didn't take that as a concern about you-as-reporter making a big mistake, rather about acagastya-as-reviewer making a big mistake. I've talked about this with some other veteran reviewers, and I know I'm not alone in finding review a disconcerting experience; if one really understands how much responsibility it carries, the moment of clicking "submit" on a passing review is scary (as I remarked in my essay on the review process). --Pi zero (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

you-as-reporter making a big mistake Two votes of confidence in one day! Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Mistakes are so easy to come by, though. There's the business about JFK telling the people of Berlin "I am a jelly donut" (which I gather didn't happen, that's an example of a mistake by the "reviewer") and Jimmy Carter saying he wanted to have sex with the men of Poland (which afaict pretty much did happen, and is an example of a mistake by the "writer"). --Pi zero (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Curiosity Rover analysis suggests chemically complex lake once graced Mars's Gale crater

Published. I'm slightly paranoid about subtleties of meaning in this sort of article, so, here's hoping I didn't muff anything.

I thought for a moment we might have two articles about Curiosity, so that one more would give us enough for a category, but alas the other article was merely a reference by an interviewer during an interview. --Pi zero (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Well then we shall have to make more. I'm glad this one didn't age out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Theresa May's Conservative Party wins UK election but loses majority, leaving Brexit plan in question

Argh. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering what kind of Argh that was and now I see we're dealing with another "updated" source issue. Argh. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

User Babel matrix

The languages you know: en-N, es-2, fr-1. Is the list correct?
acagastya 09:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Close. I don't speak French. Yes, I'm a native English speaker and a level-two Spanish speaker. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

fr-0?
acagastya 10:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

fr-learned a couple words many years ago but never took lessons. I know more Latin than French. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't be surprised. You mentioned about zoology, iIrc.
acagastya 11:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Third Trump travel ban takes effect

Doesn't have a lede. Review comment. --Pi zero (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, published. I'm not sure I should have published it without further work on the lede; there's a danger that needs careful consideration, of biasing impressions, either for a "left" or "right" interpretation of events.

I'm quite concerned — I don't wish to offend, but I also don't wish to fail to convey this — that you aren't improving; if anything, you're slipping some. You're not at the level where you should be applying for the review bit. (You asked me months ago whether I thought you were ready yet for reviewer, and I punted on the question by encouraging you to ask yourself, but I don't think that was wise advice and I now have answer: no, you're not ready yet.)

That conversation a while ago has been gnawing at me, where you objected to the tone you perceived in a remark I made, and eventually you concluded that you felt I was addressing you like a teacher to a student and it made you uncomfortable. At the time I almost asked, but was swept up by other things and never got back to it, whether you were uncomfortable with the idea of me taking a teaching role toward you, or with the idea of anyone taking a teaching role toward you, or with the idea of you being in the role of a student. --Pi zero (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

On Wikipedia and Wikinews, we are all equals and colleagues, not teachers and students. We have things to offer each other. "Obey me because I have this T label and you have that S one" isn't our thing. I listen carefully to what you say because you've been here longer than I have, but you could be wrong, and I have to remember that.

When you tell me something, I think, "Now I know what one Wikinewsie of good reputation who currently makes up a third/half the reviewer population thinks about this," but that's not itself a source or a longstanding guideline or a consensus of many Wikinewsies. So I ask which previous conversation from years back you mean and if you have a link.

That might be what you're seeing. It's annoying to be second-guessed, but the alternative is to assume, and never assume.

If this weren't Wikinews, if this were a news website of which you were the founder, editor or both, our interactions would be very different. You did something that bothered me, so I told you about it before it could become a big deal.

"Improvement" suggests some kind of schedule (again, like a classroom) or an arbitrary good/bad dichotomy. It seems kind of vague but it looks like there's something here worth exploring. I'm going to guess that you mean "Increasing level of familiarity with Wikinews's various policies, such as but not limited to WP:FUTURE." Is it that or something else?

"you being in the role of a student" suggests that you think I've been in the role of a teacher here on Wikinews. Do you mean when I corrected the English in this article and provided an explanation of changes? I provided information; I didn't issue anyone a report card. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Addendum. You told me that you're not always good at expressing yourself and the "Is it this or something else?" trick is something that has worked before. Are you okay with me using it or does it bother you? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

No, Wikinews is not like Wikipedia. I have sensed for some time, and your remarks support this, that you are stagnating — failing to improve as a Wikinewsie — because you're unwilling to recognize the expertise-driven nature of Wikinews. Experience is at a premium here, and the entire project infrastructure is tuned to recognize and exploit it, in a very un-Wikipedian way. It's not the sort of elitism promoted by the Foundation, which exploits expertise that some users have from elsewhere; here it's expected a user will continually learn, gradually advancing to become more part of the elite themselves. If you're unable to admit that you have a lot still to learn, you prevent yourself from learning. --Pi zero (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Pi zero, I never said I didn't have a lot to learn. There is always more to learn. I said the way you act toward me about it bothers me. I'm trying very hard not to take what you're saying here personally, but you're making some assumptions of your own.

There is a difference between "unwilling to recognize" something and simply not having seen evidence of it. Unless what you mean by "expertise-driven nature" refers to familiarity with Wikinews' specific rules and processes, in which case well then I'm not sure why you think I haven't recognized it. You talk about Wikinews being different from Wikipedia, but my learning experience has been more involved with the Wikinews' differences from regular newspapers.

You're coming off as "I told you something, so why aren't you accepting it without question?" What you say does matter to me but not in that way. So far you also happen to be only person here whom I've seen talk like this. I don't spend much time at the water cooler or anywhere but the newsroom, so perhaps there are people talking about it and I haven't run into them. Is there some previous conversation, perhaps from years back, that you see as establishing this model? I'd certainly give it a look. Submitting to the will of the community is different from submitting to the will of another single individual.

Your "it's expected..." comment again suggests some kind of specific sequential process. I'm going to get a little speculative now and imagine a time a few years ago when Wikinews had a much larger population and you specifically saw cohort after cohort of new-to-Wikinews contributors coming in and observing that they mostly went through the same stages and followed the same pattern. But now Wikinews has fewer people, not enough to be a cohort. If this is what's going on, then I have not observed this pattern because, if it is still there, there are not enough people to make it visible as a pattern. Do you think this might be it?

I'm going to give what you said a lot of thought regardless. Again, I'll try not to take it personally. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I did not want to interrupt, but I need to point out that Darkfrog24, you aren't reflecting what you have learnt. About the teacher student thing, you got to learn from experience. Pi zero learnt from experience, if I am not wrong. But after writing so many articles, 60 of them published, you are still there are certain things and policies anyone would expect from you. I have to agree, you add opinions (and thus, violate NPOV policy) in the articles you write. Either you are doing it deliberately, trying to get those things published by mistake (hoping a reviewer miss it) — and that is really not good. But if you are not doing it purposefully, if you are not aware that you are doing this, that is worse. That consumes reviewer's time, and I wonder if you do this as the author of the article, what would you do if you become a reviewer! WN:Headlines and WN:Future are other things you need to brush up. Like the way you submitted the article with a headlines that did not explain a lot of things (Shooter targets Congressional baseball practice in Virginia, six hospitalized).

Not to forget your argument about the choice of English. I don't want to bring up that American English is spoken only in a small fraction of the world, and not even everyone in the US prefers English (US). I listened to you, and agreed that it is okay to have diversity. But when I want to use the word "thrice", you always have a problem. Why is that you have to change it every time? Just look above, I respected the choice of your English, and spelled "hospitalised" in the way you prefer.

Or the time when you did not care to source check about this article and instead of a comma, you thought it had to do something with where the parade was.

When someone says "you are expected", you are expected to stick to the policy, remove bias and opinions and respect the difference.
acagastya 12:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Learning from experience, as opposed to an individual person, is fine with me.

I didn't source-check that article because I wasn't source-checking that article. I was checking it for English usage. (They used to call that Wikignoming.) I made a point of going over the article about the pride parade without first looking at who drafted it because who drafted it is not important. I would have made a note of "thrice" regardless of who used the word. Frankly, I didn't remember that you and I had talked about it before.

"Hospitalized"/"hospitalised" isn't a personal preference of mine. Specific varieties of English require certain spellings. It's more than fair if you don't want to take my word for it, though, and perhaps better if you don't. If you need a source, Oxford Dictionaries is one good one.

I wanted to hear from more than one person. You have obliged me. If you have the time, can you give an example of when you feel I added an opinion or bias to an article? I mean recently. I remember doing something similar to that early on in Wikinews but I stopped when I realized we don't do editorializing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You need to show that you have learnt from your mistakes. When a reviewer has mentioned that you need to fix certain things, you should make sure that it won't happen again. I don't think you see the edit history, do you? Else your efforts to improve on those weak spots would have reflected in the articles you submit. And clearly, you would have missed this. I had inserted the word "thrice" again in the article. (You might have noticed if you had read the triple talaq article after it was published and not changed it in the Istanbul Pride article.) Not checking the sources for what the user said is not a good excuse. Do not give me those links. Instead of changing thrice to three times, you could have searched for "thrice".
acagastya 14:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, in this context early experience comes from what experienced reviews have to say about your articles. Other vectors for experience can't come into play until you've grasped the basic principles.

Here are three obstacles I suspect are holding you back in your growth as a Wikinewsie (obviously this is a simplication; "it's more complicated" is almost as universally unassailable as "things could be worse"):

• You reflexively want to disbelieve things if I say them. (Perhaps it's a liability for you that you know me from another time and place?)
• You think of the core principles of Wikinews as if they were arbitrary positions, rather than a coherent natural resonance point in policy space. (There's also a danger the Wikinews policy resonance point could be one that just doens't come naturally to you; at any rate, the point where you can start learning on your own is the one where you have an instinctive sense for that resonance, so you can always ground yourself to it, and if you can't accept help from veteran Wikinewsies to learn where the resonance is, that's a problem.)
• You don't want to believe that Wikinews social dynamics are in any profound way different from Wikipedia's. (You seem to be treating experience on Wikinews as a shallower thing than it is.)

--Pi zero (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You reflexively want to disbelieve things if I say them

Wow. I can understand how that can be upsetting. I was on the receiving end of something similar and I have an idea of how mindbending it can be. No, that is absolutely not what I meant (and if it had been, you'd be right to be pissed off). It is only that the things you're saying a very subjective and difficult to independently verify and that you are one person and not a many. I am accepting that you could be wrong, not assuming that you must be wrong. What I remember of you from WT:MoS is that your views were based on reason and your own experiences, not pulled from thin air, and presented in a civil manner. A given idea coming from you has a credential, not a detriment.

I was thinking about this earlier and I put my finger on a big part of what's bothering me about your first post before I got back and read this one. It's not that you made complaints about the ways in which the articles I draft do and don't match policy—you're supposed to do that, and if it makes me uncomfortable, too bad for me. It's that you're using those observations to draw inferences and assumptions about what I'm thinking and feeling and what my attitude is and what kind of person I am. "Darkfrog24 didn't list the day in these two articles, so he/she must have no respect for rules." (Comment not drawn to scale; no this is not exactly what you said.) "Darkfrog24 said he/she remembers that I could be wrong, so Darkfrog24 must reflexively want to disbelieve what I say." "Darkfrog24 did this, so Darkfrog24 must not want to believe that." What could be a discussion of articles and policy and performance becomes unnecessarily personal.

Getting back to articles and performance. I think it might be an issue with the model of a division of labor. Like I said, I've put a lot of thought into this since last night. Is it that you and Acagastya feel that, in order to become a reviewer, one should produce articles that need little to no review? 'Cause I can get on that. To volunteer something about my thoughts and attitude, I've been thinking of "drafter," "proofreader/editor" and "reviewer" as three different hats. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

There are some deep things there I'd like to address. To address them properly — so that it's worth doing — should not be rushed. I clearly don't have time to do it properly atm. --Pi zero (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

??

It appears this has gone pretty stale: Lawyer, lawmaker parse President Trump's Tweets on obstruction of justice. Any chance you could spin it off into something more fresh?? -Bddpaux (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bddpaux: At this point, it would probably be better to start from scratch the next time one of them says something newsworthy on that issue. That is why I removed it from the "development" hopper. What are the mechanics for deleting it myself? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Simplest is to let it slide into oblivion through the abandonment process. --Pi zero (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

After G20 meeting between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, ceasefire in Syria but no firm plans for cybersecurity team

Difficult review to write. It was clear to me there was a problem, but not an easy one to articulate (well, I tried). The article topic itself is a tricky one, since the information being provided is all suspect. Even though a very large part of Wikinews neutrality is about attributing, there is more to it, and occasionally we do hit on stories that are especially easy to get in trouble with despite attribution. --Pi zero (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm having great difficulty with review on this story, and I realize the reporting is no cakewalk either. At any rate, after a struggle, I wrote up a set of review comments. The whole carry-along-and-update thing may be just getting in the way, here, since the original event was one that was dreadfully difficult to start with and I don't think we ever got clear of those difficulties. --Pi zero (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump Jr. emails

This felt like "old news" to me. You submitted it more than a day and a half ago, of course, which coincided with the start of a period during which I got no review done. I've checked my schedule and the next specifically scheduled events I see on it are Monday morning and Tuesday morning (US east-coast time, UTC-4); I'm not doing well in the afternoons and evenings these days, but I hope that Saturday or Sunday morning I would be able to review an article of this sort (supposing it were already on the queue when I got up and started planning for the day). --Pi zero (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Nature of the beast, Pi Zero, nature of the beast. As always, your compunction does you credit. I have a few things scheduled I'll see if I can spruce it up with some new developments. What I saw in passing on the news today was that more information about the meeting has come out, but it remains to be seen (by me) whether this counts as a new event. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Robotics

In retrospect, the reason "robotics" didn't redirect to the category was that the category wasn't ready yet (I'm not sure it is now, either). It didn't use {{topic cat}}, and was... probably not fully populated. {{topic cat}} was the easy part. There are over 2000 articles that match keyword "robot", and it looks as if most of them don't belong in the category. The general principle is to add an article to a category if, when researching our archives for articles on the topic of that category, one would like that article to be included on the list. I'm still searching for a well-formulated principle on when an article about use of a robot does, versus when it does not, belong in the category. Robots are used for a lot of things nowadays, and it wouldn't be useful to categorize every article that mentions the bomb squad used a robot, or the deep sea submersible was a robot, or the interplanetary probe was a robot. If you've any thoughts on where to draw the line on this sort of thing, I'd be interested to hear. --Pi zero (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That is weird as heck because the [[CAT:Robotics]] showed up fine right away.

Well articles about Commander Data definitely shouldn't be in that category. He was clearly an android. I would cat an article about a Mars robot if the fact that it was a new kind of robot specially designed for the mission (or adapted in some significant way). Your concern seems to be that as robots become increasingly common just the fact that a robot is there is slowly ceasing to be enough reason to cat. So let's use the same criteria we use for cars and airplanes. Let's say we're writing an article that's not specifically about a car or plane, say about how an important person, say the President of Mexico, goes on a visit to say Ottowa. We would mention the kind of car or plane he took if 1) it was a new kind of car or plane especially designed for this trip or 2) if something about the way that car or plane is different from other planes affected the core idea of the journey. If President Peña was only able to outrun those pesky Omaha Barrier Bandits because he was in an expertly restored Mustang and all twelve of them were riding in a single Prius, that'd be worth a "cars" cat. If his plane were struck by lightning because Embraer forgot to take sprites into account when designing its new Madeup 202, we'd cat it "planes." But if his choice of mode of transportation had no effect on the rest of his trip, then no.

So "Is the robot there?" is not enough. "Did the robot do something newsworthy or newsworthy-adjacent?" is. Here, it was a robotics contest, so pretty much core concept. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

After visa snags, all-girl Afghan team honored for corageous achivement at international robotics competition

I feel I shouldn't let myself get sloppy about redundant sourcing when it's "convenient"; I repeat the point endlessly with the students, after all.

I did do a preliminary check for similarities with sources, and tweaked the few smallish bits I noticed before submitting my review, thus discharging the notes I'd taken on that point. --Pi zero (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, everyone was saying Trump "intervened" so I figured overusing that one was out.

What do you teach? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Heh. I meant the students who are sent Wikinews way by their university journalism professors. (Since you've been here, there was that UoW class who came through; there used to be a professor at Southern Indiana who had his students do various projects on Wikinews, but we haven't heard from him in several years that I recall.) I've never taught a class, although I did spend quite a lot of years in graduate school as a Teaching Assistant. --Pi zero (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Opinions (aka Comments) pages

I guess maybe this hadn't come up in our discussions before (well, if it had, I've forgotten).

We don't create the opinions page of an article until the moment of publication. There are technical problems — it needs to be set up correctly, for the somewhat bubble-gum-and-duct-tape LQT extension to work right — but the deeper principle is that the opinions page is to discuss the topic addressed by the content of the published article, and that isn't known until the article is published so we don't let that discussion start with a moving target before publication (the content might not even be neutral yet if one starts earlier, after all). --Pi zero (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that things tended to happen in that order but I didn't know there was any particular reason for it. Thanks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I've copied the remark to the opinions page. --Pi zero (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Polish President Andrzej Duda vetoes law placing Supreme Court under power of ruling party

Snag. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Translated your article

into Dutch n:nl:Meer balans bij spreken in de derde persoon, (not by me, but a colleague on NL Wikinews) --Livenws (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow! What great news. Thanks for telling me. I was a little disappointed because en.Wikinews' corroboration rules haven't been met for this article yet, but I guess some good came of it after all. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Israel moves to ban on Al Jazeera news network, accusing it of sponsoring terrorism

Looks like be both were editing at the same time, without causing edit conflicts. I was planning to review it, but now I feel I would do it after dinner. I am removing it from {{under review}}. You may carry on copyediting work.
acagastya PING ME! 13:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You might have noticed...

...that I have corrected the way you add external links, multiple times. Could you please use {{source}} template from the next time? Thank you!
acagastya PING ME! 15:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I see the disconnect here. I did notice that you changed the external link format, but I don't view that as a correction per se. The Wikinews style guide does not stipulate a preferred format for external links, and I've seen other articles that posted the external links this way, though I don't remember which ones right now, so I figured you were making a neutral change among correct options. If you feel this is a correct vs incorrect issue, it would be appropriate to propose adding some text the style guide. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Not everything has to be mentioned in the rules. And it wouldn't take a genius to notice that it would be better if we want to maintain uniformity, let's say the template was changed in the future.
acagastya PING ME! 17:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

No, not everything, just the things you want people to treat like rules and already know about before you talk to them. Of the active reviewer population, 50% (one out of two people) just expressed a preference for using the source format for external links. Yes, you cited a good reason for this preference, but there's a point at which remembering every reviewer's take on what makes an ideal article becomes burdensome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's not divulge the discussion in the amount of active editors. The thing is, there is not good reason not to use the template, while there is a good reason to use it. This is not a rule, you could substitute the whole code of {{source}} there. But at the end, that is not going to help. Portability is an issue, and we should try to improve it.
acagastya PING ME! 17:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

(I think the word you're looking for is diverge. :-)

Fwiw, I've never worried too terribly much about whether external links use {{source}}. It does make sense to me that if the link is amendable to specifying the sorts of information provided by the template — especially, if it has a date of publication — it'd be nice to use the template and thus provide information in a familiar format. But the fields of {{source}} provide information that are important to know about when assessing a source for the article, whereas an external link doesn't have the content of the article riding on it. --Pi zero (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I meant that because there are so few reviewers, individual preferences have greater relative importance. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Some things are a matter of individual preference, some really are not. It is harder to tell the difference between the two by looking at reviewers' behavior when the sample size is so small. --Pi zero (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

That's it exactly. If something is written down, then it's a rule or at least it was at one point. If something is merely talked about, it might just be what that individual person thinks is best. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Not everything written down has equal status as a rule; and not everything unwritten (or poorly articulated) is unimportant. I guess I'm not disagreeing with you, but perhaps clarifying. --Pi zero (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You're just telling me how you see things in the subject that we are discussing. This is called "conversation." If we keep it up, the earthlings will never suspect a thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

WN:Never assume vs NPOV

We are advised not to assume things on-wiki. But the "never assume" clause could be problematic. Your articles generally focus on US politics (or anything that mentions Trump) In some way or the another, those articles highlight that Trump did something which is not acceptable. Fine, not a problem. But then, I have (as well as the other reviewer has) noted you often break NPOV. Now it could be a pure coincidence that I think this article about firing someone, in headlines, indicates Trump, who is US president, fired someone. Whom did he fire, or why did he fire? There is no explanation! So as a reader, I assume Trump took advantage of his position and fired someone (who probably had nothing to do with Trump, else it would be mentioned) For the reviewers and editors, you can ask them not to assume these things, but how would you convince a reader? There are ways one can troll someone/ provide incorrect or misleading information in headlines. In any case, NPOV is one of the pillars, not "never assume". Looking at this, as a reviewer, we have to try hard to find whether there is a hidden troll is hidden somewhere in the article, if something cleverly violates NPOV et cetera. If an experienced writer does this, there is something wrong with them to follow the pillars and/or conflict of interest—and in that case, things get difficult for a reviewer. If a n00b does it, that is a different story. But you are making things difficult for reviewers. One can shield from COIs and NPOVs via never assume, if we don't pay proper attention. And it makes reviews more challenging. You don't want us to waste time looking for possible bias. (But the current image of yours is that bias is present in some of your articles.)
106.216.161.125 (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

" other reviewer "

So you're a reviewer. Log in.

Within twenty-four-hours, you've called other people's suggestions "ridiculous" and complained both about a problem and our efforts to solve it. Log in so that I know you're not just messing with me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Why do you want me to log in? How would it solve your problems with Npov? Did it solve when I was logged in? And for the one last time, I did not say Gryllida's comments were ridiculous. The approach to clarify the country by saying "White House of the United States" sounds unnatural, and that is ridiculous. Address the problems about npov. If you think I am messing around, ask the reviewer who reviewed most of your articles.
103.254.128.118 (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Either you are who you pretend to be, or you're not. If you're not, you're messing around. If you are, refusing to log in at this point could reasonably be construed as messing around. --Pi zero (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Bias is best resolved on a specific article talk page, in a collaborative fashion, aiming to present the material neutrally. (Coverage of one topic is a good thing; we get an audience of people who know this topic well, and may add another story.) --Gryllida (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I've left you a new message

--Gryllida (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Followed up. --Gryllida (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I've left you a message at Breitbart dismissal story talk page

--Gryllida (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

What to expect re. "FOIA attack on 'Restoring Internet freedom'"?

May I ask what I should expect and what, if anything, I should be doing re. FOIA attack on 'Restoring Internet freedom'?

I ask, because it's been over 49 hours since I first posted the article and over 22 hours since the last edit (apart from Pi zero adding my name to a "Collaboration" comment I made, then forgot to add ~~~~). I ask you, because you seem to have spent the most time with that article, other than me.

I lost the third story I wrote for Wikinews, because I misread what someone had written and waited two or three days for a reviewer to take the next step while the reviewers were waiting for me to respond.  :-(

Should I change the name of the article to "'Restoring Internet Freedom' bill challenged under United States Freedom of Information Act", which you suggested? It's fine with me if someone else does that. Pi zero earlier changed the title from <<FOIA attack on "Restoring Internet freedom">> to <<FOIA attack on 'Restoring Internet freedom'>> (replacing double quotes with single quotes).

Do you want me to pick a photo of Pai to add? I've seen his picture enough places, I'm happy not having it here. However, its fine with me if someone else does that -- using that either in place of or in addition to the graphic I created for it.

Should I change the description of Pai to his official title, as suggested by Gryllida? Again, it's fine with me if someone else does that.

I just didn't want to take the lead in making any of these changes, especially since they were posed in terms of modest suggestions, but I don't see any as superior to what I wrote -- though I would not object if someone else just made the change.

This story is not changing as fast as events in Egypt was when Mubarak was overthrown, as you and Pi zero discussed above. And the timeliness issue got a reboot when I learned yesterday that Pai had done something that morning: Without that, the story was already two days old when I discovered it and posted the first draft.

Thanks for your interest and support on this story. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

<dropping in> @DavidMCEddy: I think the ball is in my court. To state the obvious, I've been having trouble getting to review for the past few days. I got up this morning really really determined to review that article immediately, that morning, and... more the fool I, for all that determination. I started to plan out a not-ready review of that article, and then, it just hasn't happened yet. Even now I'm hoping to get it done before I get to bed tonight, though in recent years I've had mostly bad luck when attempting late-in-the-day review. This, of course, is part of a known difficulty of the Wikinews review process, and is part of what I have targeted with my long-range plans, which makes no difference at all to the immediate situation. But for whatever clarity it may provide to the situation, that's how I see it. --Pi zero (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: I think I see the core problem here. You want to know why your article hasn't been reviewed yet. It's 1) because the review team's small and they have to budget their time (as Pi Zero says) and 2) because the talk page discussions are still ongoing. Most of the time, the reviewers won't start work on an article if there are any active collaboration page discussions. That's one of the rules they have to follow: address any issues brought up on the talk page. If it looks like those things haven't settled out yet, they will wait.

Basically, the reviewers are waiting for the rest of us to do our jobs before they start theirs. You flattered me by asking a bunch of other questions, so I'll answer them:

1. ) Yes, you should follow Gryllida's suggestion. Pai's full, official title should be in the article at least once. It's usually best to put it at the first mention. This is more or less required by Wikinews' rules.
2. ) Yes, you should change the title to something that reflects the article's new focal event. That can be my suggestion or something else. A title targeting the focal event is required.
3. ) You do not have to add the picture of Pai.
4. ) I'm not sure if we're allowed to use your graphic, since anything you make is technically your copyright, unless you have officially released it for re-use for any purpose. The guys on Wikimedia Commons would know more about this.
5. ) In general, you should not wait to do anything that needs to be done before the article can be reviewed, anything non-optional. That would mean compliance with the pillars, style guide, and sourcing rules.
6. ) Sometimes you will write a perfect article and it will still time out for lack of review. It's just the nature of the beast and we all have to accept it.

Here on Wikinews, the drafter of the article (that's you) plays a much bigger role than the first major contributor does in a Wikipedia article. Technically no one has to ask your permission to make changes, but many Wikinewsies will be shy about making big ones (other than fixing spelling, etc.). We're still a team and we all have to follow rules, but you're team leader. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

News

Let me make this short and simple. Just like how a Muslim is expected to follow basic pillars of Islam, a Wikinewsie is supposed to do the same with Wikinews's pillars. See the word "news". Whatever we say, it has to be new. There can not be any exceptions. If you can not tell the "new" thing, either the story is not new, or you need to learn how to say it. In this case, purple frog, the only new thing is the sources. Since they announced last month, it is pointless attempt getting it through review. Two things you should be really careful about. "New" focal event. And unbiased reporting. That is the mission of this project. If it were an obituary, where the family broke the information after x days, I could have considered it. Because the focus becomes family announcing death. In this case it was reported a month ago, and nothing can be done about the synthesis.
103.254.128.118 (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: do you mean that this is you posting? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you stop testing my patience and use your common sense? Do you understand priorities? Do you even take it seriously? What is more important—complying with the project mission, and actually trying to see what the IP is trying to say, or trying to shield yourself from it just by saying, "oh you are a troll, I don't answer trolls".
acagastya PING ME! 05:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

What I think you're getting at is "even if the IP was a troll, you shouldn't ignore their post!" I didn't. I read it, actually. I just kept the response to myself so as not to encourage someone who was clearly not here for a serious discussion. Claiming I "went berserk" by saying "log in so I know you're not a troll"? That's what people do when they want to start a fight.

Getting back to the purple frog article, we are agreed that all articles on Wiknews must be new. They must be fresh. The issue is that this doesn't mean the same thing for all types of content. Science publishing is inherently different from the reporting of current events, politics, weather and sports because of the secrecy involved and the lag time from peer review.

The research itself is almost always the real story. Using the publication date as a focal point sometimes appeases the two-day limit, but surely we can come up with a better guideline for whether research findings are fresh or not. There's nothing magical about the number two.

So I have a question for you: According to Acagastya, what does it mean to be fresh? What does a fresh article do to or for the reader that a stale one does not? You want me to learn from you. This is where I can learn from you. This is the kind of question where hearing what you think might change what I think. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You know: all of these things, let it be discovery of some ancient animal, death of some chancellor, finding a new exoplanet …out of seven billion people in the world, these things affect lot of people when it happens, but after some time, nobody cares. Now don't get disturbed because I said nobody. Who really cares: fanboys, haters and stat lovers. That is the sad part of news media. Latest things affect people. Nobody buys old news. Report something when it happened. That is new, and might qualify for news. Something that is news would eventually become archive. But to become an archive, it should be said when it happened. Our policy allows three days, Spanish Wikinews allows a week, and if you ask me, two days. Do you know when I wrote Trudeau's article, and it wasn't even the third day, it was marked stale because most of the people knew about it by the time it could be under review. In this case, the purple frog might find a spot on the archive, that is Wikipedia. Current events in every field affects individuals. But after passage of time, we are too busy with newer things that we hardly care what happened sometime ago. Now things like demonetisation in India or LGBT rights in Germany would still affect the people, reporting it now is pointless. Report the incidents when it affects the most number of people the most—that is when it happened. We are preoccupied. And by we, I mean any reader. How current things affect market, economy, income, lifestyle, comfort, peace, tension — these things work under the hood. After a point in time, new things replace those who affected those things. And this cycle continues. We should work with this cycle. It is not that you never experienced the sad part of news media, but that is the truth. Other news websites work so people read, and they get money, or have some stock value, or something that would help them eat two square meals, at least, and help them fulfill their needs. Money guides a lot of things, and it can be clearly observed if you compare a local daily and an international news website. Why news companies like the BBC would not report about a local motorcycle theft in a small town in Bangladesh, but would cover their political elections. While Wikinews is not guided by the money, readers are. Not actually money, but how would their lives be affected by those events. Like for example Jeff Bezos becoming the richest man might have something to do with stock holders of AMZN, but it is a long forgotten thing, and it hardly affects anyone to care about it. Since Wikinews deals with anything that affects few hundreds or thousands of people, a car crash might be newsworthy. But in the end, if it is not current, it is not newsworthy. You want to know how things affect people of various age group and sex: I would have told you, but read that poem by Shakespeare about seven stages in life, and try to connect it with what affects people in that age the most.
acagastya PING ME! 06:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Report something when it happened

By that standard, we would report almost no scientific discoveries, because they are almost always made weeks and months before they are published in any forum.

Next question: National Geographic and The Hindu and the other sources that covered this discovery clearly didn't think it was too stale to cover. Why do you think that is and why do you think Wikinews should not share their standards? Do you think there's money involved?

You have stimulated my thinking in this way: Most discoveries are of things that are ongoing or longstanding, like "this protein affects cancer in this way (and has been doing so the whole time; we just didn't know about it)." Like this frog has been in the Western Ghats for millions of years. It's only that people just found out about it. The criterion for science news should be the degree to which people have already found out about the discovery.

Say it was something like the identity of Deep Throat. Mr. F. really was Deep Throat the whole time; he just kept it a secret for decades. But the release of that information to the public was news. I don't think we'd reject that story just because he told a small number of people the month before the public found out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

This is where you are wrong. For scientific discoveries, the focal point is "them disclosing what they have found".

Next question: National Geographic and The Hindu and the other sources that covered this discovery clearly didn't think it was too stale to cover. Why do you think that is and why do you think Wikinews should not share their standards? Do you think there's money involved?

Why we should not share their standards? Because we are not them. NatGeo is not a news website, at the first place (Don't point towards the BBC and BBC News — NatGeo never dedicated itself for news). And Wikinews is different from other news websites. Other sources provides opinion (The Hindu does that, yes). They publish wardrobe malfunction (all bow before ToI). Taking the example of The Independent, they even write what the Queen of England eats, which is not even news. Others are free to downgrade their quality, break the laws of journalism. Wikinews is not going to be a part of it.

No matter how important the stories are — let it be killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 or the Japan tsunami in the same year — people stop giving a damn, after a point in time. Surely it affected millions of people when it happened, but as I said, new things would replace the old "news". I met someone from Manchester a week ago. When they said Manchester, the first thing that came to my mind was Manchester bombing (not Man Utd or Man City, despite being a football fan, and him talking about Man Utd). If they would have said Madrid, I would not think of 2004 Madrid bombing. Sooner or later, things go out of fashion. Wikinews should publish news which becomes archive, not directly jumping to archive — leave that for Wikipedia. For the part where money is involved — The Hindu is not a good news source. But it is better than other mediocre news websites in India (yes, ToI, I am talking about you). Did you read the headline of that article? "'N.bhupathi', a frog with the face of a pig" Who would even want to click it? Read the first para and tell we why should I read the next one?
acagastya PING ME! 13:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems you're also reacting to whether the N. bhupathi article would have been suitable even if it had been dated August 26. From my perspective, the N. bhupathi article is over. It was rejected once, I addressed the problem as I saw fit and re-submitted it. It was rejected a second time. From my perspective that's "asked and answered."

But I will be writing more science articles. I think the core difference between the two of us is what the article is really about. If the meat of announcement is when did it become knowable to the public, what do we do when that's not the literal publication date? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Just dropping in for a few miscellaneous thoughts. (Clearly I oughtn't spend a lot of time here, with things piling up appallingly on the review queue.) I'm not even going to try to get into the issue of similarities and differences of Wikinews standards to those of mainstream media (way too big).

• We don't write surveys of scientific developments, retrospectives with nothing new in them. But I think you'd find most mainstream news sites don't, either; they'd go out and at least talk to folks and get some new quotes and such. Perhaps our standards for just how much OR is needed might be faintly different, but, really, if one is reaching out to these people, why not get a bit more? We've had a bunch of imho nifty science OR of this sort, a solution that makes it irrelevant that the intial public announcement of the research is no longer fresh (and of course freshness of OR works differently). A large fraction of our OR gets published in the form of transcribed interviews, and in a recent IRC discussion that form was criticized; I'm inclined to defend it as a straightforward way to produce a viable publication, with the proviso that a good interview has a synthetic introduction, but I'm quite willing to agree that much of our very best OR incorporates interview material without being a mere transcript; as exemplars of the two forms I might cite

"Cold as ice: Wikinews interviews Marymegan Daly on unusual new sea anemone" — Wikinews, January 21, 2014

"'Fascinating' and 'provocative' research examines genetic elements of bipolar, schizophrenia" — Wikinews, October 1, 2011

• I don't think the Deep Throat revelation thing is really analogous to a scientific paper that's been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Just saying.
• Tbh, it seems pretty clear to me that the difference here is not what the article is about. I keep trying to treat this as a discussion of a (radical) opinion on policy, but then, from time to time in the discussion, there are these moments where it becomes particularly clear (kind of like the sun coming out from behind a cloud) that you really are misunderstanding a basic concept about news. One of the most basic slogans of Wikinews is brianmc's classic Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news.

--Pi zero (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I am not reacting to that article, okay. I was talking about how The Hindu presented the article. What shit they are spreading about Prince Charming? The next thing you would demand is that bullshit in the beginning of Wikinews articles. It looks like The Hindu's author wanted to write a blog.
acagastya PING ME! 14:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

For reasons that have nothing to do with our disparate interpretations of WN:FRESH, I don't want to do original reporting right now. You're saying "if you want to post that article, do this extra thing; then our other issue will be moot." That's extremely constructive. But if we can deal with the other issue head on so we don't have to make it moot, that would be even better.

news ceases to be news The fundamental issue seems to be "what makes it news?" Is it whether people have already heard about it? Is it whether people have only begun to be affected by it? Is it whether it actually didn't exist before? The other question is "How do we deliver science news that is as fresh as our other news, given that peer review and the weird science publishing schedule produces a lag?" When you're dealing with different materials, sometimes you have to process them with different techniques to produce results of the same quality. Don't cook broccoli for as long as you'd cook a pot roast. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I bet there are lot of people who are unaware of "Murderous Mary". That does not make her execution newsworthy. Many would find that story interesting and most of them would have no idea about it does not mean it is good enough to be news.
acagastya PING ME! 16:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like the issue with Murderous Mary is significance rather than timing. Like I said above, in addition to your concerns about the July 31 Alytes publication date, it sounds like you also think that the description of Bhupathy's purple frog just isn't big enough news by itself, that you rejected the article for at least two separate reasons.

It also sounds like you believe that what makes an article newsworthy is not exclusively whether people have heard about it yet. I can certainly use this to refine my idea. This is helpful. So perhaps it's more "people have not yet heard about it but would" or something like that. It can't just be whether they'll be affected because people in Indonesia aren't that affected by a hurricane in Texas but we still call that news. I will ponder this further. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The article failed to identify what is so important about this discovery. Is it a missing link? Does his poop yield gold? Can they regenerate? What? The only thing that was sort of important was how they adapted themselves to live, and the way you presented it–even with biology as my background, I did not find it newsworthy. You know very well that trying to sound like my advise is "not to write about certain things" is pointless. A. I really don't care what you try to do about it (incidentally, looking at your records, you don't care to write about events which did not happen in U.K. Or US.) let me remind you what is newsworthy: something that affects a few hundreds or thousands of people is newsworthy. One Wikinewsie once said (I can't remember who) "before starting an article, think will this affect a school teacher in Manila? If not, you are wasting your time". While opinions of Wikinewsies differ about it, the article must be written in a news standard. That article was written so poorly, that I was wondering what to say! "Green cousins" — what do you think of Wikinews? Is this some kind of blog website that you present things in such an ambiguous and confusing way? News got to have something unique, interesting thing. Which you could not, for that article. I must say, you have cultivated a habit to deflect the underlying problem like a naïve newbie. Alas, I don't feed those frogs.
acagastya PING ME! 17:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

See on that point, I don't happen to agree with you but I don't see that as a problem. Our differences of opinion about what makes an article fresh vis a vis "is it recent enough?" are maybe not a problem per se, but it's likely to come up again and Pi zero's said he wants it resolved before he'd change his mind about my bid for reviewership. As to whether "is this important enough?" that's just going to happen once in the while and I don't see that as a big deal.

As to events that didn't happen in the U.K. or U.S., you know this frog was found in India, right? And I did that whole string of articles about the murder if Kim Jong Nam.

Back to developing a working definition of freshness: "The readers won't have heard about it yet and it's a sufficiently big deal." Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

(don't start squeaking because I didn't log in) by your last statement, even the execution of Mary would qualify for news. What do you have to say about it?
103.254.128.118 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Acagastya, if this is you, say "yes this IP user is me." Anon103: If you're not Acagastya, then log in. I am willing to tolerate some rudeness from an editor who's proven himself to have other good qualities but not from an anonymous user who hasn't. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of who posted it, tell me, what do you say about execution of Mary? Since you said: "The readers won't have heard about it yet and it's a sufficiently big deal."
acagastya PING ME! 06:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Acagastya, I want to know if I am talking to one person or two people. If you say this IP user is you, then I will answer the posts. If you don't, I'll delete them.

To answer you, I've never heard of "Murderous Mary" before just now. Whether or not her execution is news depends on why I haven't heard about it. If it's because it was so recent, then it's probably news. If it's because it was long ago or unimportant, then probably not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Got another one. The thing about science news is the lag between the actual event and public access to it. We had another article about a political prisoner who'd been executed, but the public only found out about it recently. I'm blanking on exactly who it was right now. But I'd say the difference is that in that case the fact that the government had kept the execution secret and not told the man's spouse was news because such things are notable and unusual. Whereas in science publishing the lag for peer review is normal, standard, deliberate and expected. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It really matters how you respond to messages by IPs. (Don't you rename the subheading•remember you complained when I changed your message to bullet points, and you didn't like it, I expect you to reflect the same.) Let's not talk in the air. Tell me which article are you talking about? Bassel Khartabil? Cite what you are saying. Your definition of freshness didn't mention "sufficiently recent". So, according to your definition, Mary's execution is news. Which is not possible. Since you do not choose to answer about all of the points, let me remind you: focal point/newsworthy thing about a scientific discovery is its announcement. Go and check the articles: they always say when the study was published.
acagastya PING ME! 13:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between changing headers and changing someone's posts. Your posts have your name on them. It is perfectly natural to provide more specific headers as the conversation changes.

It does matter how we respond to IPs. Most IPs are just regular people who want to help, comment or ask questions. But this IP has acted like a troll and I don't have to encourage that. Even if the IP had been perfectly constructive, it matters whether I'm talking to one person or two people.

I don't happen to remember which article it was, and I didn't see it when I checked. So who's Murderous Mary?

"They always say when the study was published" does not mean that the date of publication is really the important part. That's what I'm trying to do here. Once we work out what really makes a story fresh for the reader, we can come up with a rule of thumb that works better for science news than this arbitrary two-day business. So what do you think of different kinds of lag? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The thing about science articles, or obituaries is: we say when did they die/discover, or announce it -- give a couple of quotes, and then speak what they did in their life/studied for years.
acagastya PING ME! 13:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

So you think science articles are more like obituaries. Right now my knee-jerk is to disagree. Death itself is an event.

You think we should slow this down and come back tomorrow or something? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Now, my limit has reached and I literally mean it: use your common sense. What I am trying to say is both "obituary" and "discovery" articles start when when "a person died" and "when and who discovered something". After the lede, the only "current" or "new" thing about it is the "quotes" about the discovery, or "tribute" to the dead -- may it be in any form. Apart from it the whole article says 0% "new" or "current" thing. Do not include X is survived by Y" because that would not help it cover the minimal length. So for obituary, one writes about what they did in life. After all, if they did do something notable enough, one would write a newsworthy obituary. In case of a discovery or a study -- one would cover up the things they (scientists) found out months, or years ago. Are we clear now? Though one wants to say about the "death", or a "study", one can't cross the minimal length.
acagastya PING ME! 16:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Now, my limit has reached Yes, you're being rude. Discerning fine distinctions and working out definitions is fun for me, but it seems you're tired of it. I have a response to the substance of your post ready, but I will post it tomorrow after we've both had a break. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
this may seem a game for you, but for me, when someone who understands English, concludes that what they could understand is acagastya is trying to say is an obituary and a discovery article is same, this is not a game. Nobody needs any experience in journalism to understand that. You want to deviate from the primary topic, fine. I am not going to. Do whatever you like. But don't expect me to cross paths with pillars like how you do.
acagastya PING ME! 17:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a game (thing done solely for fun that doesn't really matter). I said it was fun. I enjoy working out definitions and fine distinctions the way some people might enjoy organizing a supply closet or building a deck. To some people these things are just chores. To others they're enjoyable chores. I just don't want you to mistake response for argument or hostility. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear fusion example

Okay new scenario. I saw this today, from Popular Mechanics. That's nuclear fusion. This stuff could change the world and because it's only now hitting the science-for-laypeople publications, it's possible to write an article such that people could read about it on Wikinews before general pubs like The New York Times publish on it. That's the pattern for science news: first the journals, then Eurekalert and popular science mags, then the newspapers. But because the study itself came out more than a few days ago, it's uncoverable on Wikinews if we interpret the freshness rule the same way we would for politics or sports. That's where all this "what gives?" is coming from. Professional news outlets are either not evaluating freshness in science news using the same criteria they use for other types of news or they are evaluating all of them using criteria different from Wikinews'. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There are so many things that changes how the people live. Let it be the same-sex marriage legalised in the US two years ago, or send to be discussed in Chile, two days ago. But after some time, it is not "new" to be news. You could make a bot which would notify you whenever a study is published in a journal so you can work on it as soon as possible. I remember I could not find any sources for Debian related article. It was losing freshness, and it didn't receive main stream attention, similarly with Stielike's article. Wikinews published the article even before it hit the MSM. You should aim to share things as fast as possible, not push it back.
103.254.128.118 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

1) Log in.

2) The problem with using bots is a) it only works if you already know that a particular study is about to be completed, and like I said scientists tend to keep their work under wraps (kind of like how I'm expecting the Turtle Survival Alliance to report the results of their attempt to breed Rafetus swinehoei and have subscribed the their mailing list accordingly) and b) Wikinews cannot publish unless there are at least two independent sources. The journal article on cold fusion came out months ago, but other sources are only picking it up now. That's why holding science news to the two-day rule doesn't work. The study itself and the works discussing it are often published much more than two days apart. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Make use of RSS. Or something like gpy. If you have a problem with how English Wikinews works, in this case, two independent sources, I can't help you. There are sources who write about those studies quickly, but those are not big websites. It is hard to find them, but not impossible.
acagastya PING ME! 03:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I tried to keep my cool, and tell you what you can do. But all you want to do is revert those edits, and not looking at the things listed, I wouldn't regret to say, do what you want to do -- but this is never going to work. You would end up wasting your time, and some time of reviewers to not-ready it. I would not be entertaining any talk page messages if I find any article with the similar problem. While I try to make things available faster, so the things that go out are "new", you try to push "old" archived things.
acagastya PING ME! 12:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Acagastya, I already told you that I'm reading every post that whoever-it-is leaves here. I just don't want to reward possible trolling with a response. If this IP user is you, say "yes, that's me" or "this is Acagastya" and I'll treat those posts as if they are signed. If these are your posts but for some reason you don't feel like saying, then I will delete anything that seems even a little trollish or rude to me. Acagastya the Wikinewsie has earned some consideration for his brash manner and time has shown that you don't mean any trouble by it. It's just your shtick. I can't say the same for an anonymous poster.

I do not have a problem with the two-sources rule. The project in this thread is to work out exactly what "freshness" is so that it can be applied to science news articles in a way that will bring the readers fresh news without excluding newsworthy subject matter on a technicality.

So whether it's you or not, you've taken responsibility for the content of that post. You got me: I don't know how to work RSS. It sounds like what you're saying is "the objection that no two sources occur close enough together does not hold up because RSS sources are published very soon after the original paper." Let's explore that. So let's use this nuclear fusion article as an example. Are there any reliable RSS-accessible sources that would have covered this shortly after the scientists published their work in Nature Physics? I'll do the legwork if you can get me started on how RSS works. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Subscribe to the RSS feed. [3]
acagastya PING ME! 13:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hm this still has the problem of 1) you'd already need to know that the study was there. 2) There's nothing here from June or July at all. 3) These looks like they're just links to the scientific studies themselves. Am I missing something? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you read what an "RSS" is? Also, since I use Telegram, I can get a bot deal with the RSS and the technical stuff, giving me the news, out of it.
acagastya PING ME! 14:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just looked up how RSS works. It sounds like it just proactively tells me what's going on on all the websites that I would be checking anyway. It does not sound like it would provide access to publications that I didn't know about before that might have been covering the science news before the general sites like National Geographic and newspapers. If that's correct, then the problem "We're missing out on a lot of science news because of the lag between professional journals and mainstream corroboration" still stands.

I'm going to think about this for another day and then bring a more organized poser to the water cooler. You were kind enough to answer my questions but I think hearing some more voices might help too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Trump.....

Tell you what....if you can get some more 'meat' worked into that article, I'll put the finishing touches on it. How's that sound?? --Bddpaux (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bddpaux: I wanted to give the news a good read before responding. I decided to update this one instead. I think it could use another set of eyes, though. Repeated updates are prone to error. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

'Sunken city' discovered off Tunisian coast

Reviewed. Please check the article talk page. Thank you. --Gryllida (talk, chat) 04:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Computer trouble

Hi everyone. I am experiencing severe technical difficulty and may not respond to pings promptly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

For example, I can tell I got pinged for something but can't read the ping notices. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Travel ban; destroying North Korea

Just came to know Notth Korea and Venezuela are now in the list of travel ban. Sudan is not. Act fast, before it hits MSM. Maybe we can also freshen up “totally destroying North Korea” article too. (CC @Quinton Feldberg:)
acagastya PING ME! 00:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

okay... Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: is this an article request or something? And you're posting on my talk page because I've written articles on Korean before? Why not just start the article and invite us to collaborate? (Hm, but I keep doing that and no one steps in...) Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a request as such. I generally ping editors whenever I hear about a story which I think would interest them. That is not my type of article, and you are better at it, so I asked on talk. Also, it would help freshen up the article about his speech.
acagastya PING ME! 02:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Dyslexia: scientists claim cause of condition may lie in the eyes

I haven’t subscribed to scientific journals, but The Guardian published this story. If you wish to write it, you need to it as soon as possible.
acagastya PING ME! 04:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

When you make posts like this on my talk page, I feel that you think you're doing me a favor but you're actually asking me to do you one.

I looked at the article request page. I've actually never seen it before. Maybe it's time to bring the "proposed article" category back to the newsroom so you can post things like this where people will actually SEE them. Darkfrog24 (talk)

Neither I am doing a favour, or asking for it. Having or not having this article is not going to affect me in any way. But, I am telling for the greater good, for having the article on Wikinews. I hate it when I come to know about a story after it is no longer fresh. And I thought this might interest you. This is not a "request" as such, but article suggestions from the pool. That is what I wish we [various Wikinews editors from different languages] could do off-wiki.
acagastya PING ME! 13:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Then these messages are not coming off the way you intend them to. I think we should bring back the proposed article space in the newsroom so you could pitch stories like this to the whole field. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. I suggest articles to many editors. Some work on it, some don't. It is their decision, and my task is just to suggest them the articles.
acagastya PING ME! 14:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't make suggestions to me any more. It's not something that's inherently bad, but it bothers me. It is not coming off as just a suggestion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Sure.
acagastya PING ME! 14:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested articles?

I see that you started Mirror patterns in the eye may cause dyslexia, scientists say with this comment (Beginning requested article), and was wondering where I can find the list (category?) of requested articles. I have an idea I would like to post for someone else who may be interested in developing it (i don't have the time myself). Would you please share this information with me? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: The correct way to request articles is actually an issue right now. I started the dyslexia article because Acagastya came to my talk page and suggested it (see above). I personally don't like it when he does this, but that's probably just me, and there's no rule against it.

There is an official Requested Articles Page, but I'm not sure many people know about it. I didn't know it was there until this week, and there's a link to it in the Newsroom.

I recommend that you just start the article. Give it a title, list any source that you may already know about, and leave it in development. Where it says "delete this line," write clearly "I don't have time to write this article myself and I invite anyone in the Wikinews community to do so" or something to that effect in your own words. Do the same in the edit summary. Put a line on the collaboration page. I've expanded plenty of articles that had nothing but a title and one source.

So that's it 1) you're allowed to post requests on other Wikinewsies' talk pages; 2) there's an official Requested Articles Page; 3) you can start the article and indicate that you want someone else to finish it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: No, that is a wrong way to do. Newbies do not necessarily write "news" style headline. It is often encyclopedic like, (for example 2017 Las Vegas Mass Shooting) In that case, saying "I don't have time to write this article myself and I invite anyone in the Wikinews community to do so" is incorrect, could be confused for WN:SD#A12. The article should not say that, it would be better to leave a note on talk page.
acagastya PING ME! 08:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, Acagastya, it says on the newsroom page "Note: Instead of requesting articles, Write a quick brief." If that's out of date, we could change it, but that is exactly what it says right now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

“news briefs” are no longer written. But a brief is different from, “I don’t have time to…”. Notes of that kind should be on the talk.
acagastya PING ME! 11:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

But in general you're fine with Ottawahitech just starting an article so long as the title's okay and the note describing his or her intentions is in the right place? Great. Ottawa, do that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
That user has created almost a dozen articles, and only one was published -- I remember when I joined, and faced a similar situation. So I can related. Really. So I am fine. But that does not guarantee other admins/reviewers/users doing it. At the same time, I advice newbiews to see observe and learn from what others are doing. If someone else does it, and if they don't do it properly, it would be marked with A12.
acagastya PING ME! 15:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for help not working

I posted a new article in development at Rental unit overrun by maggots, mould and feces after city program fails landlord and to my surprise and pleasure has User: Gryllida come to the rescue and start a story. However this has now run into the usual difficulty: obtaining a second source (the CBC has at least four articles published in connection, anf the Ottawa Citizen has included this topic with some other tidbits, obviously trying to come up with a new angle), and not enough wikinews participants are interested or even aware. Of course this story will soon be doomed to staleness. I am starting to wonder if this type of story is not of interest to this community?Ottawahitech (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

I took a look and I think I see the problem: The way the article's written, it looks like you're saying "An Ottawa landlord kicked a guy out for being a slob." Eh. That's not news news but we can do an article on things like that once in the while. But I checked the sources and the real story seems to be "The Salvation Army promised a landlord that if he let a homeless guy stay in one of his units, they'd make sure he kept it clean and THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THAT HAPPENED!" The issue is that the SA didn't keep their promises (OR the landlord is lying, ooooooo!) It's got a good chunk of intrigue and it ties into a bigger social issue--Canada's homeless. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: When I need another source, I find a rare word in the story and run a search for that. "Nitin Mehra" got me some results, but they don't seem to be independent. Ottawa Citizen sounds like it would be a good source. Is it not available online or something? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

You have done wonders with this story, thank you so much. I am still crossing my fingers that different sources will turn up tomorrow. The CBC obviously threw a lot of resources into this story, maybe others just don't think they can compete? Anyway I am off for now. 02:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

Well it is very small and very local, and it criticizes a charitable organization. I can see why it wouldn't be most news outlets' first pick. I hope you're right but we should prepare ourselves to be satisfied with a job well done and no more.

Thank you very much for your kind words. I kind of needed that today. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, you desrerve much more in my insignificant opinion. You are the main reason I am still sticking around wikinews. I admire your tenacity, continuing to plug in day after day, dealing so eloquently with ( sometimes unjustified imio)) rejection. I hope I am not the only one around who has noticed how much you do around wiki-news, and that your behavior encourages other good faith editors to persist.

As far as a small local story - I tried to address this on the talkpage of the article Ottawahitech (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Puerto Rico power company cancels $300 million Whitefish contract

I thought you succeeded in getting the previous version of this story (American citizenship of Puerto Ricans IIRC?) published. Too bad I really liked the original which I guess is still hidden in one of the revisions.

Anyway, just wanted to alert you to the fact that the date of the article says Oct 30 and is reffered to as today in the lede , while the sources are dated Oct 29. Yes, I know first hand now how difficult it is to change direction in an existing article, sigh... Another good story imo BTW. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I did copy one paragraph from another, previous article, the paragraph describing what kind of Americans Puerto Ricans are, because unfortunately even a lot of Americans don't know. But that's just background. I wrote the rest of the article from scratch.

The date issue that you mentioned happens all the time isn't really a problem. It was still October 29 where I am when I was writing it. Things like this get ironed out in and around review. It's possible that the reviewers won't be able to article until after I've had to update it for other reasons. If it's bothering you, though, go ahead and change the date. You won't be stepping on anyone's toes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry about that. I'd moved the article, apparently while you were writing a comment on the talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't even notice.

(sigh) It's a one-word issue with a title. Molehills shouldn't become mountains, but I'm not sure what else I can do about this short of asking Acagastya to just stay away from me for a couple of months. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I realize you didn't notice; that's why I apologized. I should have left a redirect behind when I moved the article, which would I think have caused an edit conflict when you tried to save your edit, but because I didn't, we now have two divergent evolutions of the talk page under different names.

I noticed you were getting cross with acagastya about the matter; evidently acagastya's way of expressing xyrself has grated with you. Tbh, though, it's not that small an issue. Whatever you may think of xyr form of expression (I too have gotten tangled up in how I put things myself), xe is correct that there is a problem with the word, and that you should be striving to avoid that sort of difficulty. It's also true the article would have been much better off if the problem had been dealt with before I attempted to review it. --Pi zero (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not that Acagastya thinks there's a problem with the word "uncensored." The problem is that Acagastya used it as an excuse to give a rant and accuse me of a not doing a bunch of things that aren't really my job. It feels like he had a bad day at school and felt like taking a slug at someone, and I'm not okay with it being me. If a constructive comment is indistinguishable from a rant, then I can't use that comment without tacitly consenting to being a punching bag, and I'm not okay with that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don’t know how to dumb it down further than this: are we cent percent sure the report is not censored, or is it someone else saying it is not censored? You would not have checked the link I had posted on the talk page, but when NSA could get a “back door” to encryption algorithm for US$ 10 million, how can we be so sure they are not lying. If tomorrow, it turns out to be that they actually mingled with the report, and the facts, think how embarrassing it would be for Wikinews. Attribute, give credit and do not opinionate the article. It sounds simple. Let’s see if you do this. Here is the difference. I have told you before. Pi zero has said this before. But you end up doing it. If you do not think it is wrong, it is possible you did not understand the underlying problem yet. Maybe I am expecting too much. But you know, I have noticed no matter how bad my day is, I don’t end up reflecting opinions until and unless I have a serious sleep backlog. I am not sure how it works for you.
acagastya PING ME! 01:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I did check the link you posted.

Acagastya, none of this is the issue.

The issue is that when you claim that a given word, "uncensored" or anything else, is unjustified by the source material, but you don't read the source material first OR after I ask you to, it means I can't and shouldn't trust your judgement. It looks like you just feel like slapping me in the face because you're getting off on it. When you claim the word is unjustified and don't read the source material and go on a rant about how I'm wasting your time and making more work for you (and I'm not), it means you just feel like ranting at someone. I'm not your punching bag. I'm not your employee. I'm not your student. I'm not your little brother. I'm not your mom. I'm not your dog. I'm not okay with it.

The issue is that when you rant at me to do something that you could easily do yourself it looks like you care more about ranting than about producing a good article. Don't ask me to walk half a mile to come pick up a piece of litter that's next to your shoe. You're already there and I'm not the janitor. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

'Paradise Papers' reveal tax shelters for companies, politicians, royalty

I am not sure Pi zero will publish your 'Paradise Papers' reveal tax shelters for companies, politicians, royalty story, so I will pretend your talkpage is the public comments section:

I don’t believe these 387 reporters are serving the public good by whipping up hysteria about rich people gaming the system. This is not a calm, rational discussion meant to inform. It is more of a lynch mob attacking the rich.

Why am I saying this?

Well, first, there is the implication that the reason people invest globally is that they are thereby cheating on paying taxes. Take the Queen of England, who admitted publicly to investing overseas, but she also says she pays the taxes due.

Second, in the United States and in Canada (possibly in other countries too, don’t know?) Corporate income tax is different than personal income tax. The lumping of those two groups together, is again whipping up hysteria of massive tax evasion.

As far as personal income tax is concerned, I really don’t understand this hysteria. If individuals, rich or less rich, do not pay their taxes, their income tax should be audited, and if they didn't pay they should be punished. Why attack all rich people with the assumption that because they invest in other countries, they are automatically corrupt?

As an aside, the United States has a almost-unique (other than Eritrea) personal tax system that tries to collect taxes from people who do not reside in the United States. For example Canadians (and other nationalities) who happened to be born in the United States, but have had no other connection to America, are expected by the IRS to file an American tax return every year. That means those unlucky Canadians must file and pay taxes to both Canada and the United States (I won’t bore you with the details of foreign tax credits). This affects every Canadian "US-person" , rich, not so rich and those in abject poverty.

On top of this, these ordinary citizens are lumbered with much more complex filing requirements due to FATCA legislation introduced during the Obama years, not to talk about the fact that the US arm-wrestled other countries to pick up the tab for implementing this legislation.

Am I making sense? If so I will continue when I get a chance. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

I love a good rant! You go ahead! But on a Wikinews note, if you can find an expert saying that this is blown out of proportion, that would make a good addition to the article. Try searching for "moral panic."

There's another word for "Canadians born in the U.S." It's "Americans." Anyone born on U.S. soil is legally a U.S. citizen. People who don't want to pay U.S. taxes can move abroad (or stay in Canada) and repudiate their citizenship. Only if the IRS thinks the only reason a person repudiated was to avoid taxes do they continue to expect payment, and then only for a set number of years.

Someone born with dual Canadian-American citizenship but grew up in Canada would have all the years of their childhood to let that clock run out. But maybe they or their parents thought that the legal right to move to New York and stay as long as you want was worth it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

So yeah, they can go, "I am no nephew of yours, Uncle Sam! I am but your northern neighbor dude, Bob of Manitoba." Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I also think the article won't be published because it's almost stale. Sad because it's the first article I felt I contributed on... But there will be others. I see Ottawahitech's point that much of the issue is whipped up hysteria. An argument to the contrary is that the money not being taxed is a huge part of the GDP of some countries, which shifts the tax burden onto people and companies who can afford it less. From the ICIJ source, "They do so at the expense of the many – shifting the burden of taxation to middle-income taxpayers and giving multinational corporations an advantage over smaller competitors. Where it hurts most is in nations struggling to provide the basics for their populations." That's a huge issue, really. Ca2james (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Perfectly good articles aging out is just nature of the beast here on Wikinews, at least when the review team is so small. It's like how, on Wikipedia, other people will come in and change your work. It's just how the project works and there's nothing personal about it. If this one ages out, it's reasonably possible that some new development will allow us to retread this one and get it up there in some form. That way, Wikinews' archive will show that it covered this great event of 2017. Let's say that next week, Appleby issues another statement about this whole mess. An article on that would need a different lead but could use most of the same background information. Write a new title, a new lede and update the rest where necessary and boom. We would use the same article page, and all the old versions would be preserved in the page history.

I'd have to agree on your other point. The whole thing that makes the Paradise Papers news is not that rich people and corporations dodge their taxes. We always knew that. It's that they're doing it a lot more than we thought they were. It's like knowing that a certain number of people convicted of crimes were actually innocent and you imagine it's about 0.5%. So the system isn't perfect. Oh well. But what if you suddenly find out it's actually 40% of all convicts who are really innocent? That means the system isn't just imperfect; it has a serious problem and needs to be fixed right now. 01:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll suppress my reflex to go on a rant about my plan to take over the world overhaul the tool infrastructure of Wikinews, but I note that, by my understanding of the project's dynamic equation, the most critical figure is not the size of the review team, but how many active reporters can be supported by a given amount of review effort. The review team comes from the pool of active reporters, but not every reporter is suited to become a reviewer, and even if they are suited for it, they will typically require quite a lot of experience before they're actually ready to review, experience that can't happen unless articles get reviewed — so that the next generation of reviewers is a small fraction of the current generation of reporters. Basically, if an average reviewer lasts N years and supports M reporters, it had better take on average less than N*M reporter-years to generate one reviewer. --Pi zero (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting. I feel like we're talking about whether the unit of evolution is the gene, the individual or the population.

Right now, the reviewer/reporter ratio is low (and we should remember that reviewers are also reporters, as Acagastya demonstrates). What that means for the process is that the reporter should assume that the article is going to sit and wait in the review hopper for a non-negligible period. That means that it's worth it to get the draft done right away, get it from the development hopper to the review hopper ASAP so as not to miss any reviewer with time on their hands who might flit by. That means that the draft should go into review even if it isn't perfect and polished but rather when it's merely presentable. There may be time for polishing later and there may not be time for review now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC) If the ratio were higher and the reporter could assume that it would be reviewed either right away or might-as-well-be-right-away, then it would be worth it to spend that extra time in the development hopper, especially if that drew contributions from other sets of eyes (though in practice, other editors are going to work on it no matter which pile it's in). Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, thank you for your explanation about reworking the article. I've been lurking on Wikinews for quite a while, reading articles and following them through review to see what's being changed and why and to understand the process. It's what I do; I don't like making huge mistakes and I like to have a sense of how things work before I try my hand at them.

The number of reporters a reviewer can support and the reviewer/reporter ratio are both describing the same thing. I don't know whether more reviewers are needed or whether the current number can support the number of reporters. Obviously over time new reviewers will be needed as reviewers burn out drift away and (hopefully!) as more reporters arrive. But adding new reporters means more work for reviewers, possibly forcing them to attempt to support too many reporters, which in turn slows down reviewing, which in turn means reporters don't gain the necessary experience to review quickly enough.

In the meantime, I guess it makes sense to put articles into the review hopper once they're developed even though they're being tweaked. What I don't know is whether a reviewer might choose to not review an article that is being tweaked. Ca2james (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

But there was such a natural experiment! If you want to see a case of a much MUCH higher reporter to reviewer ratio, we get a class full of Australian journalism students blowing through here every so often. There have been more than twenty stories in the hopper all at once. You could just ask Pi zero and Bloodredsandman I wanna say how they dealt with it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ca2james: A few thoughts.

• Some years ago we had many more active reviewers — and articles still sometimes went stale waiting for review. How frequently it happens depends in part, presumably, on how much upward pressure there is on our output level; but my sense is that there's a really vast pool of latent demand for review out there, so I think we can never eliminate this effect entirely.
• Just to connect the dots, my intent is to bring tooling within the purview of the wiki community (so it grows tools much as it grows content), and use those tools to massively increase reviewer productivity; a reviewer ought to be able to review a moderate-sized article by a veteran Wikinewsie in half an hour (and I'd love to eventually get that down to 15 minutes). So the technology for growing tools becomes the means for increasing the reporter/reviewer ratio.
• There can sometimes be a problem with tweaking an article after it goes on the review queue. As a reviewer I've been known to eye an article, trying to brace myself to attempt a review, then it gets edited and I think, I'd better leave it alone for a while until it becomes stable again, rather than risk trying to review an article that's halfway through a change. A possible preventative (just a suggestion) is to put {{editing}} at the top of the article while working on it, perhaps with an edit summary indicating how much you expect to do.

--Pi zero (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24/Archive 1, re: if you can find an expert saying that this is blown out of proportion...:

To be honest if I could find an expert who can attack the myth (IMIO) surrounding properties of Japanese Knotweed, I would be a hero to many, I believe. Japanese Knotweed was brought to my attention years ago by a terrified friend. I have since seen it growing in many places, without the terrifying effects attributed to it. I may be wrong, but I believe this is one of the most damaging myths circulating on the web (I guess I should check Snopes about it, if I ever get a-round-tuit). Ottawahitech (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Pi zero: thank you for your thoughts. Those tools sound great! Reducing reviewing time would definitely help reviewers support more reporters. Of course developing tools takes precious time and energy away from reviewing making it difficult to do. Thank you also for the tip regarding the editing template. I expect this article won't be the last I contribute to here so this tip will come in handy.

Darkfrog24, the Australian students would have put quite a load on the system! In this situation I'm not sure how much energy the reviewer would expend on showing the student how things work since the students aren't committed to becoming Wikinewsies. Or were you thinking of another experiment? Ca2james (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Now I know why the paucity of discussion at the wikinews-water-coolers: Looks like Darkfrog’s is the place to be :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Re your message at Talk:'Paradise Papers' reveal tax shelters for companies, politicians, royalty#Updates: Sorry, can't get myself in the mood to talk shop today. I am watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyddc4KxW08. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I was looking for something else , but happened to net this from google: http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/paradise-papers-another-cheap-shot-at-the-wealthy which refers to our English cousin wikipedia and how they treat news. Thought you may be interested? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Please ping me}}

Yeah, it doesn't describe an event, so it couldn't be used to update the article...

The deal is that, if this guy is an expert at something other than journalism, if he's a professor of financial law at a university, for example, then we can quote the editorial and attribute the words to him. Otherwise, it's just a perspective read. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually I am starting to formulate in my head this half-baked idea: How about you write an article about the Paradise papers from the +perspective and others can help me, I hope, write an article from the -perspective. That way wikinews can maintain the unbiased reputation without faking it. Actually I am not sure I can take this challenge on right now, but thought I would run the idea by you, just to see how you and others reading this feel about this aproach. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

You can stop blaming the rich, since you're a tax avoider, too is fresh! "Excerpted and edited from a speech by Jack M. Mintz, President’s Fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, presented to Symposium 2017, held in Toronto on Nov. 14, 2017."

Article opening:"We have been hearing a lot about taxes these days: U.S. tax reform, the Paradise Papers and tax avoidance by the rich…" Hope you can use this, I'd love to see this published. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

• I was reading about this lawyer in BC who claims that the firm’s trust account was emptied, and $7.5 million laundered through a casino and disappeared in China (pbably a stale story, but I couldn’t be bothered to check for sure). In any event it reminded me of 'Paradise Papers' reveal tax shelters for companies, politicians, royalty and I came here to see what its status was.

I am glad I did because otherwise I would have found out that you (Darkfrog24) were blocked from editing wikipedia, let alone unblocked (congrats btw). I guess I will have to rush over there to find out what happened. I hope this does not mean you will have less time to work on Paradise? one of your admirers Ottawahitech (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

Thanks, Ottawa. Paradise Papers has been on the back burner for reasons that have nothing to do with my block status on the 'pedia.

Heh, my plan was for my first act to be to write an article on Bhupathy's purple frog, but someone beat me to it! Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Writers and reviewers

I owe you a good post on the big picture of how the learning curve of writers learning to contribute at Wikinews relates to the reviewer-to-writer ratio (which I mentioned above). I've had in mind to write such a thing for several months, or so. Like so many things, I've had trouble scraping up the time; just leaving this note as a sort of IOU/general reminder. --Pi zero (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I realize you probably didn't mean it literally, but you do not owe anyone that. It's extra.

Also, no need to direct it at me specifically. An essay might be the most appropriate forum. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

An essay might eventually build on the things I say in such a post, but working out the ideas is more likely to happen in individual posts addressing specific situations. (An example springs to mind: after doing thousands of reviews —I'm pretty sure that's an accurate figure— I found I'd developed a large repertory of comments that I'd polished smooth, and I took all of them and put them together in one place, producing WN:PILLARS after filling in only a few remaining gaps in the whole. But I couldn't have produced the whole if I'd tried, cold, even though I'd had in mind particularly to provide something compact that could be a target for shortcut "<project>:PILLARS".) --Pi zero (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I might add, explaining this stuff isn't a purely selfless act. Wikipedia is set up as a vast free-for-all of users who appear and disappear at any given point in the project, and need to be able to work instantly with whoever they happen to encounter there, whom they may never have met before nor meet again. There should be practically no learning curve for getting along with others, while technical stuff can be allowed to take arbitrarily longer. Individual users end up being treated as interchangeable parts (with various dehumanizing and devaluing effects that come with that, alas). Wikinews is different right down the line. We don't have time for free-for-alls. We're likely to run into the same users, especially when we're this small but I suspect it's in the nature of news even if we succeed in scaling up vastly. People need to know the technical stuff immediately, and the social stuff is necessarily allowed to take longer. Not that the social aspect isn't important; quite the contrary, Wikipedia's AFG is like training wheels for teamwork, and Wikinews social interaction is advanced, scary teamwork. Individual users are really human individuals, they have individual accumulated reputations that matter to day-to-day operation of the project, rather than interchangeable parts. While we operate with a great deal of autonomy we are a team (you've heard the expression "news team"? well...), and are all collectively affected by what individuals do and how particular combinations of individuals interact. --Pi zero (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

(Btw, a passing observation re AGF as training wheels: I once used training wheels on a bike. They didn't work for any purpose that I could see; they made it impossible to do anything with the bike and prevented actually learning how to ride it.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Choice of reviewers

I point out, it is well-established on en.wn that writers don't get to choose who reviews their article. If you think about it, since review enforces project standards, it would be untenable to allow a writer to decide who will review their article. My own advice (though I realize you may not like to hear it) is to take advantage of the opportunity to study feedback on your article from a different reviewer than usual. --Pi zero (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

If you're referring to Acagastya (and the "if" is because it's not unusual for Acagastya to review one of my articles, so it would make more sense for you to mean someone else), then no. Acagastya is not supposed to be giving me feedback. Acagastya is supposed to be leaving me alone. It would be countereffective for me to go looking for interactions with him.

More generally, Acagastya's decisions over the past few months have left me with a low opinion of his judgement. His credibility isn't good. You say that Wikinews is based on reputation, well, the person who says things like "they won't know which White House you mean" in an article explicitly about the U.S. but becomes hostile when told that "Ganga"/"Ganges" needs clarification has to be taken with a lot of salt. I should probably stop before this devolves into speculation about Acagastya's mindset, which, you've commented, tends to just make things worse. Anywho, if you meant someone else, let me know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Have I underestimated how often acagastya reviews your articles? As may be; that's a peripheral trivium to the main issues here, really.

I see you getting yourself into deeper and deeper difficulties through misreading of acagastya. I fear I'll give offence by saying this clumsily (which I wouldn't care about if it only meant you getting mad at me, but it's counterproductive if it prevents the message from getting across); but leaving things you just said unchallenged seems even worse, so, here goes.

• You moved along the Wikinews learning curve up to a point and then stopped, and it seems pretty clear you are't aware of how much you've stopped short of. Acagastya didn't stop, but has become deeply knowledgeable about the project, achieving reviewer status. When I disagree with acagastya, I know better than to think it's due to acagastya not grasping the fundamentals. I see you —frankly— routinely rejecting sound advice from acagastya, to the detriment of your understanding, and to the detriment of the project.
• I'm having trouble figuring, from your above comment, whether you could really believe that reviewing an article could possibly not involve intensive feedback to the article's author.

--Pi zero (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Acagastya can write whatever he wants but don't expect me to read it for a while. I've asked for some space and some cool-down time and I don't think that's in any way unreasonable. My I'm-angry-at-him tank is full and needs time to drain. The point of the review is to give readers a good article, and nothing is getting in the way of that.

Regarding "sound advice," if a good point is embedded in a rude and degrading comment, then by acting on it I would be encouraging Acagastya to continue to treat me like an emotional punching bag, and I'm not up for that. What really bothers me about that last article is if I say "Take a look at the source material and tell me if you still think the title I chose is unjustified," and the reviewer says, "NO!!" well, that makes me feel like the reviewer doesn't actually care about the article and is just making a scene because he gets off on giving people orders. Sure, maybe something else is going on in Acagastya's head, but I'm angry and kind of grossed out and I need those feelings to dissipate before I take another look at him.

Also—and I am asking your WikiN opinion on this—do you see anything objectionable in the phrase "both major United States political parties" in the Paradise Papers article?[4] If I'd written "Democrats and Republicans," sure that might have been too U.S.-centric because more than one country has a party called "Republican." That's why I chose something else. (The word "both" also tells the reader how many there are.) As far as I can tell, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that phrase. Acagastya's calling me closed-minded over this one makes me feel that Acagastya is not just looking for things to complain about but willing to invent them because he's getting off on ranting. Again, gross.

It looks as though Acagastya might be interested in changing his behavior, in which case his efforts will be best received if I look at them with clear eyes. That'll be in a couple weeks.

There's another matter. I'm quite concerned that Acagastya has flat-out refused to respect my wishes, and I don't mean by just doing his regular job as a reviewer and Wikinewsie. He has been going out of his way to make more contact with me than he did before I asked him to leave me alone, pinging me in his response to someone else's question and posting on this talk page even though I've repeatedly asked him to stop. That's not good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

If you think answering my question "Do you see anything wrong with 'both major U.S. political parties' in the Paradise Papers article" would just provoke Acagastya, then don't answer it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to try to clear some time/attention to study your specific question properly.

When you say "The point of the review is to give readers a good article", I'd have to say, no, that's not the point. My perception is that you're talking about making improvements to the article, which is the way Wikipedian tradition conceptualizes a second editor working on an article written by a first editor. Making improvements to the article, in this sense, ought usually to be a consequence of the review process, but it's not the point; that would be leaving out some really hugely important aspects of the situation. I don't have a lot of practice at articulating this part of the big picture; it doesn't come up much in review comments; but, a couple of considerations, at least to start with. If a veteran Wikinewsie writes an article and submits it for review, and a reviewer does a full review and, after great striving, publishes it with not a single change from the submitted version, the article has been utterly transformed, from what amounts to a blog post into a news article. And then there's feedback to the reporter, which is a massive and crucial aspect of review. Notice that both of those things are clearly distinct from visible improvements to the quality of the actual product that gets delivered to readers in the particular case. --Pi zero (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to try to clear some time/attention to study your specific question properly. Thanks, I appreciate it. And feel free to skip for any reason. You don't owe me this.

making improvements to the article, which is the way Wikipedian tradition conceptualizes a second editor working on an article written by a first editor. No that is not what I mean when I say "Wikinews review."

If a veteran Wikinewsie writes an article and submits it for review, and a reviewer does a full review and, after great striving, publishes it with not a single change from the submitted version, the article has been utterly transformed, from what amounts to a blog post into a news article. Yes that is what I mean when I say "Wikinews review." The reader gets a good article—one that has been checked for facts and legal issues and endorsed by more than one set of eyes.

Over the past week, I have made a conscious effort to avoid putting you in the middle of this matter between Acagastya and me. It seems you have placed yourself there anyway, by your own decision. I'm going to treat you accordingly. Give me a heads up if you need to leave the middle. It's not a fun place to be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Appreciated. But, really, Wikinews is a very small place, and at least within the realm of news production proper, nobody can do anything alone; so the furthest I could get from the middle would not be too very far. --Pi zero (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's worth the effort to at least to try not to make people feel uncomfortable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Cyclone Ophelia batters Spain, Portugal, Ireland, the UK, and Norway

This article which you worked on with @EzekielT: has been declared Abandoned and may soon be deleted, unless it is userified. I see no reason why this article should be deleted together with the comments on the talk-page, but this in your hands. Just to let you know. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

Articles getting deleted is just the nature of the beast here on Wikinews. I save the userspace for the articles of which I am particularly fond or for which I have future plans. I expect the article I did on a newly discovered purple frog will, with some restructuring, make a great Wikipedia article someday. Heck, if someone's beaten me to it it might be a great Wikipedia article right now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Limited interaction: November 2017

I'm going to be limiting my involvement with Project Wiki for at least the next couple of days. This was a pre-scheduled event arranged months ago that has nothing directly to do with anything that did or did not happen here. I expect to check in around once per day, which may include posting some drafts. Wish me luck! Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Good luck! Ca2james (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Qapla'. --Pi zero (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. When it is done, we shall all share a barrel of bloodwine! Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. My thing is taking a lot longer than I thought it was going to. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Things do that. --Pi zero (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Does bloodwine improve with age or is that just puny Earth vintages? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Bloodwine is fermented, so presumably would improve with age up to a point as other such beverages do. (The oldest human alcoholic beverage, so I hear, is mead, which is fermented from honey, predating human agriculture.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Older Adults' Forgetfulness Tied To Faulty Brain Rhythms In Sleep

Hi Darkfrog24/Archive 1 is this something of interest to you? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

Honestly, not really. This is a legit scientific discovery but it's also kind of obvious. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Guatemalan president announces move of Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem

Was about to work on this one -- but since I did not start, I might not have disqualified myself to review it.
•–• 06:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand that's how it works yes. I see that article as a bit bare-bones, but better simple and on time than elaborate and timed out. (Elaborate and on time being best of all, of course.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was shocked to see the length maybe because I was about to "marry the article" when my bot told me "Darkfrog24 has created Gua..." and I was like, "Oh dear, I was about to start writing again, but I lost the chance!" and then I saw the time, and I was the only active reviewer -- so best "break the engagement" with the article. You can make substantial changes to the article, I hope you do.
•–• 14:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Was wondering if you could set us the Rss/Atom feed for science related news?
•–• 14:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know much about RSS feeds, and this is the first I've ever heard of Atom feeds. I just click into Eurekalert when I want something first-cut. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Science news and bots

@Acagastya: [Here Darkfrog copypasted the email sent by Acagasta in which, among other things, Acagastya asks Darkfrog to set up a feed/bot for science news and suggests responding by talk.] (email from Acagastya to Darkfrog)

Short answer, because I don't know how to set up a feed. Longer answer, there are hundreds of professional science publications, and they tend to be highly specialized. There's one that only does new chemistry technology. There's one that only does frogs. There's one that only does underwater basket weaving, and so on. The kind of news story that would of interest to the general audience whom we serve could appear first in any one of them. There are two really big ones, Science in the U.S. and Nature in England, that are considered the biggest and best and cover any kind of science, but for the most part it's decentralized. Eurekalert is so useful to me because it covers many fields and provides the plain-English press releases written or at least approved by the research teams. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It would not be a good idea to flood one’s inbox with hundreds of science news emails. But a channel seems to be a good idea. I have the bot configured in such a way that it pings me on Telegram, notifies me about breaking news (I used RSS for some twenty news websites). I also have for Wikinews Recent Changes…but it is because I use Telegram a lot. (Not important, but I set up Garfield comics to be emailed to me each day) Few alternatives I can think of: Feedly (the best one), Twitter PM, Facebook PM, iOS reading list, line IM, Trello card. Compile a list of websites, and I would do it. (I am not sure if you use those services) but there is no harm trying.

Just a side note, that email was not licensed under CC BY-2.5, or a compatible license, and accounts for copyvio.
•–• 07:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll find that copypasting your email into talk amounts to fair use. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Not really. "You must have written your work yourself or copied it from a compatibly licensed resource or public domain resource." -- fair use is not for text. It is for other forms of media. Else what is the reason to have a CC/free licenses. [Sorry, kind of busy reviewing an article...]
•–• 13:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's the U.S. Copyright Office's webpage on fair use. Don't worry. We're in the clear. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean instead that you just don't want me to copypaste your emails? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, the wikimedia sisterhood extended-community as a whole treats emails and IRC discussions as non-public communications (by default), and it's at-least a breach of etiquette to publicize detailed contents thereof without permission. --Pi zero (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

My content is not governed by the US federal court. And project's TnC determines what is permitted, and what is not -- the ethics that kicks in is another case [reminds me of public logging issue with the IRC]
•–• 14:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's dial this back a little bit. No it's not unethical for me to copypaste an email that contains no private information into talk, especially considering that's one of the ways of contacting you that you requested and considering that I can't reply by email without disclosing my own contact information. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The main point of the email was to set up some medium to get notifications for the news articles, and copyright is not the primary focus -- but we can not ignore it. It is not correct to copy someone else's work and submit it even though there is a note about it above the Save changes button. As my email says, you can ping me on talk page, but that does not mean the content can be freely used with the license Wikinews uses. I did not say, paste my email on the talk. "considering that I can't reply by email without disclosing my own contact information" -- first of all, the only information that is disclosed is the sender's username, and gender [if the sender has specified]. Secondly, you sent me an email few weeks ago.
•–• 14:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't "copy and submit" your work. I moved a conversation. And yes, replying to you would have given you my email address. This is getting out of hand. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

In this sort of situation I could easily imagine myself addressing the concern on-wiki, but I would carefully not quote the exact contents of the private communication. That's a line I've walked many times. (Note, so far I'm only addressing the question of what-ought-to-be-done, not questions of what engages copyright versus ethics versus etiquette.)

Darkfrog24, would you be willing for me to excise the direct quotation from this page and hide it in the revision log? That would defuse the immediate problem. --Pi zero (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Done, but it's not good not to have the details of the request on record. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Guatemala says Jerusalem embassy move is final

You want to work on the update story?
•–• 12:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I've got a family event today, but I'll see if I can check in. If you mean you don't want to get swooped and work on it yourself, fear not! Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Have other articles that I am stalling since there isn't enough coverage for "Egypt sentences ex-President Mursi, 19 others to three years in jail". There is Israel filing to pull out of UNESCO, but that is not what I am currently eyeing.
•–• 12:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a holiday and I'm a bit busy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This photo

I don’t know if you have written Economy and business articles, but do you recognise the photo?
•–• 10:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"A man skipped work for six years and was still getting paid"? No, I haven't seen it before. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Apple, Inc. confirms acquisition of Shazam see the photo.
•–• 12:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That six-year guy was amusing but I was a bit confused about why you would mention it. No I haven't see the Un Poco Loco screenshot picture before. The song itself is quite charming, however. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

the photo used in the infobox, not the screenshot.
223.237.253.44 (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

With the coins and paper bills? I don't really remember. It looks familiar, so I've probably seen it before. Is something wrong? If it's on Wikimedia Commons then anyone may use it for any reason, and that includes six-year-still-paid guy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your articles about the first word countries

There was a time when I complained about it, but your articles in the category Crime and law UNION (mathematical one) Politics and conflicts actually made me enjoy CIPE (Constitution of India and Professional Ethics) class. And it is something majority of the students dislike it. I was (and expect to be ) active in the class. You have done a good job. (And I hope you would write many good articles). After today’s class, I thought “thanks to Darkfrog24’s articles, I knew so many things that I would survive the course”. You deserve a barnstar. (But I couldn’t find one for Crime and law, so…)

•–• 10:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Acagastya. That is very nice of you and I am glad you did well in your class. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Net neutrality

Sadly, things got away from me today and I didn't get to the article until there was much less time left on the clock than the review needed. (A potential weakness, I suppose, of the technique of repeatedly refocusing such an article is that the article gets longer and longer, which is good for article quality but bad for ease of review: the standard technique is to start by publishing a small article, and then reuse previous material as one publishes later articles so that each article only requires a relatively small amount of entirely new material to be vetted while the articles get more and more comprehensive.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was expecting it would age out again. It'll come around on the guitar. I was careful to remove all content and sources from the previous, now irrelevant retread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The scammers gaming India's overcrowded job market

Not sure how I ended up on this interesting article. I think it was when I clicked on one of your sources? (see: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/02/the-scammers-gaming-indias-overcrowded-job-market). Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Please ping me

@Ottawahitech: I use the Guardian a lot but I don't remember seeing this specific article before. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

SpaceX launch

Please write this up; that was so much fun to watch. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I've got some stuff to do right now, but if you want to work on it yourself @Yngvadottir:, I certainly don't mind. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the science background, I'm afraid. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Well could you check for typos, then? I gotta clock back into work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Hey, could you add the pictures? It's so dull right now visually. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Done and done. I note that the center rocket was supposed to land on a floating platform. Since I don't have sound, I was unable to tell what had happened with that when the feed cut to talking heads. I'm told by a friend that they lost comms with the drone platform and have sent out a watercraft to determine what happened. You're just saying "elsewhere"; sources presumably will be publishing more on that. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It missed and shrapnel destroyed part of the platform equipment, including possibly the video. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I need to work on something else right now. You up to updating the part of the article that deals with this? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Acagastya may be intending to review the article, and has just asked me to flip the "review" back to "develop" - I'll leave you to decide on that. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Acagastya likes to do that. No you do not have to replace "review" with "develop" when you edit the article, but it is polite to put up "editing." However, you only made one edit and not a series of edits, and technically "editing" is for major rewrites, so you didn't do anything wrong by just going in and making the update.

I used to change "develop" to "review" whenever I updated an article for a new day, but when you change it back to "review," it's bumped to the end of the line. I had too many articles age out that way, so now I just leave them in the review hopper and use "editing" if I'm going to be doing anything major. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If you think I enjoy doing that, wait until you become a reviewer. I learned it before becoming a reviewer because it was one of ther first things I had asked when I started editing. Number of edits does not matter — when an article with review tag is edited hours after it was submitted for review, that causes the problem. (If the duration is just a few seconds to minutes-I will either remove the article from requesting review to develop or inform reviewer off-wiki about it)
223.237.210.97 (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

article suggestion

I don't know if Youth STEM Program is same as the scouts programme article you wrote few months ago, but are you interested to write about "Disney Donates $1 Million to Youth STEM Program in Celebration of 'Black Panther'"? Just in case you need some sources:

1. The Walt Disney Company
2. CNN
3. ABC
4. Mail Online

•–• 00:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: Satellites show Adelie penguin megacolony in Antarctica's Danger Islands

Tips:

• Wikinews articles are in past tense.
• Information that happened prior to the event being reported may be in past perfect or present perfect ('has done', 'had appeared').
• It is required to expose the 'why' in the lede, but background should go to the end. (Inverted pyramid)

Questions that I think would be nice to include:

• What is the total population size of the species?
• What is their normal habitat?
• You can add a map showing their previously thought habitat as well as the new discovery location. (Help:Kartographer).

--Gryllida (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Please address such comments to the article collaboration page where anyone who wants to work on the article will see them and not to me as an individual. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Copied. --Gryllida (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I personally prefer to pass these questions to user's talk pages, because they have a better (more timely) notifications system. I don't think the way Echo works is efficient. To think of it, now I realize why: because it does not keep track of which comments I already read and which comments I did not read. (I now filed this as a task). --Gryllida (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

More tips:

• Including essential and relevant information is required for publication. (Just like one can't speak of a plane crash in 'Domodedovo (town)' without specifying that this is a town in Moscow Oblast, Russia, one also can't speak of a new population discovery without mentioning the existing population size. It sounds obscure and unspecific.)
• For a contributor unfamiliar with the background, it may take them more effort (and time) to work out what the answers are.
• Leaving questions to other contributors to answer makes the article development depend on the availability of these contributors, which may also slow it down.
• Incomplete articles may be classified as 'not ready' which may delay publication.

--Gryllida (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Addressing these comments solely to me renders the article dependent on my availability, which may slow it down. If you think something is important or necessary, feel free to jump in and do it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You are right, it is both effort from you and from me. Not mine exclusively and not yours exclusively. Updated article talk page. --Gryllida (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Added original reporting questions on the talk page. --Gryllida (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Followed up. --Gryllida (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Followed up (V3). Gryllida (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Former United States television star Bill Cosby seeks to replace judge in sexual assault trial

Tips:

• Leading paragraph needs to say the country.
• Writing a story and then leaving it to others to develop instead of continuing to be engaged into its development is a poor practice which results in waste of reviewers time. Repeatedly practicing this may result in your articles being given lower priority in the review queue.

--Gryllida (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Gryllida, when I say the article is "presentable," I mean I consider it fit for the main page, even if it could still be improved upon. The freshness requirements here on Wikinews make it impractical to make a habit of waiting for an even-better version. No I do not hit "review" on anything half done. Wikinews is a collaborative project and I don't want anyone to feel discouraged from altering my work, even when it's good enough in its existing form, so I reiterate what is said below the editing window: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

I have repeatedly developed articles that were started by other writers, sometimes with just a title and one source, and I have no problem allowing others to reciprocate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Replied

--Gryllida (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Flags

Care to explain why you un-flagged several discussions in the last few hours? Now, if I say something, you would say, "I am not being polite". So how about we listen to your reasoning and then we proceed?
223.228.62.186 (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The flags say "remove this flag when the discussion is over." As I noted in the edit summaries, most of those discussions had had no posts for months. They were over.

Log in before you post here again. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NOTE: Multiple anons repeatedly re-added the following aggressive and rude comment despite my repeated exercise of my right to remove it, per OWNTALK guidelines. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is over when the discussion is closed as "failed"/"not done"; or when the task is completed and the performer(s) mark it done. For proposals to restructure the system, those who performed the changes is the one who should un-flag it. Not any random user, especially not the one who is unaware of how things work. Now, after reading “why" you did it, it is perfectly okay to say you do not understand how flagging or proposed restructuring works. As a proof: I cite your answer. So, do not mess with things you do not understand.
2401:4900:2504:ACA8:6CA8:75DD:3EAE:227F (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Smooth project function

Wikinews does not work the same way Wikipedia does. Standing back to look at the two projects objectively, of course they would have different dynamics; the fundamental principle that Wikipedia applies, ultimately, to every big problem is that there is always an infinite amount of time in which to discuss and revise. With that principle underlying everything, and that principle being manifestly, spectacularly false for news, it follows that the fundamental dynamics of Wikinews would be different.

I've remarked on the value, to any wiki project, of someone like you who — simply put — is scrupulously honest and continues to contribute. I feel I need to point out, though, that in an important respect you are at cross-purposes with the optimal functioning of Wikinews. Sure, acagastya could be less harsh in their phrasing; but while the reporter-reviewer relationship shouldn't be what you accuse acagastya of trying to make of it, it shouldn't be what you're trying to make of it, either. The functional roles of reporter and reviewer are fundamentally different. When this project works successfully, reporters continually strive to improve the quality of their writing so that reviewing their writing will get ever-easier, using the feedback they get from reviewers. When a reporter doesn't continue trying to improve in this way, their work becomes a heavier burden for review (both in amount of labor, and psychologically). A symptom of this is when a reporter commonly responds to concerns in review comments not by attempting to fix the problem but by arguing that it doesn't need fixing or by saying somebody else should fix it. After a while, that can have a significant negative impact on total project output. --Pi zero (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please take it as a sign of my respect for you that I am replying to your post instead of deleting it.

Consciously or otherwise, Acagastya showed up looking for a fight. "How many times have you been told to minimize parentheses"? Try NEVER. Acagastya is inventing things to complain about and daring me to respond. I could pick through the rest of the post and show you each time he does this if you think it's necessary. But the bottom line is that when he gets in my face and goes "OBEY ME! OBEY MEEEEEE! I'M YOUR BOSS!" the only thing I know to do is refuse to engage. Anything else is "Yes, master, I accept your right to speak to me this way. Please do it again." If you can think of another way to shut his creepy behavior down, I'm all ears.

Pi zero, you need to accept that there is a difference between "improve" and "replace your way of doing things and your personal tastes with MINE." As always, whenever you think you are right, I will listen and look at any source you want to show me, but that's all I can do. I'm not a mind reader.

What has happened on Wikinews is not that I have refused to improve but that you spot something that you think is a problem and I don't think is a problem and you can't communicate why you think it's a problem or you say something that contradicts what I can see elsewhere. That's where we're getting stuck.

I 100% accept that "I understand it in my head even though I can't explain it" and conclusions are good enough motivations for you. You do something, I'm fine with assuming that you have a reason that makes sense to you even if I don't understand. You need to accept that "Pi zero understands it but can't explain it" is not a good enough motivation for me to do something. Frankly, it feels like "What are you going to believe? What you see or what I tell you?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This is getting very close to the nature of things you're missing about Wikinews. There are some really crucial points you're brushing very close to... and I (argh!) clearly can't afford to spend the time right now to try to articulate the points that want articulating at this point (compounded by awareness that my past efforts have fallen flat, and thus a need to proceed with great care and patience). :-S  --Pi zero (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE REMOVE THE POST THAT YOU JUST MADE ON THE COLLAB PAGE. You are encouraging him. Aca's behavior is not merely "harsh." It's creepy. He's acting out a weird power dynamic and that has to stop. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• breath* Acagastya's not stupid. Sooner or later, even if it takes years, he will see that acting like other Wikinewsies are his little bitches and calling their comments crap doesn't work. He'll settle down. But don't undermine that.

As for "what I'm missing about Wikinews," sure. Take your time. Whenever you feel like writing, I'll read, but I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt for a long time now. We're hitting Emperor's New Clothes territory. I have to entertain the idea that there's nothing there, not that there couldn't be anything there, just that there might be nothing there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I too have come to something of an emperor's-new-clothes conclusion, reluctantly. I rather like you, actually, and I'm inclined to approach things patiently, so I've been extremely patient with you; but gradually, over a long time, I've come to the conclusion that you don't just not understand, you are probably unable to understand. At least, unable to understand some aspects of the situation. Not that you don't have some genuine misconceptions, but that the primary thing I'd really like to be sharing with you is something you can't share. So I have to find work-arounds. --Pi zero (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it that I don't understand or is it that there's something you've decided not to say, maybe because if you said it out loud you'd realize it's ugly?

You get offended whenever I say "I am your equal," to anyone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary

I know there's some beef going around, but did you really need "quit your bitching and just write another one" in your edit summary? Let's all try to cool the jets. And please don't automatically say, Yes, you needed it. If anyone is supposed to be the cantankerous old man, it's me. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Actually, that comment was an attempt to cool those very jets. I'm trying to show that I can be a good sport about this. At least now I know it had the opposite of the desired effect on at least one person. In case there is ANY confusion, I was telling myself to quit bitching. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. We all need to let out some steam from time-to-time. --SVTCobra 03:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur. So long as that steam isn't direct into someone else's face. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Curiously enough, despite the severe communication failures Darkfrog24 and I have experienced, I had not difficulty following the positive intent of that edit summary. --Pi zero (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I will add it to the pile. I am confident I can find another iteration of positive snark. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Korean leaders Moon and Kim meet days after NK-US summit cancellation

This article has been published. Unfortunately, I did some 'trimming' in the review process. If you read my review comments, I hope you will understand what I did and why. It is important to not assign motives to anyone unless they explicitly state them. It may look obvious, but that is not our job. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with you removing content from the article that you consider suitable for removal. It's a team project. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a little more. It's general advice not to interpret the meanings or goals of events. So, I do hope you read my comments on that article. --SVTCobra 22:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I did. This one's more of a team effort than usual, so I've been going back to check whether people are talking about parts of the article that I did or that AZ did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, yes, I must admit, I didn't try to decipher the edit history entirely. It was more about getting it published before we lost another one to stale. --SVTCobra 23:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In other words, it was about the article itself and not about any one person, except perhaps the reader. That is exactly as it should be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

In the interests of clarity, I point out some bounds on this. In a reviewer dealing with a particular article, the only thing they can do is to deal with the article as it sits, and when the article has been extensively worked on by multiple authors, there is pretty much zero correlation between the nature of problems in different passages of the same article. One has to review it as if it was composed by an anonymous crowd (like a Wikipedia article). One ought to keep in mind, though,

• That sort of review is extremely burdensome. It's far easier to review an article by a single author of known high competency in Wikinews writing; knowing that the writer knows various project principles and is good at eliminating problems of those sorts from articles prior to submission, a reviewer can much more rapidly and easily assure that such problems do not occur or pinpoint those rare instances that do, and give more and higher-quality attention to each of those instances. This is key to high productivity and high quality, that Wikinews writers who are good at it can produce articles that are vastly easier to review; quality follows because when the submitted article has almost nothing wrong with it, the reviewer can concentrate on what's level rather than blunting their edge clearing the underbrush of more superficial difficulties. And the reviewer is left with not only more time remaining for additional review, but more energy for it.
• What a reviewer might do, of necessity, in reviewing a single article does not absolve each individual writer of responsibility for striving continuously to improve their Wikinews writing skills, which ultimately translates into vast increases (or, in its absence, decreases) in project productivity because of the many-times-magnified effect on how much review labor is needed to process what they write.

--Pi zero (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say the review was harder in this case, just that my comments/criticisms were perhaps not all to be directed at Darkfrog as other editors were perhaps responsible for the bits I had to remove. I have acknowledged that above, and have neither the time nor inclination to figure out who actually added what to the article. --SVTCobra 14:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You did as you ought. It doesn't matter who wrote what part of the article. When a reviewer says "this part of the article is NPOV," I will go back and see if I wrote that sentence and assess whether or not they're right if I feel like it.

Pi zero, I really don't see how a given sentence magically becomes more or less problematic depending on who wrote it or how two authors could compose the same article but one would be more work or take longer than the other or how an article composed by two or more people would be any more work for a reviewer than an article composed by one. The facts are interpreted correctly or they are not. Words are too flowery or they aren't. These things are subjective but not affected by the number of drafters. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean, if what you're saying is that it's somehow harder for you, then I believe you and I don't have to understand exactly how it works, just chalk it up to individual differences among people, but I enjoy collaborating on articles and I don't plan to stop doing it unless you or anyone can show me a concrete reason why I should. [/quintessential] Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about an idiosyncrasy of mine. Great depth of review experience does lead to deep insight into the review process.

I'll think on how best to explain the phenomenon. One caveat that immediately leaps out: it's not about a single sentence. The effect can't be seen by considering a single sentence, any more than one can learn about the dynamics any complex system by studying a single small element in isolation.

(Btw, enjoying collaborating is not the point I'm most concerned about here, although it's certainly a multi-faceted issue that could be discussed. My greatest concern is that there is an essential social contract on Wikinews, wherein reviewers go to great lengths to help individual writers improve, and writers perpetually strive to improve and thereby increase the project's effective review capacity and quality over time, yet you tend to respond to feedback by giving reasons why you needn't try to do better next time. Which can undermine this essential social contract.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Pi zero, you keep saying "do better" when it looks like you really mean "submit; the sun is a reed candle if the reviewer says so."

In order to help me improve, the reviewer would have to know better than I do, and I've found that I'm about as likely to know best as the reviewer is, more likely if I'm dealing with a specialized topic. Overall, Wikinews is a place where we can learn from each other on footing that averages out to be equal.

If someone says, "You violated WN:FUTURE" or "that word is misused here," I can and should say "I reviewed WN:FUTURE, and you will see was not writing in the future tense as described" or link them to a dictionary showing that the word is not misused. Then they can learn. I cannot defer to expertise that the reviewer doesn't have.

Why should the reader get an inferior article because the drafter was required to stroke the reviewer's ego? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You say "social contract," but when I came here I did not agree to do anything but write news articles and maintain basic civility. If there is some rule saying, "Drafters must always obey reviewers, even when they are wrong" or "For our purposes, reviewers must be treated as if they are never wrong, like the umpire in a sports match," then that rule must be written down and endorsed by the community. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Darkfrog24. Unfortunately. You don't know as well. You aren't aware of not knowing as well. And the usual means, by which newcomers here recognize that they don't know as well as the experienced reviewers, are not going to work. Problems propagating outward from your misunderstanding are dragging down the entire project, and danged if I know what to do about it. --Pi zero (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) danged if I know what to do about it. 1) Stop expecting me to take "because I say so" for an answer. 2) WRITE IT DOWN AND DISCLOSE IT ALL PUBLICLY. You want me to obey rules that exist only in your head where I can't see them. Get them outside your head where I can. And if you write them down, look at the page and find that it reads "Wikinewsies must obey me, treat me like I'm better than they are, and do everything the way I like and think best," then throw it away. Otherwise, submit it to the community for formal recognition. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You have been told these things, along with reasons why. The explanations just slid off you. It's patently false that we haven't explained things to you, but very true that the explanations have been demonstrated to not get through to you. Naturally, you've devised alternative explanations since you couldn't see the things we presented to you (which I suspect was, from your perspective, rather like having people show you a picture of an empty field and say, "see, that's the castle, right there"). The fact that your explanations insult me is just one more unpleasantness in an all-around unpleasant situation. --Pi zero (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between you telling me something as an individual—so it's "I," not "we"—and a formal, endorsed policy. Your opinion is valuable to me as that of a respected colleague, but you should not expect me to treat it with the same obedience as something formally endorsed by the community.

Pi zero, you have to admit that there's an ulterior motive here, whether you really have it or not. You're trying to get me to do what you want, and yes, that's one of those times when people tell lies. Emperor's new clothes. I have to entertain the idea that the Emperor's about to walk out the door in his underpants. The no-castle-in-the-empty field metaphor is spot on: I don't seen any castle, and you tell me that's because I'm too stupid to see it. Of course I'm not going to go "Oh no! I didn't know I was stupid! Would you please let me be your slave?" I can give you the benefit of the doubt and ask if you've maybe got a better picture, but that is me being extra nice.

Your word alone is not my law. If you want me to think that you're right and I'm wrong, you need to show me proof. There's nothing unreasonable about that. Accept it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Sadly, I have trouble sitting by for some of that.

• "you have to admit that there's an ulterior motive here, whether you really have it or not." At first I thought you'd just said I had an ulterior motive. The last qualification on that leaves me having no idea, really, what the sentence means.
• "You're trying to get me to do what you want". Depending on how you mean that, it may be false. Ultimately, I do want you to act in the best interests of Wikinews. I'm of the opinion that if you realized you were doing something harmful to Wikinews, you would try to fix it. And so I'm looking for ways to help you understand better. (Though I'm having no luck, which seems to be partly because you've surrounded yourself with ways of deflecting any suggestion that you might be missing some important things.)
• Something stunningly false: "you tell me that's because I'm too stupid to see it." I most certainly did not say any such thing. This stuff is way too complicated/subtle to admit such a crude (and insulting) description. The portrayal as if I was asking for slavish obedience is also astray. I'm guessing a significant contributing factor there is that you haven't realized the nature of the dynamics of the writer–reviewer relationship, which is... argh. No analogy is going to be quite right (I'm reminded of an xkcd cartoon, "Teaching Physics", with mouseover "Space-time is like some simple and familiar system which is both intuitively understandable and precisely analogous, and if I were Richard Feynman I'd be able to come up with it"); maybe, up to a point, think of the reviewer as the presiding judge in a court case? Another flawed analogy. It's definitely not at all a symmetric sort of situation, though.
• You want "proof". But it's inherent in the situation that the kinds of proof you are asking for cannot exist, and I recall having pointed out in the past why that was so. In order to see anything significant in the absence of those kinds of proof, you have to start by first assuming that what I'm saying is false. There are several reasons that state of things could come about, and I suspect more than one of them applies here. Seems like you came here assuming Wikinews worked the same way as Wikipedia; came here already biased against believing things heard from me; and, not having (I know you'll hate hearing this; again it's not "stupid") the right sort of cognitive gift to see the abstract dynamics at play here, you literally didn't see evidence where it was presented to you. All those things wrapped up together.

--Pi zero (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

you literally didn't see evidence where it was presented to you

Show me. Link to a time when you did that. Maybe we're defining "evidence" differently and I have to use another word with you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

United States delegation travels to North Korea to plan Trump-Kim summit

I have issues with the fourth paragraph. Both NPOV concerns and stylistic concerns. I'd love to rewrite it myself. But it would go far beyond a "tweak" or other reasonable edits a reviewer can make independently. --SVTCobra 20:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look if I get the time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Baker doesn't even comment on the demolition of Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site, so how can he summarize what other people think? --SVTCobra 20:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

These comments are better placed on the article's collaboration page (I'd assumed you were posting to both), where anyone who wants to act on your suggestions may see them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Small snake's fossil found in amber

I read about it the day before -- from what I read, it was the oldest known snake fossil, discovered in amber in Malaysia. I don't have any articles in my mind to write, but that type of scientific discovery is your territory. Any chance you could write about it? I can share the links if that helps.
•–• 15:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This is indeed interesting Acagastya, but I have a lot of stuff going on right now and can't promise I'll be able to get to it. I'm still on Wikibreak for something that I thought would take a week, but it's taking months. I just like to jump back in with a draft once in the while to show you guys I haven't bailed for good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I am planning for a five-day wikibreak, but have a darned goal to complete, which I am not so close. I will start the article, if you cannot get to it, I will start it. Currently eyeing at the German bus attack. I hope you can cover up for my absence in the last week of this month, I need some time to regain the energy and confidence.
•–• 16:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

A goal, you say? Drop me the links and I'll see what I can do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Okay, draft is up. I've hit review on it because the findings were published two days ago, but I don't mind if you've got changes to make. I had some fun with the title. Now tell me more about this goal of yours. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Half hour and it's still not showing up in the newsroom. Here's the direct link: [5]Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I don't know if you are using the UTC live clock gadget. If you are using it, click it and it will purge the cache. Otherwise, you can clear the cache by pressing Ctrl+Shift+R. Or the easiest way is to click the blue button on this page. Just in case you didn't understand what I was saying, cached data is the data your browser would save, often preventing the new information from showing up on the client-side. Others can still see it. I don't know how to link the gadget here, on talk page. Maybe @Pi zero: can tell you. But it is in the preference section. If you search for this substring: "UTC" you would find it.
117.198.176.250 (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Certain pages have a "refresh" button; the newsroom and the main page are amongst them. --Pi zero (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Remember a couple of months back when I started an article and said "Acagastya's version wasn't visible when I started this"?

No, I'm not using any gizmos, just the refresh on my browser. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes just using refresh isn't enough because the browser just refreshes its local copy (aka the cached copy) of the page you're viewing. This is done to increase browser performance by decreasing the number of times the page has to be retrieved from the server. If there's a "purge this page" or similar link on a page, clicking it will clear out your local copy and show you the actual updated page. (I know I haven't been around lately... I lurk, mostly. Bad habit, I know). Ca2james (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

For that, instead of "Ctrl + R" for normal refresh, try "Ctrl+Shift+R" to bypass the cache.
•–• 08:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Just in case there were any confusion, there are two kinds of "refresh" involved. Control-Shift-R, or the like, is about clearing browser cache. However, the wiki software keeps its own cache of a page, which contains its version of dynamic page lists, which are what we're talking about here, and even if your browser doesn't cache the page, what it gets from wiki server will still be whatever is in the server's cache. To request that the server clear its cache of a page, you do a "purge" action, and the simplest way to do that for the newsroom is to use the "refresh" button on the newsroom page. You'll find it on the right side of the big header at the top of the newsroom; it looks like this:

Refresh

Click "refresh" on the newsroom page when you want the server to update the DPLs on the newsroom. --Pi zero (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Re the green underline gadget

Would you mind trying an alternative for that? I just want to know how the new style could be improved. If you would like to try, I will tell you what you would have to do to try it.
•–• 08:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you mean the green underlining thing that underlines Wikipedia links that are also Wikinews categories? Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly. Let me explain with an example. if you use {{w}} for those who have a local target, say {{w|Snakes}}, well, technically, it should be [[Snakes]]. It is about those {{w}} templates which can be changed to hard local links.
•–• 11:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was talking about. What's going on? You invented a better gadget and want me to test it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America to begin accepting girls, which raises issues with Girl Scouts

Technically, because this is marked as prepared, it isn't subject to being "abandoned" as such; but we do have recognized grounds to delete a prepared article about an event that's already happened, on which point this article is more ambiguous. It's been marked as abandoned for about four days. Your thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts are that I was saving it for refresh when the first girl dens get started, which should be September. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Pi zero (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Er. This didn't reach publication last month (talk). GG tagged it for abandonment. Should this be held for another round, or is it safe to let it go (keeping in mind, it can be undeleted at neede)? --Pi zero (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for being so extra-mile, but this is an "Oh well, we fought bravely" case. I kicked it to "prepared" the first time because I could see a new focal event coming up, but I don't see one this time. I expected it would be deleted in due course, like other articles that time out unpublished.

Those Scouts are feisty ones. They'll get in the news again sooner or later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Attribution by examples

Hi Darkfrog24,

Here is an illustration.

"On Friday (when), US-based technology giant Microsoft (who) confirmed (what; careful word choice - we don't say "acquired") acquisition of software code hosting and version controlling website (introduce to international audience) GitHub. The announcement was made by Microsoft via their official blog (how), which also mentioned Nat Friedman was to become new Chief Executive Officer of GitHub (another 'what').

Microsoft had announced plans to acquire GitHub for a price of 7.5 billion US dollars (USD) on June 4. On October 19, the European Union's regulators approved the acquisition. According to the June announcement, Microsoft was to pay the amount in stock. (1. this paragraph specifies the dates exactly 2. a bit of the 'what')

After Microsoft made the announcement, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella tweeted, saying, "I'm thrilled to welcome GitHub to Microsoft. Together, we will continue to advance GitHub as a platform loved by developers and trusted by organizations." (a bit more of the 'why')

In a GitHub blog titled "Pull request successfully merged. Starting build...", Nat Friedman said (here we say the fact: this person said this thing. we don't say 'Microsoft was going to make the platform more reliable, secure, and performant' because this is not a fact) making the platform "accessible to more developers around the world" as well as "[r]eliability, security, and performance" were in "top of mind for" them. (aggressive quoting, stressing the fact that this is only the statement by this particular person) He also stated, "GitHub will operate independently as a community, platform, and business" and "will retain its product philosophy", keeping "its developer-first values". He also wrote today was to be his first day as GitHub's CEO.

Friedman was previously the CEO of Xamarin, a software company that allows developers to create native iOS, Android and Windows phone applications written in the C# programming language. Microsoft acquired Xamarin in 2016. (background; timing very clear)

According to Friedman's blog (attribution; we don't just leave this fact out there even if it seems widely known), GitHub is used by more than 31 million developers worldwide. Technology giants including companies like Airbnb, Apple, Google, Facebook and Microsoft itself have been using GitHub for their open-source projects. However, on May 31, days before Microsoft announced plans for GitHub acquisition, desktop environment software GNOME completed moving from GitHub to GitLab, another software code sharing, hosting and version control providing website, a competitor of GitHub. (balance)"

Perhaps some of this is useful as a complement to the discussions above.

--Gryllida (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I can tell you why you're offending me without offending you. I think you need to leave this alone for a while. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's continue this discussion in a week, next Thursday. Is that OK for you? Gryllida (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I might be unavailable then but I don't know. I've been scaling back from Project Wiki due to problems on another part of the project. I really thought I'd just duck in a write an article or two. Didn't expect it to be a big thing. We'll get to it when we get to it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess I'll query you at that point, and you reply whenever you are ready, Darkfrog24. Gryllida (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: reviewers (from Special:PermaLink/4442301)

You say, "You say you learn things from other reviewers. That is because you are colleagues. You have things to learn from each other."

This is a good way to put it. :-)

"You do Wikinews and yourselves a disservice when you assume you could not possibly learn anything from me."

I am concerned. Has this actually occurred in any place from any of the reviewers? --Gryllida (chat) 03:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes.

The incident that springs most readily to memory was with a reviewer who spoke English as a subsequent language. They insisted I had used an English word or phrase wrong, but I had not. I believe I was able to provide sources showing I was expressing the intent correctly—I do not expect others to just take my word for it—but, as I remember it, both that reviewer and another one took exception to my not immediately submitting to the reviewer's judgement.

This current conversation is taking place because someone objected to my "arguing" with a reviewer. I explained why I chose the term "on the liberal side of American politics" and how I'm interpreting policy. Even though the reviewer did not come to agree with me, that does not mean I shouldn't make my case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this Darkfrog24.

1) There are two kinds of arguing with a reviewer: pre-publication and post-publication.

For the story at hand, arguing pre-publication is a loss of freshness (risk it doesn't get published in time; risk that not as many people open the story because they have already read it elsewhere).

For everything, pre-publication arguing may delay review of other articles and result in their loss of freshness. (In contrast, they may postpone post-publication arguing, and ponder it in their head to give a balanced response several days later.)

For this reason I would personally recommend against arguing with the reviewer pre-publication, unless they are adding inaccuracies. If you do decide to do this, I recommend to be highly articulate about the point and show its advantage over the version proposed by the reviewer very clearly. And be ready to accept the reviewer's point for the moment: a post-publication consensus can be reached on the water cooler afterwards.

2) However if a reviewer insists on their point gently I do not see how they "assume they could not possibly learn anything from you". What indicates that they made such assumption? --Gryllida (chat) 05:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I take correct English very seriously. The article should be correct when published. The real problem, though, is that the reviewer did not consider the possibility that I was right.

In multiple conversations with Pi zero, I've said "we have things to learn from each other," to which he responds with what I remember as "No no no, only you learn. Reviewers are already always right because they're them and you're you." Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You can find a version which is both correct English and satisfies the reviewer, and bring any other concerns to post-publication. I think there is more than two ways to do this.

I agree that he said several times to you to learn something but I do not recall him denying the opportunity to learn from you. Do you have a link for this? --Gryllida (chat) 05:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not the real issue, Gryllida. The issue is the "The reviewer is always right and the drafter is always wrong" attitude, which I reject. The issue is when a reviewer's had a rotten day at work or school and takes it out on me. I'm not here to be anyone's punching bag.

There are some on this page. Hit CTRL-F "each other" or "colleague" and look around. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

In this example Pi zero was asking you to learn, but he did not deny learning from you. These are not mutually exclusive.

Where can I find an example of him actually saying he denies learning from you? Gryllida (chat) 05:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep looking. It's there. It might be on the talk page of an article I've worked on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Darkfrog24,

1. In March 2017 in "Non-neutrality" section Pi zero first expressed difficulty elaborating what news neutrality is.
2. In May 2017 there was a discussion about withdrawing your nomination for reviewer.
3. In May 2017 you picked on Acagastya for not using the article talk page. (I am not sure why this causes such a large discomfort. It is not a big deal. People are volunteers and they leave messages where they can; you can suggest them what your preferences are, but asking with a sense of being offended or frustrated is a bit unhelpful.)
4. There was some friendly conversations between you and Pi zero in May-=June 2017.
5. July 2017 - article did not have a lede - Pi zero concerned you are not learning - you react by 'I am not your student, you learn from me too'.
6. July 2017 - Pi zero said attribution works but an article needs more work for neutrality.
7. August 2017 - Acagastya said your link format in sources was wrong - you reacted 'this is not in the rules' - this was not highly collaborative or positive.
8. August 2017 - someone said you often break NPOV in your articles about US politics.
9. 6 November 2017 - acagastya left something you perceived as a hostility in his review comment.
10. 15 November 2017 -- you said " Acagastya is not supposed to be giving me feedback. Acagastya is supposed to be leaving me alone. "
11. March 2018 - I gave you tips about past tense, inverted pyramid, 5Ws in the lede
12. May 2018 - Pi zero said you need to cooperate with Acagastya even if he is harsh and continue to learn from his feedback.
13. May 2018 - Pi zero said you "[...] you don't just not understand, you are probably unable to understand. At least, unable to understand some aspects of the situation. [...]" top which you replied "You get offended whenever I say "I am your equal," to anyone." -- again NOT A REASONABLY REPLY, if he says you need to learn it does not mean he denies learning from you.
14. May 2018 - you said to Pi zero "You're trying to get me to do what you want". -- this is not really a big problem .. a part of the role of a reviewer

In summary, you had found Acagastya harsh at times, and you found Pi zero wants you to learn something, however none of this in my view means anyone denies learning from you. Perhaps your memory of it helps you find it much quicker? --Gryllida (chat) 21:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe there's a clearer case on an article talk page. I don't remember off the top of my head and I don't keep a list of all the times people have done things that bothered me. Let's deal with what you can see. I'll pick a few:

3. I was not picking on Acagastya. Acagastya did something that happened to bother me and I asked him to stop. What you'll notice I didn't do was pretend that Acagastya had broken a rule by bothering me in the first place or tsk at him for not magically knowing it would bother me before I told him.

7. The link templates is actually a good example. 1) I had seen with my own eyes that Wikinews articles used more than one format for links and that the style guide doesn't have a rule about it. 2) I'd noticed Acagastya changing the format of my links from one style to another. I did not change them back. I figured he just liked them that way, so if he was willing to do the work, why not? 3) Acagastya comes to this page and tells me he's "corrected" my format and tells me to do it his way from now on. 4) I point out that the way I had been doing things wasn't incorrect, that I hadn't broken any rules, and I suggest that he add a passage to the style guide if it really is that important. This is core. One of two things is happening. Either this really is rule that I had no way of knowing about or Acagastya just has a personal preference and felt like ordering someone around that day. If it really is a rule, then writing it down not only makes it possible for the drafter to know the rule is there but keeps Acagastya from looking like a jerk. If it's not really a rule, well, then don't get on my case for breaking it. If you want the article changed to match your own preferences, then go ahead and change it but it's not my job to do it for you.

When the rules aren't written down, it is not possible to tell whims and rules apart. If, over the years I've been here, we had added to the style guide and NPOV as these individual issues came up, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
regarding the source links--Darkfrog24 did not make use of {{source}}, as I had highlighted in the talk page thread. They just simply dumped the URLs, which is not the way sources are cited. If they had read WN:Source, they would have known that it has been explicitly sated to use that template. And even if they had not, after spending months on enwn writing articles, would not not know that they are supposed to use that template?
•–• 22:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record, same applies for learning from edit history, and the review comments that a reviewer makes, Darkfrog24. If you had paid attention to those, and actually read the relevant pages mentioned in the welcome message, and often linked here and there during review, reviewers would have been reviewing and editors would have been submitting new stories instead of this time consuming discussion.
•–• 22:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The URLS in question weren't being used as sources; they were other links. And I did not just dump them. I used a format that I'd seen on other published articles in my months of contributing on Wikinews.

I do pay attention and read your comments. I just don't always agree with them.

No one is making you or anyone participate in this discussion instead of review articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If you want, we can temporarily UDEL those articles and see which "format" you had used. There is a template for any link that you want to add. You just did not follow it.
•–• 22:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't even remember which article it was. I think it was external links but I'm not sure. It was a long time ago, man. We don't have to get back into this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You know what? I take it back. It looks like you feel attacked, and if you feel the need to defend your actions back then, go ahead. I just did the same for myself and I won't grudge it to you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
funny how you want to guilt trip me by saying I feel attacked. I actually remember that you did not make use of {{source}} and honestly, if we were not in hurry, and I did not have committed and promised to some people, we could have debunked at least this one case. Reminds me of what SVTCobra once said.
•–• 23:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not mean to guilt trip you. I was careful to say "looks like" so as not to presume. Guess it didn't work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

So instead of telling Acagastya that he is wrong you can thank him for the change and add a comment

Could we please add sentence 'In the external links section, the sources are listed using the {{source}} template also.' to Wikinews:Style_guide#External_links_section?

Is this the desired format? In articles X, Y, Z from 2018 it was used, but in articles A, B, C from 2018 instead method PQRF was used. I am proposing this change by the advice of reviewer ABC from article DEF today.

...to some water cooler. --Gryllida (chat) 23:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

That's very similar to what I did, Gryllida. If you'll look, I said "If you feel this is a correct vs incorrect issue, it would be appropriate to propose adding some text the style guide." Acagastya reacted negatively to that, and I wasn't going to insist.

To be clear, I don't want there to be a rule about formatting for external links. I think it's unnecessary. So long as the English is correct, let the people actually doing the work on the article decide which of the correct options they want to use. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Readers will want to see consistent format, that's why reviewers recommend it. Gryllida (chat) 00:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikinews does not at this time have a rule requiring that every article use the same format for external links. If you think Wikinews should have this rule, by all means, make the proposal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

We need to take reviewer's feedback more seriously. Whatever is written there is the source of changes in the future. Think of it like laws in parliament are written, and decisions made by Judges are not written as law but are still followed. Gryllida (chat) 00:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

(Relevant principle: Precedent.) Gryllida (chat) 00:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No.

You're coming back to "Don't believe what you see; believe whatever I tell you." I'm not going to do that and you need to take no for an answer.

Even if there were no such problems as reviewers abusing their authority and ordering drafters around for fun, there is the fact that not all reviewers agree with each other on matters like this. This very issue, external link format, is an example of that. Scroll up and look at the rest of the conversation. Your formal precedent system has merit as an idea, but that's not how things work right now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, though, whenever I ask Pi zero if he can back up what he's saying, I do ask "Is there a written rule or a previous discussion in which consensus was established." So I guess I do believe in precedent, just not in the specific way you're describing it. One reviewer's comment about procedure is not precedent, but a big, multi-Wikinewsie discussion about procedure is.

This would not apply to our water cooler discussion, though, because no one on or off Project Wiki has the authority to declare me anyone's student, employee or little bitch the way they have authority over Wikinews articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Judges abuse their power from time to time, which is dealt with by means of appeal there. Here it is dealt with by consensus at the article talk page or a water cooler.
• Arguing with the reviewer can be productive too, but you need to step in their shoes for this: make your view point interesting for them, basing the message on their values and knowledge (not yours). Gryllida (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

If what the reviewer wants isn't too improper or delivered creepily, I usually change the article first and then come back to the talk page to discuss theory, like with this recent "liberal side of American politics" issue.

I tend to base the message on reliable sources, like the AP Style Guide. That way it's clear that I'm not expecting the other person to submit to me as a person. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I propose a change of this approach:

1) If it's improper don't change it. -- looks OK, can stay as is

2) If it's delivered creepily -- make the requested modifications to the article anyway and then a few days later,

• if the creepiness is recurring throughout reviews of different stories, query the reviewer about their feedback delivery methods at their talk page.
• if the creepiness is not recurring, query about it too -- but a few days later after the story is completed, and after their feelings have settled down. Gryllida (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

1) If the text is improper, I should fix it. If you meant "not improper," then yup, I already do that. 2) Sorry, no. If someone creeps me out, sometimes the best thing to do is not engage. "Creepiness" might not be the best word in this case, but I've had talks with Acagastya about what I saw as a negative behavior pattern. I'm trying to keep it vague so that today!Acagastya does not feel attacked. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

1) I insist that behaviour patterns of reviewers need to be discussed in a separate venue, where the discussion can occur without urgency; and the reviewer feedback needs to be followed immediately. I think this approach would be constructive towards news production and respectful.

2) Mixing up behaviour into the process of revising an article is not a workable approach. I recommend against it.

3) A good venue is their personal talk page. Asking 'let us update policies' at a water cooler where the true reason is 'I disagree with this particular review and would like your confirmation of whether what they said is correct' is not a good idea. Were it posted as the latter, the confirmation could have been obtained more quickly and easier. I recommend that anyone who has issues with a review is specific about this problem and links to the review in their question as this greatly reduces the effort that is spent on the discussion.

4) I know this but in my opinion your first message there is an attack. I think it may work better when you point him to specific comments, and ask him for his explanation of what they meant. This way he has room for not defending himself but rather for providing a good and positive explanation of his previous behaviour (in the case it was not as belittling as you interpreted it), for an apology in the case it is due, and for an improvement. Gryllida (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

1) No. If a reviewer is being too aggressive or otherwise inappropriate with me, then I should reserve the option of completely disengaging so that compliance will not be misread as consent or being politely confrontational as I see fit in that specific situation.

3) No I did not suggest updating WN:NPOV because I disagree with Pi zero about whether "liberal" is a biased term. It's that this keeps happening. Pi zero tells me I broke a rule. That rule's not written down anywhere, but I'm nonetheless expected to have already known it existed. A third party speculates that I broke it on purpose. Writing the rules down would fix all that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Does he suggest you broke a rule? I read reviewers' comments as tips for improving the content, not accusations.

You can simply ignore groundless accusations. Do not engage, like you say. Gryllida (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The "third party speculates I broke it on purpose" refers to Ca2James claiming I was pushing boundaries. I was not.

It depends on what's going on, but yes. Sometimes I refuse to engage with reviewer comments that I consider inappropriate. But that means I don't dig through them to see if there was anything useful about the article in there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please do not misquote me: I did not say that you had broken a rule on purpose. What I said was that the arguing seemed like pushing boundaries. Also, I'd appreciate it if you would ping me when mentioning something I said or did. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't misquote you. I summarized. "Third party does this" is a kind of thing that happens that your comment happened to fit into. You'll notice that when I later your name to it, I also used your own words. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

But everyone, look over here. I did something that was not improper but that Ca2James didn't happen to like, and he asked me not to. Check out those good manners! Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, I was referring specifically to the comment I replied to, where you both inaccurately summarized my comment and mentioned me by name. Ca2james (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The action I attribute to you there is the claim that I was pushing boundaries. That made me feel pretty inaccurately summarized myself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

See subsection #Continued below for further replies. Ca2james (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

1) I guess if you want Pi zero to no longer tell you that you are breaking rules is by keeping a log of what rules he says you have broken.

Keep adding new articles to the list, perhaps at Special:MyPage/news, with notes about what was wrong.

This may help you with identifying the problematic concepts which you consistently disagree with Pi zero about, and analyse them a bit more so that you can formulate and ask any questions about them. Gryllida (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┘
2) Here is a list of your articles from last month (October):

• U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren releases DNA test results, asks Donald Trump to make promised donation missing times in 2nd+ para; not enough 'how'; insufficient attribution; analysis present in body
• U.S. pipe bombing suspect makes first court appearance the 'liberal' thing; not withdrawn from review queue after stale; broad characterizations being made
• Syria's National Museum re-opens after six years of civil war past tense; inverted pyramid; 5Ws; verify 'foreign'

September:

• First academic year of female Cub Scouts for Boy Scouts of America begins - why, when missing in lede; some times missing down in 2nd+ para; some information single-source
• NASA's TESS spacecraft reports its first exoplanet missing 'who' in lede
• Study suggests Mars hosted life-sustaining habitat for millions of years missing 'when'(of focus) in lede

Perhaps you want to go over these again as some of the characterisations that I put may be inaccurate.

Consistently you have problems with attribution and lede I think. To avoid these issues perhaps after writing the article post a 'When: Where: Why: How: Who: What: ' section on the talk page where you copy this information from the lede as a checklist. Then split the article into sentences and for each one of them write who it is known from and whether it warrants attribution in your opinion.

3) Examples of attribution:

• Bustamante's report notes searching DNA for Native American ancestry is difficult because the databases of known Native American DNA to which to compare samples are relatively small.
• An aide to Warren said her DNA was collected in August.

4) Examples of lede changes:

4.1) "In a ceremony attended by archaeologists and restoration specialists, authorities re-opened Syria's National Museum of Damascus this Sunday, after six years of military conflict. The displays feature archaeological exhibits dating back to prehistoric times, cloth from the ancient city of Palmyra, and live demonstrations of restoration of pieces damaged during the war. Representatives of the government represented this as a milestone in the return to normalcy after victories in Syria's war against the Islamic State."

4.2) "In a new study announced on Monday and available in the current volume of Earth and Planetary Science Letters, an international team led by scientists from Brown University in the United States said the planet Mars once had the right water and temperatures to host simple life forms — just not on its surface. Mars's rocky, subterranean layer once, for some hundreds of millions of years, had enough water and reductants to support some of the same kinds of microbial communities seen on Earth." Gryllida (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you're vague in your understanding of facts: "inappropriate", "creepy", "broke a rule" are not factual they are subjective and not sufficiently specific or complemented by evidence.

I would suggest to challenge yourself to be more factual in your communication, both in news and at talk pages. Gryllida (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

'Not the research project' (I don't like to scroll. This heading is a shortcut to the last discussion.)

No.

"keeping a log of what rules he says you have broken." "challenge yourself to be more factual"

I think if you'll take a minute, you'll realize you just told me to do a 500-hour research project so I can memorize every reviewer's every belief, conclusion, and whim. For heck's sake, NO!

The idea that I am not factual enough is your opinion. I often find that you specifically often ask for information that isn't present in the source articles (and why not ask for it? You weren't being rude). Were those articles, those professionally published and edited articles "not factual enough"? I think not.

I am not going to do a research project on Pi zero or any other reviewers. I am not going to spend hours and hours of my time, my volunteer time every day studying you guys to figure out what you mean so that I can anticipate your every whim like a good servant. I have a job and other things to do. If I ever put that much time into Wikinews, it will be for something that I want to do and think is necessary. I am confident that what I would find is "Reviewers' beliefs and preferences do not match each other's. One person thinks 'liberal' is biased and the next one doesn't."

It would take far less time, take up far less space, and be far, far more efficient and have far more benefits in the long run to just write down the rules. The idea "you must spend hours of your time so that I don't have to spend one minute of mine" has come up before. I'm not okay with that and you should not expect it of me.. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay... For the record, I don't think you were being arrogant with me just now. I think you were doing something like thinking out loud and got caught up in your train of thought. It's perfectly natural to be absorbed in a problem and realize "Oh! The engine wouldn't overheat if we threw it in a lake!" with a lag time before "Oh wait but we shouldn't throw it in a lake." It reminds me of Doc Brown in Back to the Future Part III where he's going over ways to get the Delorean to 88 miles per hour. "We can wait until the lake freezes! Oh wait we can't." Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right that your end goal is to avoid receiving 'not ready' remarks on the same previously known by you issues again and again. This is a very correct observation.

However, receiving 'not ready' remarks for new issues -- issues which did not occur before, something that is either specific to the news story being reported or a principle which needs application today and did not need application yesterday -- is perfectly fine, as this allows you to learn these new principles and apply them in the future. Guessing this sort of new principles thing is not a part of your job. Moreover, this phenomenon, the absorption of new principles from 'not ready' reviewer feedback, is recurring and is a normal part of work of every author here. Would you agree? Gryllida (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

My goal is to write good articles. Negative reviewer comments are merely annoying (I mean regular negative with nothing creepy). The problem is that reviewer feedback is not always correct, not always useful, and sometimes no more than a whim. When it comes to writing, I just know more than most of you. Sometimes you guys are right and sometimes you're not. That's why it's not fitting to expect me to treat you like teachers. I feel like you guys want to play pretend. -Darkfrog

We're talking in circles. I think we've both had productive thoughts on this matter. How do you feel about taking a break for a while? -Darkfrog24

Do you mean "No, I don't agree that new comments from reviewers are good to receive, because I do not believe them"? Gryllida (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(I do not mind taking a break. Whenever you are ready just let me know and we could explore the topic again.) Gryllida (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It means I think of you guys as colleagues. Sometimes I'm right. Sometimes you're right. It means "live your life so as to avoid negative reviewer comments" is not my goal here on Wikinews and not something I'm willing to dedicate large amounts of time and energy to doing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have problems with the thought of taking a break and continuing to write articles. This involves your continued interaction with reviewers. In my opinion it needs to be adjusted, and can not continue in its current form.

If you want to take a break from this discussion, I recommend you to also take a break from news writing. Gryllida (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

No.

I'll write drafts when I feel like writing drafts. I'll gnome when I feel like gnoming. If you don't think my drafts are fit for publication, don't hit "publish." If reviewing my work is not something you see fit to do with your time, then don't review my work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Reviewers may postpone review of articles whose authors are uncooperative, and this may decrease the chances of publication. Would you agree? Gryllida (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

No, reviewers should not move articles from "review" to "disputed" just because the drafter didn't say "Yes, master." That would be disruptive. They should just go work on a different draft.

What did you want me to say, "Oh, Master Acagastya, I can see the 5Ws right there where I wrote them, but you say they're not there, so MY EYES MUST BE BROKEN! MY MEMORY MUST BE BROKEN!"

I even went back and checked before I posted to make sure I wasn't being too hard on the guy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Reviewers may postpone review -- leave the article in the review queue, untouched -- if its author is uncooperative. Would you agree? Gryllida (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that you refer to "not obeying the reviewer's whims" as "uncooperative." That suggests that the drafter owes the reviewer "cooperation" in the form of mindless obedience, and the drafter does not. I feel like if I don't contradict you here, you'll take it as tacit consent to being placed in that box. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Continued

I'm continuing my replies here because the indent is getting to be too far and outdenting will look weird since there are threaded replies below this particular discussion.

Darkfrog24, your last comment regarding me was "The action I attribute to you there is the claim that I was pushing boundaries." However, this is not correct. You originally said "A third party speculates that [you] broke [a rule] on purpose", and then you later commented that "The 'third party speculates I broke it on purpose' refers to Ca2James claiming I was pushing boundaries." These two comments link breaking rules with pushing boundaries, and this is what I was responding to: my comment about pushing boundaries wasn't about breaking a rule. Linking the two inaccurately summarized my comment. Do you see this? Ca2james (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

A third party saying I did this-and-that is a sort of thing that happens. It's a category that I feel your "you were pushing boundaries" fits into. It's like you said "turquoise" and I said "blue." At my next comment, when I used your name, I did say "turquoise."

Your opinion is that I was pushing boundaries. My opinion is that saying I was pushing boundaries is like saying I broke rules. I have not said anything about you that is worse than what you've been saying about me. If it is your position that I should look left and right and take my cues from what everyone else is doing, kindly observe that I've been doing that the whole time.

Either we all play a little rough around here and everyone must toughen up or we must all behave with delicacy, but the idea of "I may speak roughly/imprecisely to you but you must speak delicately/precisely to me"—and I think it's fair to say that this conversation is at least adjacent to that idea—is something I don't hold with. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion may be that pushing boundaries is the same as breaking rules but it is not my opinion and it is definitely not what I actually said. To me it looks like you are holding me responsible for something I didn't say, and that I've further clarified I didn't intend or say. That's not fair. My position is to ask you to hold me accountable for what I do say but not for what I didn't say or what you're reading into it. Ca2james (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

And I wasn't pushing boundaries. Hold me accountable for what I do and not what you are reading into things. We shall both speak delicately then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Talk:U.S. pipe bombing suspect makes first court appearance

Tips:

• For court hearings the first paragraph needs to specify the orders made by the Judge.
• The motions and submissions by the parties to a court case are also important and need to be as close to the top of the article as practically possible.
• Wikinews:Etiquette requires not labelling people, like "that rude (person)" in a passing remark.
• There is a discussion of whether the freshness expires on midnight or on the time the event occurred. (My current believe is 'on midnight', however the discussion is ongoing and I do not know of its outcome.)
• The first paragraph may be too long. It only needs to answer the 5Ws and if there is another thought which is not required for such an answer, it needs to be moved to the next paragraph. (This mentions the first paragraph is 2-3 sentences, I believe.)

--Gryllida (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

When someone says to me "Don't you know how to read?" I'm going to call that person rude. I notice you didn't go to the anon's talk page to tell him or her to knock it off. Why talk to me and only me about this? I think you need to stop posting on my talk page for a while. You're being unnecessarily aggressive with me, probably because we just had a big long discussion in which I repeatedly said "no" to you. You need to let your annoyed-with-being-told-no tank drain for a bit, and so do I. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I will leave a message to Acagastya at the appropriate time after I have collected enough information and processed it and have created a sensible response to it. I have not forgot about it, please do not feel singled out.

And yes, Darkfrog24, the discussion is a bit tiring. I'm sorry about that! These numerous questions are a natural part of someone digging deeper into a disagreement looking for its core points, and are actually aimed at finding agreement. Some people are a bit better at this process than I am, which may make it less daunting. :)

And I think it is important, and needs to be prioritised over draft writing. Can we try another venue -- perhaps at live chat,

#wikinews ^{live connect}:

and see whether it works better? Gryllida (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It's late at night here for me. I am tired, and I don't want to live chat.

I don't think it needs to be prioritized over draft writing, but I can't stop you from not writing drafts if you don't want to. It's a volunteer project. Do what makes you happy.

I've been in lots of long, sticky conversations on Project Wiki, and sometimes it's best to just let everyone have their say but then let the information sit in your head for a while. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure about this priority?

It surprises me when people prefer to bear with reviewers being rude towards them, and then complain about it. Seems like bearing with it or complaining about it aren't effective solutions.

Are you willing to try some other solution? --Gryllida (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Important point: I promise to not bother you about this topic again until you ping me and ask. (I understand it that you are not going to call people rude 'n' things (even if they are) anymore, so that I will not need to leave any more messages here about etiquette.) Gryllida (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I only read reviewer comments when I'm feeling sufficiently tolerant.

I am not willing to try any solution that involves subjugating myself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I can have a respectful dialogue with you aimed at bringing reviewers and your expectations to agreement, but you will need to ask for it whenever you are ready. Gryllida (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I think I understand a bit more how you're approaching things here, based on this comment where you say "When it comes to writing, I just know more than most of you. Sometimes you guys are right and sometimes you're not. That's why it's not fitting to expect me to treat you like teachers." I'm thinking that if you think you know more than most people here about writing, then you can conclude that you have little to nothing to learn and it further follows that reviewers would learn from you.

As someone who knows a lot about writing, you know that it's important to write for your audience, and that there are different rules - both written and unwritten - for each audience. So, for example, technical writing is different from encyclopaedia writing is different from fiction writing is different from news writing is different from Wikinews writing. And you must know that even within one specific type of writing, each company/organization/group/publishing house has its own "house rules" - again, both written and unwritten - and "house culture" (mostly unwritten). What I see happening here is that you're an expert in one audience and subgroup of that audience and are trying to port that expertise and culture over to Wikinews and it's resulting in clashes. That's not to say that you don't bring up good points, because you do sometimes. However, it also seems like you're expecting Wikinews to conform to your expertise and that's not realistic. If you're interested in changing the house culture and house rules here, there are ways to do that but demanding change is not the most effective method.

There's a secondary thing going on that I think is related to what appears to me to be issues you might have with some authorities. I think I chose the wrong words when I said there was a teacher/student relationship here but I didn't know that you had such strongly negative thoughts about that relationship. Looked at it from your perspective that teachers subjugate students, of course you don't want that. Who would? What I don't know is if you object to the teacher-student dynamic in particular or if your objection is to the broader idea of the situation where the expectation is that writers work with reviewers to learn how to write for Wikinews (one of the unwritten house rules of Wikinews). That writer-reviewer relationship is key to the way this place functions. I think it's fair to say that if a writer isn't willing to engage in the writer-reviewer relationship as practiced on Wikinews, Wikinews most likely isn't the right place for their talents, unfortunately (not that this is a bad thing: every person isn't suited to every place, after all).

I'm putting this out there as food for thought in the spirit of understanding and clarification. I apologize if this post has been insulting because that is not at all my intent. Ca2james (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You have successfully expressed yourself without insulting me.

Not "nothing to learn," but there is a difference between working with a teacher and with a colleague. What I object to is the expectation that I should take whatever the reviewer says as true without questioning it. For example, when I want to show someone on Wikinews that I'm right, I provide a source or at least offer to. I don't expect them to take my word for it.

The other day, one reviewer said that the 5Ws were missing from my lede. I checked the lede and they were indeed there. What am I supposed to say? "Oh thank you, Master, for telling me to believe what you tell me instead of what I can see"? It seems more likely that the reviewer just made a mistake.

My recent problems on Wikipedia are definitely coloring my experience here. Over there, I have admins demanding that I bow down and say "I'm a dirty liar. Water isn't wet; I made that up to hurt people just like Master said. Never mind that the person I was accused of harassing said I didn't harass him; he's wrong about his own experiences. How dare I believe what I read in books instead of what you told me? How dare I show you my source and say 'I'm not lying'? Thank you for punishing me like I deserve, in your wisdom," and what you guys are doing reminds me of that even though it's not as bad.

"House rules" are generally written down. Yes, I'm familiar with the company style sheet. But when the rules exist only in reviewers' heads, they tend to make things up as they go—and I don't think they realize they're doing it. I don't think you guys realize how different you guys are from each other and over time. Like this idea of "You aren't allowed to put anything except the 5Ws in the lede" that came up yesterday. WHAT? We do that all the time! It's not in the written rules, and tons of articles like that have passed review, so it can't be an unwritten rule either.

I think maybe people are insecure. I think that if they say, "Hey, I had an idea just now. The article would be better if we did this," I'll yell at them or something, so they pretend (or even convince themselves) it was always a rule. But that just creeps me out. I'd have to be a time-traveling mind reader to be what you guys seem to want.

When things like that happen, I feel like people are looking for someone to push around for the sake of pushing someone around. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

My possible explanation for IP editing by Acagastya

Hi Darkfrog24

There are technical reasons for this - not to annoy others or to avoid accountability.

As I understand

• they have unstable internet
• they use private browsing mode all the time because there are other people about who could grab the phone and try to use it (and we don't want them to review stuff at wikinews)
• they close the browser every time you look away from the phone, for the same reason
• they do not find screen locking a sufficient security measure. maybe because they may forget to do it. but they do not forget to close the browser. so not sure how that logic works? (I wanted to find this out at Wikinews talk:Username, but didn't succeed)I guess they are afraid someone sees the security code from behind their shoulder and uses it later

This is a rather complex situation and undoing their edits does not resolve it:

• it does not change the situation above
• it does not motivate them to find a solution, because reverting their edits is not nice and they don't start wanting to help you

Do you have tips about how to find a technically correct solution to this?

--Gryllida (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

When I had to log in from my phone, it wouldn't do tildes (~). I just typed in "-Darkfrog24." I've already suggested this on many previous occasions. Again, I'm not convinced the IP is Acagastya. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Civilty

here is second warning about civily do not label people Darkfrog24, this is uncondiional regardless of what others are doing

https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&curid=964769&diff=4443024&oldid=4443023

If you continue to do this you may be penalised

I am leaving this message in a hope that you succeed at avoiding this sort of thing in the future and we do not need to take any action

Gryllida (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Gryllida, this IP is trolling me, not for the first, second or third time, and I will delete its posts. Saying "goodbye, troll" is perfectly normal. I think you feel a little sensitive because of our recent interactions and are looking for something to complain about.

I think you need to leave me alone for a while. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

as a sysop I am required to communicate with people who may be breaking policy

counter trolling is offtopic at wikinews and may be penalised Gryllida (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

labeling people is not normal in any circumstances nomatter what they are doing

they can come to this page and write 'you are a donkey' still responding by labeling them will be not OK Gryllida (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I see no message from you on their talk page telling them to stop labeling me, cursing at me, or calling me names. You only talked to me. Think about why that is.

I think you should leave me alone for a while. Taking a break is also recommended at WN:CIVILITY. Let your annoyed-with-me-for-telling-you-"no" tank drain. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's their talk page: https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User_talk:103.254.128.86 If you're just a sysop doing your job, and not singling me out in any way, go ahead. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Gryllida addressed Acagastya directly, rather than the IP. --Pi zero (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

That's better than not, I guess. Thanks for telling me.

I think we should consider blocking that IP address. If it's not Acagastya it can do him no harm. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, if someone calls is cursing and calls me "ignorant" and I gather the good sportsmanship to respond with a joke about Troll Island, I think that's pretty darn good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Acagastya (that IP seems like him from a simple WHOIS) has a known history of editing under an IP address (and giving 'strange' reasons when asked why). While it's occasionally acceptable, I don't think this behaviour of editing under a IP address should be condoned. Leaderboard (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it might be Acagastya but it could be a friend who's being a little aggressive about supporting his buddy. That would explain the cryptic answers. In all the Internet, there must be one or two times when someone's little brother really did do it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

1) If I am finding something 'not OK' it does not mean I am annoyed

2) I did address them at their account talk page like Pi zero said. Even if I did not do that you would still be required to be civil at all times

3) No amount or extent of abuse is a valid excuse for personal attacks or labels. I re-iterate this because it is important and it is the second time you are demonstrating your opposite understanding. You are welcome to follow your understanding elsewhere where the place allows, but not at Wikinews.

Being civil is an unconditional requirement.

4) Me leaving the remark here is not singling you out or aggressive. It is a polite and gentle sharing of a point that I find relevant. In delivering it I do not mean to insult your intelligence. You are a unique and clever person and I am not challenging that point here. Gryllida (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

To anyone just showing up, Gryllida is reacting to the edit summary "Have fun on your way back to Troll Island. Acagastya, if this is you, log in. If it's not you, this guy's making you look bad" as I deleted a post that contained cursing and other rudeness. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and this now. Huh?? It is like fishing rod with a piece of sweet cake at the end: fish doesn't eat it; if, rather than figuring out what it does eat, we start screaming and kicking, we may find it ineffective. Gryllida (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean that I'm singing Disney songs to the IP? I'm just trying to lighten the mood. It worked, too. The trolling stopped. I had one all ready for Let It Go, too. ("Sign your post! Sign your po-ost! Don't leave 'em blank any mooooooore!") Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is not with Disney songs, it is a problem with you being confident that your line of thought ('they must sign') is correct and any form of objection to this is not encouraged.

You could sing Disney songs to a fish about how it should eat your cake; yet that would be less effective than giving it an edible worm. Gryllida (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

So you see it as a problem that I'm deleting the IP's posts at all? Here's why I'm doing it: I think this person just wants to start a fight, and we don't need any help doing that, heh heh. I don't think they're serious about wanting answers (especially since the answer to their question has been on the article talk page since yesterday). The best thing to is show the door to trolls. Singing funny songs may even have helped convince this person that they were failing to make me angry.

If this really were Acagastya, why wouldn't he just say "IT'S ME!"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

With unstable internet logging in sometimes does not work, the page just times out. I experience this on my friend's mobile every day (they don't edit wikis from it; somehow they manage to do internet banking there, but only within a meter from the modem, or via cellular data which is expensive).

[6] and [7] while a bit challenging in meaning contained no personal attacks.

About name calling people, I don't want to speak with WN:AAA now. I'd be a lot more happy if you could withdraw the label and apologize to the IP instead. It in my opinion could be a productive and clever thing to do. Gryllida (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if those posts contained no personal attacks. The thing to do with a troll is to not engage. Trolls don't really want a civilized and serious discussion. Sometimes they pretend to, but that's just to keep you reeled in so they can make more trouble. Asking me to apologize would only encourage this person.

Acagastya has had plenty of chances to say "That was me the other day" or "that was me this afternoon" when he's back on a stable connection. He never has. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Not engaging would require not calling them any name (in text or edit summary). Having done it in both the edit summary and in this message is not consistent with this principle.

I think you have sufficient amount of willpower and thought to not continue this. If this were the case, in my view it would be a big win for you. Gryllida (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Tell you what. When you get trolls on targeting you on your talk page, you decide what to do about 'em. Singing silly songs may be what made this person give up on trying to make me angry and go away. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is not with Disney songs alone, it is a problem with humiliation of that person via the songs and via the word 'troll'. I reckon you want to dismiss them because they seem to want to 'make you angry'.

Generally it is a bad idea to dismiss people - I know you don't like it when others do it to you. Particularly bad when name calling comes.

I am sure that it is possible for you to take the step forward and avoid the name calling even if the other person seems to be counterproductive. Gryllida (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm dismissing them because they seem to want to make me angry. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I hate to insert myself into a particular situation about which I know nothing, but this conversation is actually managing to dominate WN:RC which is very unfortunate. What I want to say, however, is that these endless discussions are pointless. More is written on talk pages than in articles and that is sad. I am not saying, I have been immune to drama either, but we need to move on. I, too, am not the one to let someone else have the last word, but I never let it stop me from continuing what I want to do on the project. IDK, maybe these words are futile, but the lengths of these discussions seem counter-productive. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

What's WN:RC? I just get a redirect.

Are you telling me there's some list somewhere where people look at all changes for the whole Wikinews? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it is just Recent Changes as in [8] ... I don't know why the redirect is working the way it is, I assumed it would just show RC. And as far as I know this is as comprehensive as it gets for the "whole Wikinews" ... do you suspect there are invisible changes? --SVTCobra 02:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I mean this is the first I'm hearing that a conversation on my talk page could in any way affect anyone who wasn't here. I've never seen this thing before. "Don't like the conversation? Well it's not like it's in your face" sort of thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, fuck me. I was just trying to diffuse the situation and say it looks unproductive. I am not saying anything else and I don't want to be dragged into this any further. Sorry, --SVTCobra 03:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems like you misread me here. You have nothing to be sorry about. I was saying "Oh, this is affecting you? I DID NOT KNOW THAT. I thought anyone who found this conversation annoying just didn't have to be here." Thanks for telling me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Fwiw, I suspect RC is veteran Wikinewsies' most common choice for a "home page" on the project. I certainly use it that way. It's set up for the purpose, with various important stuff transcluded at the top, especially the {{votings}} template. There are some possible alternative choices, but the "votings" template is particularly valuable. Other somewhat plausible candidates for a home base are the project main page and the newsroom; and (at BRS's suggestion) I've been working on an upgrade to the archives splash page. But afaik RC is the most popular choice in modern times. It wouldn't work so well for Wikipedia because there's too much activity to track much via RC; but, well. --Pi zero (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't "affect" me as such, but on a low volume wiki as this is, well, I think you can see yourself how visible it is. On WP it'd pass by in the blink of an eye. On WP it is useless to look at RC, in my opinion, but here I look at it often. It is the best place to see what is going on (and to catch spammers). Well, I have no hurt feelings and I hope you don't either. And I certainly do not mean to curtail your opinions. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Of course that is not the necessary or sufficient condition for qualifying as a veteran wikinewsie, however, just open the RC and you would know the craziness. Spammers might get a free pass, some articles might suffer for the sheer reason of you deciding not to read the complete review comment. (Hm. Darkfrog24 not noticing RC. That sounds similar.)
•–• 06:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

SVTCobra, sorry... With Darkfrog24 being a bit quick to react (I stress here that this is not an aggressive remark - this feature can be positive and useful in some conversations and I am only mentioning it here in the context of RC spam), I guess the conversation could be taken, or at least attempted, to #wikinews-en ^{live connect}:where the chat is designed to be real time.

Darkfrog24, I think you didn't want live chat late evening once but perhaps it may be worth a try any time you are ready later. Gryllida (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow.

Y'know, we all 'work' here for free. Let's please try to remember that, friends. This is ABSOLUTELY nothing more than: a news organization......nothing more and nothing less. People can and do get picked on here, admittedly. Darkfrog24.......so....I'm wondering: is there anything ArbComm might do to help out here? --Bddpaux (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bddpaux

In my view Darkfrog24 doesn't respond well to authority, if sysops politely approaching about civilty does not result in an immediate apology then I doubt words by arbcom would.

There are some people with whom praise works a lot better than any kind of authority.

----

ARBCOM would probably not engage in the discussion necessary to explore the differences in thinking.

----

From my personal view there is a few actions ARBCOM could, in theory, take

• recommend blocking Darkfrog24 - unhelpful, last resort
• recommend that Acagastya, Pi zero and Gryllida do not review articles of Darkfrog24 because he is not content with their tone - this would be bad for draft writing and I suspect that if we have a fourth reviewer come then Darkfrog24 would have difficulties with them as well
• recommend that Acagastya and Darkfrog24 become civil - this has already been proposed, not sure it would have any merit coming from ARBCOM although it could
• recommend that Darkfrog24 has a break until the end of the year - doubt it will work, they expressed it above that they do what they wish to do and when they wish
• recommend that Darkfrog24 reads feedback of all reviewers fully, but I doubt it would work well because 1. it was suggested before 2. he does not even wish to finish reading it in the case when its beginning seems bad ('creepy')

Bddpaux do you see any other helpful things ARBCOM could do? Other than be an independent body whose opinion could possibly be heard better Gryllida (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

That's very nice of you to ask, Bddpaux. I'm not sure. This started when a reviewer told me "[Barack Obama and other targets of the pipe bomber] is on the liberal side of American politics" was too biased of a statement to be read in Wikinews' voice, so I suggested that we update WN:NPOV and other written rules to make this clear.

I fully admit that recent experiences elsewhere on Project Wiki have left me more sensitive to being pushed around and blamed for things that didn't really happen than I otherwise would be.

EDIT CONFLICT: In my opinion, Gryllida mistakes the kind of authority that reviewers have here. Your authority is over articles, not over me as a person. We just had a long conversation at the Water Cooler about whether I have to treat reviewers as my teachers and be their little student. I'll repeat what I said there "I am a volunteer here. You are my respected colleagues. If ever you think that you are right and I am wrong, I will listen carefully to what you have to say, but it is on you to convince me. I am not your student, not your employee, and not your little bitch. If you don't think my article is fit for publication, don't hit 'publish.' If you don't want to spend your time reviewing my work, don't spend your time reviewing my work. You are a volunteer too."

For example, a reviewer recently claimed that I was required to include the 5W and no other information in the first paragraph of a draft. Not only is there no written rule that says this, but I've seen many approved articles that include additional information in the lede, so it's not an unofficial or unwritten rule either. It came out of thin air. The reviewer, to my perspective, acted like I should have known about it the whole time and obeyed it in advance. It was not phrased as a suggestion, idea or request. I'd have to be a mind-reader and a time traveler. This is not the only time things like this, "Believe what I tell you, not what you see" have happened.

I often feel like a reviewer feels like complaining and so goes looking for things to complain about, inventing problems.

So I ask you this, Bddpaux, when a drafter feels like a reviewer is going on a power trip, what do you think would be the best thing for that drafter to do? In previous conflicts, I've said what amounted to "Don't talk to me like that" and walked away. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You'd be reading the feedback from a colleague whom you trust. Even if they were visibly upset in their remarks. Gryllida (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but my concern is that if the colleague treats me like a dog, and then I give them what they want, I've encouraged them to do it again.Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
for the record, @Bddpaux: the lede thing comes from Darkfrog24's failure to read the review comment completely, jumping to conclusions, and not even parsing the half read comments properly. They demonstrated lack of understanding of inverted pyramid, that the background information needs to be left for relatively lower section of the article, and then start complaining that "it is not written here", "that is not written there". Oh, fuck me, as if it was our fault that they do not read the pages or understand basic things about news writing. Just look at the history, when they were busy singing songs instead of attempting to fix the article so that it would be published, for the greater good. Seriously, editors are fortunate if they work in almost comparable timezone as reviewers. Some might not have noticed, but an important monthly activity seems to be pending.
•–• 06:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, a lot of their articles have a massive lizard tail of background. Not necessarily a bad thing, a bit hard to fact check though for me personally

I hope this can all be fixed by adequate communication, let's move it off this page and back to their next article talk page. Let's try to be more illustrative there and more encouraging. I think we can try to do it. Gryllida (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

"How do you even know who drafted the article?"--A lot of people, including reviewers monitor the RC. It is quite crucial for any wiki especially when the time is one of the constraints. Also, name of the page creator is displayed on the top of the page. The writing style also hints towards who wrote the article. (I am pretty sure pi would have reviewed at least 350 of my articles, and within a second pi can say that, "It is very likely it is written by acagastya.) I have written a great deal of football match reports and it would not take me a second to see obvious flaws for an article which would lead to a failed review, in order to fix it. It comes from experience, learning the mistakes which I made, which others made by learning from histories, which also helps learning how others think, and work. One needs to gather reputation, and every single thing of how anything was handled is archived in the memory. Yes, we do that. (Feels like Agent Hill was saying that)

Acagastya when you fill your review with abuse and talking-down, of course I don't want to read it. I don't want to encourage you.

When the reviewer is careless and complains about problems that don't exist, no I don't feel I should spend any more of my time indulging them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

This "abuse" exists in your head which is so busy jumping the conclusion without reading the things. You know what, I am done tolerating this BS that you have been spreading. I really want ArbCom to take this matter.
•–• 13:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible ...not solution but mitigating technique

I've been thinking about this problem. And I don't want to tell other people "well just do a ton of extra work to accommodate me." Gryllida asked something similar of me (the 500-hour research project), possibly just thinking out loud, and I didn't like that.

There's a way to mitigate this that would involve less work!

In the past, I asked one reviewer "Talk about the article; don't talk about me. Say 'I think this article would look better with X' and not 'You didn't do X, so [often followed by assumptions about which character flaw I must therefore have].'" But I just realized it can be taken a step further.

I thought "Wait a second. How do you even know who drafted the article?" The name's not on it. You'd have to check the page history and look.

So would that work? Skip that step. Read the article and then post your review based on the article and not the person. I think that would make it a lot easier to make things less personal. How does that fit into your process?

We all learned to check the page history of any stub to see if it was Acagastya calling dibs. This would be less work than that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing an article without knowing its history would be, well, reckless. As I've remarked, the whole project infrastructure is tuned to earned reputation of individuals. --Pi zero (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Knowing the author, reviewers say them good things too, like 'yay you learned to format sources' or 'yay you identified a fresh event, that is progress from the last time'. I'm sorry if that's something you have not often experienced.

Two examples about relative improvements compared with previous writing.

1) There has been more than three times of discussion of past tense, that still has not moved. You and the reviewers are doing it differently. This is the source of frustration: you do things your own way, and the burden of changing your approach and motivating you to change it falls fully on the reviewers, they simply get tired. They want more effort toward agreement from you. You don't have to agree with them; but some form of agreement needs to be reached, so that the perceptions and practices of the two people become identical.

This want is without insulting your intelligence. You are a great person and the discussion and the expressed frustration is aimed at finding a way to work together.

Perhaps if you write more slowly it may work better?? Can you time yourself and tell me how quickly you write?

2) In my personal opinion you have improved in the communication on talk pages, the answers changed from 'I do not have time, please change it yourself' to something useful like 'this is from my radio station' or 'I have fixed this'. I like this. I found we were able to collaborate on draft writing a few times. I appreciate this. I hope this works well in the next ones too. Gryllida (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Let this idea kick around in your heads for a day or two. Sometimes I think I can't do something or that it's incompatible with my system, but then it doesn't seem so bad. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I of course not mind some thinking...

Side remark in small print: Perhaps 'our heads' would be less condescending.. this reply reads like we need to think about it for a day or two but you don't. That makes me feel singled out. :-( Gryllida (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to make you feel that way. I did mean "your" because I'm trying to convince you. I already think that my own idea is good. But I suppose you mean I might not like it so much after a day or two? Sure. That could happen. I'll let it kick around too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh thanks Darkfrog24, I really appreciate this remark. It is such a kind move.

I mean perhaps, in addition to me thinking about your proposal in my head, you could also think about it -- both "as is" and in the context of my response. Gryllida (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: US: Missouri police announce they are investigating Danye Jones's death as suicide

Tips:

• I edited the story to make it more balanced, by adding police's excuses for their decision.
• I edited for inverted pyramid, splitting the "this is under investigation, lots of family members were in the room on October 17" quote into two.
• I shortened the paragraphs: one thought, 2-3 sentences per paragraph.
• I struggled to clarify the 'black' and 'white' thing for international audience. I found it unclear. One reviewer remarked the presentation was biased.
• Agreement on verb tense was not reached, which resulted in some reverts.
• You removed attribution for the para about lynching, commenting "It's in most of the history textbooks that cover the period.".
• Does "police announced that" in headline accurately describe the press interviews?
• One of the authors wanted to add British spelling, but this was unnecessary.

--Gryllida (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

In our travels on this article, you said you wanted to say "what kind of black they were." What did you mean? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I meant their ethnicity (as written in passport). Gryllida (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

U.S. passports don't include ethnicity, but if you mean what does the government officially call people in general, what they'd put on their census form would be "Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa."[9] By the same standard, the police officer would be just "white." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Continued discussion

(@Pi zero, Gryllida, Darkfrog24: I thought I'd continue this discussion from Talk:Satellite_photos_show_North_Korean_missile_sites_going_strong#Suggestions here as this part of the discussion isn't about the specific article)

Previous discussion copied from article Talk page for reference 

:::::Gryllida (t · c · b), my impression is that when Darkfrog24 (t · c · b) says "If you <think this thing>, then go ahead and change it" (which is basically the form of the two sentences you're referring to, above), they're essentially saying "I don't have a problem with <this thing> and don't think your problem with it requires change, but I won't stop you from changing it." It's less a request for help and more of a shrugging of the shoulders and saying "I don't agree with you, and won't change it, but won't stop you if you want to change it yourself." Ca2james (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the additional sources, Ca2james. Really impressive! I have difficulty thinking in the correct dimension for foreign articles ... something to work on.

I guess your interpreatation is good, but we can just say "I don't agree with you [and here is why]". This could be followed by a constructive conversation and reaching agreement. A great thing.

The other half, ", and won't change it, but won't stop you if you want to change it yourself.", is a way to say "I don't want to reach agreement here". That appears to be counter collaborative and appears to be shunning the discussion. Would you agree? Gryllida (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I think for Darkfrog24 (t · c · b), it's less a case of "I don't want to reach agreement" and more a case of thinking that reaching agreement isn't necessary. From what Darkfrog24 has said before, I think they see others' comments as preferences, not requirements, and unless Darkfrog24 feels strongly about something, won't argue about it... but won't change it, either. I think this approach happens in part because Darkfrog24 does not recognize any person as having authority here; they see only written pages as being the sum of all authority on Wikinews and if something isn't written down, it must not be a rule and is therefore a preference. To me this approach does seem uncollaborative, partly because it ignores the fact that writers with more responsibilities on Wikinews know more about how to write for Wikinews. Also partly because this approach looks to me like Darkfrog24 is demanding that everyone does things Darkfrog24's way without making any compromises towards a middle ground or suggesting change (rather than demanding it be done). Ca2james (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The only-if-written-down thing is a factor. There's also a difference of thinking mode, that can cause some things that are written down to not be fully understood (I mean, in some cases where those who wrote it thought in a different mode than the person reading it). There's also something somewhat elusive to do with individual responsibility. It's related to the more straightforward matter of commitment to the ideals of the project; that's more straightforward because there is a significant problem, to do with those earlier points, of not getting across what the ideals of the project are, without which there naturally wouldn't be commitment to them. --Pi zero (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The word "help" has connotations of power dynamics in which I do not wish to engage. That is all I meant by that. Also, the first part of Ca2James' interpretation is correct: You're proposing changes that I don't think are necessary but don't think are bad either. If you want to make them, go ahead. If you don't, then don't. But I will spend my limited Wiki time on things I think are more important.

if something isn't written down, it must not be a rule and is therefore a preference No, that is not the only thing I use to distinguish necessary from unnecessary changes.

Wikinews know more about how to write for Wikinews This is the core issue. I've had a lot of time to observe things on this site, and review decisions change from reviewer to reviewer and even within the same reviewer on different days. The decisions seem to have to do with on-Wiki social dynamics and supposed hierarchies. Gut feelings, not core principles. The reviewers don't look like they know what they're doing, so I might as well read the AP Style Guide, take my cues from credentialed professionals, write something that looks good and compliant with Wikinews principles to me, and throw the dice. People who want something to complain about will look until they find it. Complaining is fun.

As for wanting other people to do things my way, I can't force anyone to talk to me like a colleague, but if anyone talks to me as if I were their subordinate, I reserve the right to disengage.

The middle ground I see, Ca2James is "I'll write a draft and if you don't want to review it, then don't. I'm a volunteer here but I recognize you are too." But oceans have many islands. If you see another middle ground, go ahead and point it out. You are my colleague and I am listening. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

So the problem with this specific article is that you think it's propaganda? And not so much the facts themselves but the fact that these newspapers chose to give space to those facts rather than to some other story? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

As for "shunning," work picked up. That's all. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Cause and solution are separate concerns here, and the practical concern ought to be finding a solution... but nothing useful will be served by blaming the problem on an imagined social hierarchy of people making stuff up. At the heart of the matter —I've no longer reasonable doubt— you don't grok the core principles, leaving you to mis-perceive "gut feelings, not core principles". Worse, I don't think the core principles are going to come naturally to you; they belong to a mode of operation that dominates on Wikinews but isn't your natural mode. Making Wikinews an uncomfortable fit for you, and the practical question is how for you to operate smoothly in the Wikinews environment. --Pi zero (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Emperor's New Clothes, Pi zero. You keep claiming there's something here that I can't see and I would see it if I weren't so stupid/whatever. Regardless of whether you're using it that way, it's a manipulative tactic to get people to play along. I've been here for years with eyes wide open. Maybe you're describing a system that used to be there, and I don't see it because it's not there now.

The social hierarchy I'm talking about is reviewers vs drafters. When I happen to know better than the reviewer and say "Actually, it works like this, and here's the book/websites/examples to show I don't expect to be obeyed as an individual," everyone gets all "how dare you." This is not consistent with improving articles. It is consistent with a social system.

Here's how I fit in here: I'll draft articles. If you don't want to review them, then don't. If you want a change, consider doing it yourself. I will not grudge you being selective with your time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

There is something that I see happening over and over. Specific vs. general. I say something like "Professional journalists did X, so let's do X" and I get "no no no stop this emphasis on professional journalists" without any comment on X or whether it's right for the article. It makes it look like the reviewer is trying to break me of the habit of preferring professional journalists to the point where they don't care if doing so would make a better article. Then we end up arguing about the professional vs. amateur principle rather than looking at X. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I do try to put things less prescriptively than that, which... unfortunately, tends to play into the way my cognitive mode favors putting things, rather than yours, so my efforts tend not to work out so well. However, specific versus general (as a reflection of preferred cognitive modes) is, indeed, a pretty good description of what I've been getting at, so there's a sign we're seeing the same things happening, after all.

To avoid a snowballing effect (and the associated likelihood for a feedback loop), I'll just remark on one point (that I found particularly hurtful). My approach is kind of the opposite of manipulative: it's a consequence of my impulse to speak honestly even when it's apt to be counterproductive to my own goals (comparison/contrast invited with the current US President). --Pi zero (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I enjoy piecing things out like this.

My intention with "maybe you're not using it that way" and "consistent with X and not with Y" was to acknowledge that it might not have been your intent or your conscious intent. But most of the time, when people say what you're saying, that's why. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of nuances to this, but, I point out that the likelihood of encountering that sort of manipulation is a quality of the community. Two factors make it less prevalent amongst en.wn natives (compared to, say, <brr> en.wp): we're a small community, and, especially, the sort of folks apt to be particularly interested in journalism are also apt to particularly dislike being manipulated. (On the general topic of manipulation, a link I've hung on to is [10]; though I generally get stuck trying to identify some of the faces shown at the top.) --Pi zero (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

When Gryllida mentioned "shunning", she wasn't referring to you taking time to respond but the way your attitude conveys a "I don't want to reach agreement here" thought.

I think there are a couple of things here that are leading to issues between Wikinews and you. One is that Wikinews has historically been, and is set up to be, a project with deep underlying principles into which rules (written and unwritten) and customs (written and unwritten) are slotted in. For someone like me, who needs to understand how an overall structure fits together before I can follow instructions, that's awesome, and when I see differing interpretations of certain rules or customs, I can still see how those differing interpretations fit into the whole structure. I know that there are other people, and I think you might be one of them, who don't need or care about the overall structure and who want defined rules; any differences in the way those rules are expressed appear to be different rules (or individual preferences). It must be frustrating and a bit incomprehensible to be in this position where you don't think that way and everyone else is saying to think that way.

Another thing is that you think you know more than everyone else. As I've said before, you might know more about things outside of Wikinews but that does not mean that you're an expert here. You're not an expert here and you don't know more than everyone else about how to do things here. And just because other places do something a particular way does not in any way imply that Wikinews does things that way. I can see that this would be very frustrating for you, because from your perspective there are very few firm rules and people keep talking about principles that don't matter. So you try to bring in external rules and people just say "nope, those won't work here because their principles aren't Wikinews principles".

I can also see that all this talk about how you're not fitting in here would be annoying and maybe a little demoralising and you just want to get on with your work on your terms. In this way, you don't seem willing to compromise or find true middle ground ("I'll draft articles. If you don't want to review them, then don't. If you want a change, consider doing it yourself." is not finding middle ground or trying to fit in because it doesn't involve any compromise on your part). If I was in your situation I'd feel frustrated and maybe a little attacked and definitely backed into a corner; when that happens I know I get stubborn and inflexible. But the thing is, you trying to do things on your terms is disruptive for everyone else and is a time-sink. Your articles show up in the newsroom and can't be ignored. Besides, it's obvious that you have some skill when it comes to writing and Wikinews would be so much better if your skill could be applied within Wikinews principles. It's frustrating for everyone else to see that you're so skilled and yet so unwilling to follow even the rules that are spelled out (like the article structure one, which is a rule that you don't follow).

I do think it would be good to articulate more of the rules on Wikinews for writers who don't want/need to see the overarching structure and to make it easier for them to contribute, but this project will always be more big-picture-like than rules-oriented. That said, demanding change isn't going to make change happen. Suggesting specific changes might, if you're willing to work to understand why those changes might/might not be adopted.

So where does that leave everyone, other than frustrated and annoyed? At an impasse, I think. But I don't know where to go from here. Ca2james (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You seem to mistake me in a few places, Ca2James, and you don't seem to see the compromises I've made.

I was fine with the system you're describing at first. When I was the new guy, I did as I was told as a new guy should. But that was years ago. I kept my eyes open and had my own experiences, and of course I prefer what I've seen myself to what others tell me.

Yes, there are times when I know better than the reviewer, but I don't expect anyone to just take my word on that. You will notice that whenever that happens, I can produce a source or example. Even if the reviewer is right nine times out of ten, they reject the tenth. It seems you guys care more about making drafters obedient than about making articles good. Scroll up to the conversation with Gryllida. G didn't happen to know that "what kind of black" isn't a thing in American public life, at least not in a way that concerns an article about Ferguson. Slavery erased national lines and produced a new cultural group that doesn't have as direct a connection to the old country as a German-American or Chinese-American would have. It's no great thing if she needs a little proof, but then take it and move on.

I keep hearing, "The rules, which are invisible, mean you do whatever I say and do it NOW!" and "Don't believe what you see; believe what I tell you." That's inherently suspect. "Children who want to play school" is the nice way to put it. People go to work and say "yes boss" all day and now they want a place where they give the orders, and you're not happy that I don't want to play pretend.

You say you want me to be a student. Teachers are teachers because they know significantly more than their students do. You keep telling me that you know better than I do, but you really don't seem to. In the real world, this issue is solved with credentials and degrees and CVs. On Wikipedia it's sidestepped (at least when things are working) with "You're not deferring to me; we're both deferring to this professionally published source." So you believe you know better than I do. How would you go about establishing this?

I don't see "Don't review my drafts if you don't want to" as a demand for change. I see it as passive. I see it as "I'm not telling you what to do."

Here's something that people have been dancing around: Why couldn't you just skip past a draft that you don't happen to want to work on? I've skipped collaboration on drafts after checking that Acagastya made them. Is it because there aren't so many drafts these days? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure how to be anyone's collegue without receiving help and rewarding people for offering it.

1) When you agree with their suggestion you -- while implement it -- don't say thanks and don't seem to show signs of appreciating it. An example:

• "The center also identified 13 sites suitable for short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, but there may be as many as 20" ( not a fact - attribution missing ). (me)

• Attribution is not missing. See "the center." (you)

• Yea, "The center also identified 13 sites suitable for short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, butsaying there may be as many as 20." had it in Wikinews's own voice, the new version is much better. Thanks for the change. (me)

Another example:

which activist (Acagastya)

"McKinnies is a member of the activist group Lost Voices. " added to article by you (15:11)

Because the activist isn't famous and the readers aren't likely to have heard of her, calling her "an activist" is more likely to be useful than using her name. I think the title's already a little long, but you could say "Ferguson activist" or "Lost Voices activist." (your reply, at 15:42)

2) When you disagree, you write "I do not want to reach agreement or to receive your help here; do it yourself as a separate contributor if you wish". This is an euphemism for "I do not care" and is dismissive and discouraging.

Is this really a great way to be a collegue?

Is the act of receiving a suggestion and thanking people for it also a part of 'you are an authority' thing which you dislike?

I call for an improvement.

--Gryllida (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If you feel I'm not being a good colleague, then I will absolutely listen closely.

"Help" is a loaded word because it has to do with power dynamics. The person doing the helping has all the power and the person asking for help has, in however large or small a way, offered to submit to them. So no, I don't want you to think that I asked you for help because we already have problems with power dynamics here.

Yes, the suggestions are part of the power dynamic thing that bothers me so. You've picked up on that correctly.

Okay, here's the question then. Why didn't you just do it yourself from the first? Why did it get to the point of telling me to do it so that I answered "Go ahead and do it yourself"? That would have taken less time and effort than telling me to do it for you. I don't call you over and say "Gryllida, fix those commas." I just see a misplaced comma and I fix it. Then we don't have a big long talk about it.

"Ah, but if I do too much it would disqualify me from being a reviewer." Yes it would. But what's so bad about that?

It's not that I don't care. It's that I don't mind. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixing things can be harder than asking a question at the talk page. That's why I don't always do it.

Not minding is another form of not caring. A caring approach is that of devoting your full earnest attention to the precious suggestion, with a will to utilize it to its maximum both now and in the future.

--Gryllida (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeaaaah, but is the suggestion precious, though? And is it really a suggestion?

A lot of the time, I'm left with the impression that the reviewer didn't read the article or at least was determined to find something to complain about before they even clicked in. You personally have demanded I add material that was already there, for a more clear-cut example. You have to acknowledge that it looks like you just felt like making suggestions/giving orders/complaining for the fun of doing so and not because it was necessary. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the difference between a demand and a suggestion? --Gryllida (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It's in what you expect the other person to do.

How do you feel when the person doesn't do what you say? Or if they say, "Do it if you want. I don't mind but I don't think it's a big deal"?

How do you feel when the person discusses the demand/suggestion rather than just acting on it?

That's the difference that's relevant to us, I think. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't a discussion be welcomed in either case? I think there is some other difference. --Gryllida (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Let me think on it a bit.

The problem is not suggestions in and of themselves. It's the power dynamic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to write articles without tacitly consenting to being treated like a subordinate and it looks like you're trying to collaborate without either being creepy about it or tacitly surrendering anything you think is important. I can respect that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I wrote my post because I thought that if I could empathize with you and try to understand your point of view, we (you, me, and everyone else, not just you and me) could figure out some kind of solution to the problems that: a) your work doesn't meet Wikinews standards; and b) in response to questions or criticisms of your work, you come across as defensive, dismissive, uncollaborative, and arrogant; and c) you apparently don't see a problem with any of that. But now I think that if you don't see a problem with your own behaviour, you're not going to change it, and that no amount of explaining or empathy or examples or encouragement will change the current situation. So everyone is still frustrated and at an impasse. Ca2james (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You're relatively new to this discussion Ca2James. I've had reviewers who were a lot more aggressive than Gryllida. The "You're attacking me because someone kicked you in the head today and now you want to take a swing at someone else" was a lot more blatant. That's left me very unwilling to encourage it, even on smaller levels. I'm not here to be anyone's emotional receptacle. I've had reviewers scream at me for misinterpreting sources that they didn't bother to read first. I've had reviewers demand that I add content that was already there.

When a reviewer tells me to make a change that doesn't really need making, I have three options 1) Argue with them and tell them why my original version is better (which sometimes is the right thing to do, like if the reviewer wants to insert mistakes), 2) perform the overt action of making the change, which is equivalent to saying "Yes, Master! Yes, Master! Your dirty, stupid slave obeys!!" or 3) Say "Okay, go ahead if you want to" and not make a big deal out of it. #3 here is the middle ground.

You should ask yourself why there are so few drafters. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, ask someone who's been here for a really long time and has made a particular study of what makes the project tick. The project has been shrinking pretty much since it was created, long before review was adopted. The adoption of review is barely visible as a small squiggle in the curve. Although a major cause, I'm confident, has been persistent dissing of Wikinews both from a powerful subcommunity of Wikipedia and from upper echelons of the Foundation, I still hope we can reverse the trend through local measures, keeping in mind we're doing something here that's genuinely new and genuinely difficult. --Pi zero (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I may be inexperienced but I am a lurker. I've read most of the discussions on this site, and I'm at least partly familiar with what's been going on. I disagree with your characterizations that a reviewer "screamed" at you, or that reviewers are attacking you for some unknown personal reason, or that you're anyone's emotional receptacle: what I see and have seen is that you have read things (particularly emotions and motivations) into the situations that weren't there. What I also see is that you've assumed that your reading of the situation was the right one and have behaved rudely in return, where a better (more productive, more collaborative) approach would have been to ask if the other person meant what you think they did.

That said, I do agree that a reviewer was unnecessarily rude to you, and that this should not have happened. However, that particular experience does not justify or excuse your current behaviour. I get the need to protect yourself, I really, really do, but that's not the only thing you're doing.

I know reviewers don't always read things closely, and sometimes they ask for things that don't make sense. So what? You don't always read things closely, and you have put outright wrong things in your writing. No one is perfect, but lack of perfection in someone otherwise knowledgeable does not imply that the person's thoughts should be automatically ignored.

The problem with your second paragraph is the initial assumption that a reviewer is asking you to change something that (you think) doesn't really need changing. That's a faulty assumption, and the way forward is to not assume that the thing doesn't need changing, and to ask why they think it needs changing. Ca2james (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course I think my own reading of the situation was the right one. Otherwise my reading would have been something else.

If I feel someone's pushing me around, the best thing to do is not to ask them. It's to not engage.

"someone otherwise knowledgeable" Yeaaaaah. But are they, though? A big part of this is that I'm just not convinced that the reviewers know better than I do. You seem to want me to assume that the reviewer is always right and I'm always wrong because they're them and I'm me. I'm not going to do that. I'll listen and if you want to show me proof or examples, great, but that's it. But the fact that people usually don't do the same when I have proof or examples to show makes the whole system suspect.

I think we made progress on the last Korea article. There was a lot of "This looks good because it's in professional publications" vs "No no no! Don't listen to professionals; obey me" going into a long conversation about the role of professional publications, but someone finally answered my question about "What is it that you think the professionals are doing wrong?" Some of you guys thought it was propaganda. FINALLY. Instead of bludgeoning each other over the principal of whether I should value a pro journalist over one of my fellow Wikinews amateurs, we should have been talking about specifics. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

<pi zero drops in> That doesn't altogether match what I saw. You make claims here about being told to assume others are always right, and subservience/obedience, but you've been told not to assume things, you haven't been told others are always right, and it's not about subservience/obedience. If a reviewer gives a warn-off that something's problematic (at least, in most obvious situations where this would happen), it's pretty certain to not make sense to raise a stink about it. For a simple reason separate from "right"ness or "subservience" or whatever. A lot of Wikinews practice is about completely circumventing controversy. If it's worrisome to someone clueful, obliterate the subject of concern, leaving nothing to discuss. On Wikipedia, one might decide it's more important to stick to one's guns and argue details than to just make the problem go away (though I did once get a barnstar there for making a problem disappear in a puff of smoke), but on Wikinews, making the problem go away is usually better than "winning" an argument about it. --Pi zero (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not repeating exactly what Ca2James said and he isn't repeating exactly what I said. That's normal for talk pages.

For the content I mean, I'm not assuming that the change in question is unnecessary. "Multiple" vs "several" in the recent article is six to one half a dozen to the other. I look at it, think "this is a nothing and I don't want to encourage people to think I'm willing to jump around and do their nothings for them."

The collective actions of reviewers have led me to believe that this is more about obedience and identity than about writing good articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikinews is a meritocracy; I've never gotten the impression you'd really internalized that. Wikinewsies generally have zero patience with silly social games (heck, lots of us are somewhere on the autistic spectrum), but identity (if I'm understanding your use of the term) is key to the whole dynamics of the project, and the more one understands how that works, the less credible it is that the whole active reviewer population of the project, who have been here longer than you, accumulated much more experience here than you have, and been far more immersed in the project than you have been or (truthfully) shown interest in being, would all know less about Wikinews writing than you do.

I've had occasion, in some of my own intellectual pursuits, to think my way carefully around the likelihood that I (along with everyone else in a scientific field) am missing some unidentified important factor in a situation. It's possible, but devilishly tricky, to think one's way around that sort of thing. When you say the collective actions of reviewers have led you to believe thus-and-such, evidently your perception of their actions has led you to do so; and if you were missing some important factor in the basis for the reviewers' actions, that would skew how you'd perceive the actions. --Pi zero (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course I use my own perception. You're using yours, aren't you? The air of "believe what I tell you, not what you see" is part of the problem.

No, I don't see that Wikinews is a meritocracy. You say it is, but my eyes tell me otherwise. I see silly social games, as you put it. Maybe you just don't notice them because they service you. But they are played at my expense, so I'll skip them. It's also possible that you're describing a system that was on Wikinews years ago when the group was larger but faded away before I got here.

Yeah, you would think that they'd know more about it than I would, but it looks like they don't. Actions are more consistent with a "I want a place where I am the boss" model than with any kind of "write the best articles" model. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see silly social games on Wikinews because they aren't there. --Pi zero (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

We should both probably call it a night. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Probably. Sleep well. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

I have a proposal.

• If you find someones suggestion useful, implement it; thank them and let them know you have implemented it.
• If you find someone's suggestion useful but you want to both explain yourself and implement it, thank them and explain.
• If you find someone's suggestion useful but you don't know how to do it, thank them and ask them how to do it.
• If you find someone's suggestion useless, and "[you are] left with the impression that the reviewer didn't read the article or at least was determined to find something to complain about before they even clicked in.", forget about this feeling for the moment; thank them for looking at the article (or at a part of the article which you think they read); and concisely, without attacking their motivations and without shunning them using the 'do it yourself' technique, explain your point. I bet they will be open to reaching agreement in a non-condescending way, and it will be a positive experience.

To me it seems like these things are

• balanced and do not involve power dynamics. (They also appear to not involve naming yourself a student and them a teacher, or yourself a slave and them a slave owner.);
• more like a colleague relationship than the current situation.

Does this sound OK to you? If not, please write what looks unrealistic and why. --Gryllida (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(To make it clear: this proposal is non-binding; it is only an experiment that I would suggest you to take for your entertainment if you wish. If you say 'yes', and start working on it, I won't supervise you or boss you around about any successes or failures in this regard.) --Gryllida (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Whoa... Think about a;; that for a second. You want me to thank you for making comments? Whenever I feel like I'm being used as punching bag, you want me to assume that I must be wrong, dismiss those feelings and thank you for doing whatever it was? Oho no.

They are not balanced and they absolutely involve power dynamics. You're basically saying "Thank me when I tell you what to do, even when I'm wrong" and "When you feel like you're being used as a punching bag, you're wrong. Now say 'thank you.'"

Sometimes a comment merits thanks, but most of the time, they're just comments.

I get that you're trying, but no. No no no no no. I figure you're just thinking out loud here, like with the 500-hour research project. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess that's two separate points, "Thank me when I tell you what to do, even when I'm wrong" is the first (in the cases when you're not being used as a punching bag). Yes indeed. This means you appreciate their attention, and you appreciate it enough to enlighten them gently about what they were wrong with, so that they learn; it also means you welcome their feedback in the future in case they share something useful. Gryllida (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"When you feel like you're being used as a punching bag, you're wrong. Now say 'thank you.'" is the second. How do you define or identify this case to differ it from positive intentions? Gryllida (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Also people ask questions without telling you what to do in some cases. Can you include this case? They are not always demands, they can be are suggestions. ('In my personal opinion this is biased. I am concerned. Can you clarify it?' as opposed to 'This is objectively wrong and you must fix it now.') --Gryllida (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal v2

While this is correct that the vast majority of people are idiots ... I would think that being dismissive and complaining are two good ways to create unnecessary hostility.

What about this voluntary non-binding experiment? It is only two little steps away from what you are already doing.

• If a comment is productive: implement it adding 'per talk' to edit summary
• If a comment seems unimportant or useless: write why
• If the proposed change worsens the story (there is no way to satisfy the concern without making the story inaccurate): write why and emphasize that you currently oppose the change
• In the last two cases do not add 'you can fix it if you like', it is implied (it is the default) and may seem like you do not want to engage into further discussion.

--Gryllida (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't seem so different from what I've been doing, with one exception: Unimportant and useless comments, though this is even truer of hostile comments, are best left unanswered. Best not to make a big deal out of it. Just disengage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess you could ignore hostile comments if you wish. Would the proposed way of doing things be OK with you for not hostile comments? Gryllida (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I love that you're processing this and I don't mind that you're using my talk page to think out loud but I don't feel like committing to a plan like this at this time. You have successfully communicated that I hurt your feelings and did not foster the impression that I see you as a respected colleague. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing me like that I guess. I really appreciate it.

How you say, the plan with 'ignore hostile comments completely' added at the end already corresponds to current situation, but I disagree. I think instead of ignoring them you currently leave a defensive remarks. Is this difference the reason why you don't want to commit to the plan at this time? Or it is something else.

The reason why I ask this is because the dismissive remarks terrify me and require a disproportionate amount of emotional effort to handle to maintain a conversation. I suspect this situation may be similar with some of the other contributors who tried to speak with you previously. Gryllida (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Your comments were less hostile than the ones I'm thinking of. But yes, I did tell that person "Don't talk to me like that," now that I remember. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Ya, ignoring means don't tell them "don't talk to me like that" and also do not discuss article content with them and also do not dismiss them.

I mean simply do not reply in any manner whatsoever to comments which look hostile and make you feel abused. Gryllida (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I will do what seems best to me at the time. I'm a volunteer here. I'm not here to take abuse in silence. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what to offer here, perhaps when dealing with seemingly intentional abuse it is time to call it a conflict and follow the steps of dispute resolution (of which the first step is avoidance, but not the last). Perhaps that can be a good solution? Gryllida (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. We'll see. Hey, maybe there won't be any hostile comments to find out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Qapla'

@Pi zero, Blood Red Sandman, Ca2james, Ottawahitech, Robertinventor: I just got unblocked from Wikipedia. It's a long story with a lot of twists and turns but the short version is that it got very very personal. Thank you for giving me a place where I could prove that the things that were said about me were never true. Thank you for being my community, my mysterious, aggravating, funny, productive community.

Enough Federation-style talking about my emotions! Come taste the bloodwine!

Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations. (Blood Red Sandman. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. And now I can check in here more than once a day without that "you've got new messages" heart attack. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations!! Ca2james (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Some people already started the article about Bhupathy's purple frog with which I'd planned to make my glorious return. I settled for adding a glorious evolutionary implications section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• I appreciate I'm an entire year late to this news, but it gave me a big smile. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Blood Red Sandman: Oh dear... In June I got blocked again. For doing something that policy explicitly states that I am allowed to do. When I was told to do it. Where I was told to do it. I just sent my appeal in last night. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Disappointing; unsurprising. Best of luck. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Restored comment

I've just restored the comment you removed. That comment wasn't particularly troll-like and you don't own the talk page (had it been posted on your talk page of course removing it would have been ok but it was an article talk page). Let third parties remove comments about you, if they judge it necessary, rather than removing the comment yourself. Ca2james (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ca2james: Then I ask you to remove it. Anon117 is trying to pick a fight and has received too much encouragement already. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I won't remove it; as I said, that comment wasn't particularly troll-like (at least to me). Pinging @Pi zero: for input. Ca2james (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Then this is not a two-way conversation any more. I think this should take place at dispute resolution instead of on my talk page. I waited for you to respond before posting there. I propose any further discussion take place here:[11] Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I have posted there. I appreciate that you notified me of the is discussion but I've asked you before to ping me when you talk about me and I'm repeating that request. If you're going to talk about people and their actions, name them and ping them please. Ca2james (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I did think about pinging you, but I decided against it because that would have required me to use your name in front of third parties, which might have made it look like I was complaining about you and not about the anon, which might have made other users take sides on a you-vs-me basis.

The anon is trying to start a fight, and that would have been a step toward giving them what they want.

Also, it doesn't matter which other logged-in user restored the comment that I deleted. The fact that it was you as opposed to say AZ or Gryllida or Pi zero or BRSandman is not relevant. It's a distraction. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your thinking. My view is that the editor who restored the comment (aka me) might need to explain why they'd done so. I'd object less if you'd presented my reasons for restoring the comment but you didn't; you presented the situation as if yours was the only possible view, and leaving my reasoning unsaid implies that it was an invalid reason (which it was not, even if you disagree with it). Ca2james (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not present it as if my point of view was the only possible one. Even if I had, it's a signed talk page post, not an article or an RfC opener. It doesn't have to be neutral.

The last time I summarized something you did, you said my interpretation was inaccurate. At least this way what you said, how much, which part, and whether or not to say anything at all was up to you. "[Ca2james] didn't think it was trolling" is not what I would have said. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course you wouldn't have said that I thought it wasn't trolling because you didn't mention trolling in your post. You said the anon was being rude and aggressive in their third post and you tried to delete that post, which I reverted. But when you deleted the post you indicated in your edit summary that you were doing it because you thought the anon was trolling. Being rude and aggressive isn't the same thing as trolling... And conflating the two misrepresents both your deletion and my restoration of the post. Ca2james (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I said they were trying to pick a fight, which is another way to say, as Oxford Dictionaries puts it, "elicit an angry response": Troll: "Make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them."[12]

If you still think that misrepresents anything, then so much the better I didn't attempt to speak for you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I suppose that's true (that it's better that you didn't try to summarize my words). And I know it can be difficult to summarize events. (As an aside, although "picking a fight" and "trolling" are similar, they're not exactly interchangeable. A person can pick a fight but not be trolling the other person, and a person can troll someone else without picking a fight with them. (The accusation of trolling tends to be viewed much more seriously than one of picking a fight.) Since you'd used trolling as the reason for removing the anon's post, when I didn't see trolling in the notice board post I didn't think the one summarized the other. Now I know that you thought they were interchangeable.) Ca2james (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you may be attributing more specificity to both these terms than they really have, but whether you call it "picking a fight" or "trolling," it's bad, they're not supposed to be doing it, I shouldn't be expected to be the target of it, and we should take steps to get it to stop. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Maybe I am attributing specificity to these words because I'm looking at not just their dictionary definition (or denotative meaning) the connotative meaning, too. It's like saying that sky blue and turquoise are the same colour: they're similar, for sure, but they're also different and not truly interchangeable.

I think the anon is is expressing themselves in an unnecessarily prickly, rude way. I don't think all their comments are trolling or picking a fight. However, some of their comments, like that "learn to write" one, are totally unproductive and could be called trolling. I agree that you don't deserve the vitriol expressed in that comment and that comments like that should stop. In other words, I agree that the anon has crossed a line, at least with that comment. We may disagree on exactly where the line is or how to describe it but we agree that there is a line and the anon has crossed it. Ca2james (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Oops

Fortunately nothing too serious happened because I was just starting the review. Though I did get a weird error when I tried to edit the sources section of the article and it had been moved out from under me. --Pi zero (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought about it and weighed it against the extra hassle of changing the article title after it's published. Hm, what had to change among the sources? I'll give 'er a look. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The way to go about it, once {{under review}}, is to leave a note on the discussion page.

I don't think anything changed in the sources section; I just needed to collect the urls from it. --Pi zero (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

At which point I'm likely to get heckled. Right now I'm brainstorming ways to avoid using collaboration pages. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing objectionable about asking that "US" in the headline be changed to "U.S." for consistency with the article author's stylistic preference. Any heckling would not be your problem to worry about. --Pi zero (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

No I mean the IP is on a roll right now and likely to show up and misbehave. And yes, as the target of said action, it is my problem. To use a metaphor, if someone forms a habit of punching me in the face, even if it's someone else's responsibility to put a stop to it, it is very much my problem. Ca2james was right about one thing: I can't make anyone else do what I think is best—I can suggest and ask and insist, but I can't make you do it—so I must explore things to do on my own. Right now, I'm exploring, "if the talk page is unusable, don't use it." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no equivalence between being punched in the face and having someone use strong language while criticizing you on a wiki. It does seem you're also misjudging the proportion of strong language to substantive criticism involved, apparently because you're missing the substance. The latter point is important to interpreting my remark about who would be responsible for dealing with heckling: this is a situation where, unlike the earlier ones I recall, there seems to be no substantive criticism to be made, so that complaints really would be heckling in a clear-cut sense.

Not using the article talk page for the purpose it exists for is an inappropriate measure, and causes problems for everyone. --Pi zero (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The cause of these problems is the abusive posts themselves, not that I'm avoiding the person who makes them. I've already suggested we address this by A) blocking the IPs, B) granting permission to delete abusive anonymous posts, C) collectively giving this person the silent treatment and you've already made it clear you're not on board with any of these, at least not yet. Now I'm trying D) avoiding this person. It's more passive than I'd like but E) Darkfrog puts up and shuts up and accepts their role as verbal punching bag is not okay with me. EDIT: Actually, just walking away is putting up and shutting up. Sticking around on the talk page would be F) actively rewarding and reinforcing abusive behavior.

Pi zero, you don't like it when I don't obey you. We've been through why I don't several times. This person is pretending to agree with you on this point or that so you will let them get away with the way they're acting. I'm not "missing the substance"; I'm recognizing the true point of the post—the aggression itself. It is more important to stop the inappropriate behavior than to address anything that this person has ever included in a post. They were only ever camouflage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You've consistently demonstrated that you don't get the substance of the criticisms, which undermines the credibility of your judgement that the IP is only pretending to the substantive position you appear not to understand; others here who do understand, consistently perceive the IP's transgressions as a lesser aspect of their remarks than you're portraying. The evidence before you should be suggesting to you, by now, that there is something about this situation that you're not seeing (this is a common situation for scientists, seeing there must be something there they're not seeing), which should be making you more cautious about your estimate of the IP's provocation-to-substance ratio.

You've claimed repeatedly that others are demanding obedience of you, but it appears to me you are trying to bully admins into doing your bidding. It's possible for the IP to be partly in the wrong and for you to be creating additional problems at the same time. --Pi zero (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

We've been through your belief that I'm "not seeing it" before. That is not the issue right now. If you want to talk about it, I invite you to start a separate thread.

It sounds like you're saying, "It is okay for this IP to curse at you, call your work crap, and otherwise grossly violate our written etiquette rules so long as their posts also contain anything whose substance matches my own views."

I'm saying "I'm going to avoid this person," and you're saying, "NO! Get back OVER there and TAKE THE ABUSE or else YOU are the bully and being manipulative." I feel a bit manipulated and bullied by that myself. I feel that there's some "become an obedient little underling or else the abuse will continue" on the table.

Let me ask you something, if the thing I want the admins to do is enforce etiquette guidelines that were written down a long time before I got here and that I played no role in composing, what is so bad about that? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

If you really think I'm that much of a dishonest narcissistic imbecile, it's a waste of time for me to talk to you; no matter what I say, unless I treat you as the final authority on all things you'll just assume I'm either stupid or lying (or both). --Pi zero (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any of those things and did not say them. I think it's late and we both need a break. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The etiquette guidelines, btw, were mostly written down a long time before I got here too, flaws in them sometimes get discussed, and overhauling them has been on my to-do list for years (but some aspects of them are fine as-is, and retuning some others ought to be tractable, but then some others we've been puzzling over for years and still haven't figured out how to fix). --Pi zero (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Simple solution

If you really don't wanna use the talkpage, you could use the reviewers talkpage. Bypassing where you have an issue feeling uncomfortable, but without the risk of interrupting a review; the review can't exactly miss a talkpage post. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles have reviewer talk pages that are just for reviewers?

Oh, you mean the reviewer-person's individual talk page. Well that wouldn't work for something like the title of the Tony Mendez article where it doesn't have a reviewer yet. Like I said, I'm brainstorming ways to avoid talk pages so this will go in the jar. Darkfrog24 (talk)

Newsroom

Looking at the Newsroom, it looks like you'd written two articles on Romeo the lonely frog (here and here); their page histories show that they were created within minutes of each other. It's an interesting topic but I'm sure you didn't mean to write two articles on it!

When you check the Newsroom to see if an article already exists, are you refreshing the page using the green arrows icon on the page and then clicking "OK" to purge the cache of the page? This "green arrows refresh process" ensures that you're looking at the most updated version of the page. Refreshing using just the browser doesn't guarantee that you see the most up-to-date version of the page. If you're not refreshing the Newsroom page using the green arrows refresh process, it might be something to do, if only to avoid doing all that writing twice. Ca2james (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. That's not what happened. I didn't do all that writing twice. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Re Talk:Plane crashes into home in Yorba Linda, California

Hi Darkfrog24 please don't confuse newcomers, you could have just written "Hi Joshua since in edit summary thats a first hand account, do you have any photos or videos? If so, please upload them here, and then add them to the article" That'd be more clear and confuse them less. Personally I tend to leave such messages at their personal talk page (with link back at article talk) since within the first day of article creation they are the primary author, and only after a day has passed I start using the article talk page more. --Gryllida (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think my post is why he's confused. He just said he's a first timer.

That's exactly why I pinged you and BRS, Gryllida. You would think to ask for photographs and video but I wouldn't. It didn't even occur to me that JM might have any to post. I figured his own eyes would do so long as he documented what he saw properly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

In that case I guess it could be appropriate to ask them what did they saw thats not included in the original sources. Could they please detail that here. Gryllida (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, poor guy seems intimidated by his first attempt though. Now that he's told us what his deal is, I think our goal should be not to scare him off or overwhelm him. Let him see if he likes contributing here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Little technical detail

I believe {{sports}}, {{United States}} and similar infoboxes templates automatically add the article to the relevant category, and adding the category by hand where a template already exists is -- technically speaking -- not necessary. --Gryllida (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, some of those infoboxen used to do categorization, sporadically, but over the years we've been gradually removing the code to do so (as opportunities present themsevles), on the theory it's better to have the categories explicitly specified on the article page itself. --Pi zero (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead Reporter

This award is presented to Wikinews reporters upon their 100th published news article. By my estimate, you reached #100 at or about Senator Ted Cruz proposes amendment to U.S. Constitution setting Congressional term limits. --Pi zero (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Afaik we don't have a Wikinewsie category for you, but by my count, 109 articles that you created have been published. --Pi zero (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(HEART EYES) I love stuff like this! Thank you! Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations. I have a feeling it was harder earned than mine. ;-) Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Oh, wait. I never got one. LOL! --SVTCobra 01:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing policy

Hello Darkfrog24,

Regarding this diff I ask you to understand that

1. I was not involved in the lengthy discussion, and
2. the edits that I had made to the article were minor and did not disqualify me from reviewing.

If you continue to submit articles for review without addressing the concerns indicated by a reviewer, we may have to stop reviewing your submissions. I hope this does not occur, however as I am seeing that you are continuing to engage in the "your understanding of verb tenses is wrong so I will not address your concern" activity repeatedly, I feel obligated to remind you of this consequence.

--Gryllida (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

For the verb tenses I have an easy fix for you, it is mentioned at the talk page of the article at the last section here. I hope it works for you.

If "It was raining yesterday" still reads to you as "it was raining yesterday and it is not raining today", please let me know. This would be very bizarre to me personally, and in that case I am not sure how to address this. I would suggest you to speak with your dad and mum about it, or with your school teacher, or whoever has taught you this principle, and ask them to suggest a workaround that works and fits the wish to report in past tense. Gryllida (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Gryllida, English is bizarre. It's well known for being bizarre.

EDIT CONFLICT: @Gryllida: I consider you involved in the dispute because you are the one who changed "are" to "were." And ...yes. In this article "On Monday" does imply that things have since changed.

As for you not reviewing articles that I draft, um, yes. You have every right to not review articles that you don't want to review, for any reason or not reason. We're all doing this for fun. But then you should leave them in the hopper for someone else to review, not reject it.

Gryllida, I didn't want to say this in front of everyone, but now that we're in a slightly less public part of the site, would it be possible for you to view Wikinews as a place to educate yourself and improve your English? Everyone makes mistakes now and then and sometimes we get called on them. I will try not to hurt your feelings but I'm not going to use incorrect English in the article just because correct English seems counterintuitive to you. I will add that this issue, where "were" means "it stopped" is really subtle. It's an advanced-level mistake, not a rookie mistake. People who've been living in English-speaking countries for years don't always get this one. To build on what you're saying about parents and teachers, this is not the sort of thing that's taught in schools so much as what you pick up from years and years of actual use "in the wild."

When you make a mistake, like here with verb tenses and implications, what would you like me to do about it? "Just leave the mistake in the article" is not something I'm cool with, but there are other options. Do you want an email and some time to fix it yourself? Do you want me to message you privately with a source and an explanation? What do you want? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

And don't talk about parents and teachers like that. It makes it look like you're trying to infantalize me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I perhaps want to suggest that you avoid using "is doing" "is reading" "is investigating" in your news articles because it causes this controversy and you can work without it.

If not, then we may have to agree -- not just me but the entire reviewing team as a group -- to avoid reviewing your articles, this is what I meant not my personal involvement Gryllida (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I remarked on the article talk that as it is a news item, a workaround can be "it started doing" "they started reading" "they started investigating" specifying the start time.

Perhaps it can get complicated for example an airplane crashed when it was raining yesterday and we don't know anything of today, then we can not say "it started raining yesterday" as it may have started 2-3 days ago instead... in that case "the day started to a rainy windy weather" or another phrase would need to be used or "5mm of rain fell on that day". I hope this latter phrase does not imply that zero rain fell today... Gryllida (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The issue is this: When a change is not necessary, then it's not the draft team's responsibility. Address your personal preferences yourself. If you think there's a problem when there's not, then it might be my job to reassure you that there really isn't a problem by providing reliable sources and reference materaial, which is what I did, but I'm not going to cater to this sort of thing otherwise. You're an adult. I gave you all you needed to educate yourself.

By all means, go to the sources, or look up some new ones, and place any of those things in the article, but it is not my job to do it for you. The sources I used did not say when the investigation began, for example.

What would you like me to do when I find you've made an English mistake, as here?

If you don't want to review an article, then don't. But then don't kick it out of the review hopper either. Leave it for someone who may not share your beliefs to look at. Frankly, I think you should put it back in the hopper now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

We do not publish in the present tense, now we need to find a workaround and apply this workaround diligently to new submissions. Gryllida (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No workaround is necessary, for reasons I gave on the talk page, but if you want to change correct text to other correct text, go ahead. It's a collaborative project. -Darkfrog24

I already said above that you must follow the current procedure, including applying workarounds where necessary, otherwise we may stop reviewing your submissions. --Gryllida (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll be more blunt, Gryllida: Stop ordering me around. I'm not your employee, servant, slave, or dog. It is absolutely not my job to make unnecessary changes to articles. If you want non-problematic text changed, change it yourself.

If you don't want to review my work, then don't. We're all volunteers here. Leave it in the hopper for someone else to review. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not ordering your around, the decision whether you wish to be using the reviewing services is up to you. I am only reminding you that this service is conditional subject to you listening to what the reviewers are telling you and implementing it in the next submissions Gryllida (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

And I am not speaking of myself here I am speaking of a possible decision to cease reviewing of your work as an entire team, I already said this numerous times above and I am a bit disappointed that it has not been heard or acknowledged Gryllida (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Gryllida, I did listen to you. I just didn't obey you. I have no obligation to because I'm not an employee, servant, slave or dog. If you want me to do something instead of doing it yourself, it is on you to convince me that it is necessary. Or ask me for a favor.

I did hear you when you made that threat. How would that work exactly? You run around to all the other reviewers and say nasty things about me, probably things that aren't exactly true, and ...then what? Do you threaten them unless you get your way? What is this, high school?

I repeat: English is a tricky language. It has quirks. What would you like me to do when I catch you making one of these subtle mistakes? Would you like to be contacted privately so you can correct it yourself? If the New York Times isn't the kind of source you respect, then what is? Should I write a Wikinews essay about tenses and submit it to the community for approval to see if it eventually becomes a guideline? Is that the sort of thing that might prevent future conflict on this point. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't ask you to obey me, just to see that "if you don't want to review my drafts then don't" is offtopic here because it is about the possibility of cessation of review efforts in their entirety. At the moment we do not publish anything in the present tense and the best way forward, ibstead of proposing it every time, is to write phrases which are accurate and in the past tense. I understand this limits you in the sense that your resulting articles would not use "are doing" or "were doing" verb forms at all and may be crippling but in each of these cases a fully grammatically correct workaround is available.

I also ask you to understand that our readers are international audience and "police are investigating" is not a good way to say to them "police were investigating yesterday and they did not stop, there is a possibility (not a fact) that they are still investigating"

This is why I again recommend to avoid present tense and avoid anything else that you like to find inaccurate. We will continue to not-ready your submissions in the present tense as they imply a currently ongoing action and we have no citation for that.

You are welcome to choose to "not obey" this, which will result in not-ready decisions for your articles, and we will not always be able to find workarounds for you as the volunteers availability is limited. If you could find the workaround yourself whenever you can then the chances of publishing in time would be increased. Gryllida (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not want to spend my time looking for unnecessary workarounds, especially if the reviewer is going to go "NO, this does NOT solve the imaginary problem that I saw in my head. Do it again!" Because the problem that you perceived is not based on real English or on sources, it is impossible for me to know exactly what would please you, and I'm not going to dance and jump for your amusement. In that scenario, a reviewer could even lie and pretend they saw a problem just to make someone else find "solutions" for them to throw out. I am not willing to put myself in a position to be victimized in that way.

Gryllida, our international audience is best served by writing English the way it really is, not the way someone imagines or wishes it to be. Real English is counterintuitive. I know it can be embarrassing when someone catches you making a mistake, but like I said if you'd rather be contacted privately, just say "Yes, thanks. Contact me privately."

If you mean that you will go to article's I've drafted and mark them "Not ready" on the grounds that I didn't grovel low enough on a separate article, then you are the one being disruptive and you risk sanctions. I support your right to not review drafts that you don't want to review but not to render them less visible or less accessible to other reviewers. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────┘
We do not publish "police are investigating this" because it leads the reader to believe the investigation is ongoing at the time of reading.

You do not wish to publish "police were investigating this [on Monday]" because it leads you to believe the investigation stopped at the time of reading.

I think in this situation it is best to avoid both these phrases in the published articles. Gryllida (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

That's just it, Gryllida. The investigation is ongoing as of the time BBC and NPR and our other sources did their investigations. Our readers know they're on Project Wiki and that there's a lag. Just like when we write "Paris is the capital of France," they know the French are capable of changing their capital to Toulouse if they want to. The term "the police are ongoing" expresses exactly what we want.

I do not want to say "were" because it leads the reader to believe that the investigation has stopped. Yes. That's it exactly.

If that is what you think, then you are perfectly free to alter the article to some third option that you put the time and effort into finding. If the standard English form of expression makes you uncomfortable, go ahead and find an alternative, but it is not for me to do it for you and I really wish you'd stop acting like it's my job. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

We don't publish articles with lagged behind information, it is inaccurate. Gryllida (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No, we always publish articles with lagged behind information. I think we might be at the part where we don't understand each other again. Every Wikinews article is a snapshot in time. It's the key way they're different from Wikipedia articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The information should be accurate at the time of publication, 'police are investigating' may be inaccurate as at the time of publication we do not have a way to check at the same second as we click 'publish'. Gryllida (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and the information "the police are investigating" is accurate at the time of publication per standard practices in high-quality journalistic sources. It's okay if you think you're better than I am so long as you keep it to yourself, but it is not okay for you to expect me to act as I think you're better not only than I am but than the New York Times, BBC, and Associated Press. They're professionals and we're not, so we defer to them.

You've explained why you think you're right, and I've listened to you. I've explained why I'm right and I hope you've listened to me. I showed professional sources to support my position and you didn't. It's time to move on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we have consensus on "Yes, and the information "the police are investigating" is accurate at the time of publication per standard practices in high-quality journalistic sources", instead we have to adhere to the current policy :

• Articles should be written in the past tense or the present perfect. WN:SG

This is because we can only report of the (recent) past, as we don't know anything of the present.

This is why I suggest to avoid this high-quality English grammar construct in the articles submitted for review here. Gryllida (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you and I disagree on that point, but forgive me I think my judgement is better than yours. I've been a professional writer for a long time now. I do not expect you to just take my word for it regarding my credentials because Wiki is an anonymous project, but I hope that helps you understand that I have a good reason to not change my mind just because an equally anonymous stranger on the Internet tells me to.

I think the Wikinews style guide was written to cover most cases most of the time and to be easy for newcomers to use. This case, in which the past tense indicates that the ongoing situation has ended, is rare. I think this is the second time it's been discussed in all my years at Wikinews. Covering it in the Wikinews style guide is likely to just confuse new contributors, and over a problem that doesn't come up that much. It makes more sense to just say "occasional exceptions" at the top of the page.

Look at it this way: In American English, the color between black and white can be spelled "gray" or "grey." They're both correct. I happen to like "gray" more, so I use it more. But if you think that "gray" is a misspelling, and you tell me "fix that misspelled word!" then it's not my job to snap to it. It's my job, at most, to link you to a dictionary so you can put your mind at ease that there are no misspellings in the article. That is the way to address that kind of reviewer concern. If you don't believe the dictionary, or you think you know better than the dictionary, you can still change it to "grey," but you have to do it yourself. And if you yell "Don't make me clean up your misspellings!" and accuse me of carelessness, I get to resent that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────┘
I am just suggesting that you

• when people introduce inaccuracies, you do not correct this to present tense, as it is against the present policy and is an absolute waste of time, and
• you do not submit articles with the present tense in them for review, as this is also an absolute waste of time

(except those that say things like 'Paris is the capital of France'

In return I could promise that I:

• when editing your articles I will not use the grammar construct which you consider wrong

I hope this is OK with you and is not considered bossy or disrespectful. These two things are rather unambiguously inefficient and counter productive and I hope that we can reach agreement here. Gryllida (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

There are two problems with "just change it 'back' to something other than present tense." First, this is a lot more work than you think. It would have involved 1) running down additional sources (this is something you specifically do a lot, asking for extra information that you don't seem to realize would require extra sourcing) and 2) guessing, guessing, guessing and more guessing about what it is that you actually want. Since the problem is coming from your thoughts and beliefs and not from the English language or standard journalistic practice or anything else that's outside your skull where I can see it, I'd be working blind, and I refuse to do that.

Second, there's also the problem that this creates an environment in which other Wikinewsies can lie and pretend they see a problem, having decided ahead of time that they will reject every "solution" that the drafter offers, going "No, not that, stupid. Now do it again! Not that either, honestly. AGAIN!! (Ha ha ha ha ha, dance you stupid $#@%, DANCE!!)" I'm not okay with fostering that kind of environment.

When you think there is a problem, and I can provide sources that show that it's at least possible that it's all in your head, just fix or "fix" it yourself. Not my job to dance. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

We want past tense, it is written in the policy and needs no guessing or dancing. Gryllida (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have anything new to tell you, Gryllida. I've explained why past tense is counterfactual in these rare cases. I've explained why I am not willing to make unnecessary changes. I'd like to think you've listened to me and looked at the sources I provided. If you've done that and you're still not convinced, oh well. I doubt that's going to change tonight. This doesn't come up often, at least. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

In these rare cases we should agree to avoid the present tense. When someone fixes it and creates a past tense which you find inaccurate, we should agree that whatever correction or query that is made in response does not involve the present tense. Gryllida (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree to that, for reasons given above. If you happen to want a workaround, do the work yourself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be glad to do this work myself for some time in return for two things:

1. If my new proposed wording seems bad to you, ask at the article talk without undoing it. This is more efficient than communication in the edit summaries.
2. In your next submissions please refer to the previous articles to learn the previous workarounds, and attempt to apply them in your next submission to the best of your ability. This is more efficient than having me do this work for the rest of my life.

Is this OK with you. If not, you may wish to find another news site which does not require publishing in the past tense. Please let me know. Gryllida (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we're talking in circles you and I. It is time to let this matter sit. I don't think I need to tell you to go out and read news articles because your participation here suggests you're already doing that. If you see tenses used in the wild enough times, this will eventually click for you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
I'd be glad to do this work for some time if you don't undo my edits. Gryllida (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I will undo edits when you introduce an error, as in the Crusader article. I will bear with you if you change one correct form to another. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Would you please introduce a correction that is valid by the policy at the time of undoing. Ie not put the present tense back. We will not be paying attention to your request to change the policy if you don't do this. Gryllida (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to redirect if we're going to get anywhere.

Of all the articles currently linked on the main page, only two don't use any present tense. How do you feel about this?

When I was researching this proposal, I found lots of articles that used occasional present tense in the ways I've described to you. How do you feel about this? Do you think Blood Red Sandman and Hyrule and Qwerty were wrong, and that the reviewers like Pi zero were wrong to approve the articles for publication? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Before we do this analysis and discuss. First I would like you to agree to not undo peoples edits when they feel a correction is needed and you think it isn't. If you don't agree to this then we will have to close that discussion. --Gryllida (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No I will not do that first. I find it creepy that you're asking at all. But I will give you a lot of benefit of the doubt and not refuse just yet either. I don't think you'll convince me, but maybe we'll learn a few things from each other.

I'd like to point a few things out. You're here trying to extract a promise from me not to use the present tense.

...and not asking for similar promises from Blood Red Sandman or Qwerty or any of the other drafters who have recently used present tense.

...and not talking to any of the reviewers who approved articles with present tense.

...and not changing the present tense to past in any of the articles that have not yet been archived—I add that I don't think you should do that. I just think you need to figure out why you didn't, even if you never tell anyone.

...and why did none of the reams of present tense on Wikinews bother you until just now?

It was a long time ago, and you could certainly have changed your mind since then, but out of the twelve most recent articles that you approved through review that I saw, nine included some present tense.[[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

Have I given you things that you consider worth thinking about? Do you understand why "you must promise not to use present tense because that is bad bad bad and no one should do it" does not ring true for me? Shall we let it sit and come back in a few days, when maybe you've got something closer to the real issue, whatever it might be? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm refusing to analyse this situation, ie explain why we use present tense there or document it or correct it, until you remove "do it yourself, I will undo it if I don't like it" approach to collaboration. I don't have it and others don't either. Gryllida (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay. You don't have to analyze the situation just because I ask you to. We're all volunteers here. Feel free to let me know if you change your mind. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Learning format

You effectively wish to become the curator of your created articles, who undoes any changes until you have been convinced that these changes are OK. When someone else requests a change you say "do it yourself it is a wiki", but you continue to undo it if it seems bad to you.

I can see all this is well meant and you care of the accuracy but this communication manner is inefficient. We can't work with it in the limited time. One thing that would make it more efficient is that if someone starts an improvement, then everyone else assists this improvement (whether it documented or not) and continues it rather than undo it.

Could you please try to do this. --Gryllida (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Get sources.

Get sources.

Get sources and show them to me.

You want to communicate more efficiently with me specifically? That's how. That's what I find impressive. That's what makes me change my mind. You are my colleague and not more than my equal. You know who's more than my equal? The professional journalists and style experts at the New York Times, AP, BBC and all that.

...and if you can't find a source that supports your position—like in this case—maybe consider that your position isn't as strong as you thought. If you can't find a source that supports your position and I can find a source that supports mine, or especially if I have outside sources and examples from within Wikinews—like in this case—maybe gracefully bow out of the conversation. It's easier than you'd think.

And sometimes when you're out there looking for sources you learn things and get better. The source doesn't know you read it. The source doesn't know you're changing your mind. You don't have to trust the source not to laugh at you or call you a flip-flopper. You're out there, by yourself, no witnesses and no one will ever know unless you tell them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Or you could accept the rest of the articles published on Wikinews as sources. Or you could just follow the style guide even though you disagree with it and even though you can find exceptions to it.

This whole thing: your disagreement with the standard, your unwillingness to accept the standard as a source, your starting discussions across multiple pages when you don't get the answer you want on any one page,your personalising disputes by talking about others' moods and frames of mind - all of it, is a repeat of your crusade against LQ on Wikipedia.

Collaboration means doing things you don't necessarily agree with. You don't do collaboration: your approach, when you disagree with something, is to campaign to make things go the way you want. I think that collaborative projects are not the place for you. Why not start your own site, where you don't have to listen to anyone but yourself? Ca2james (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Good news! I did find on-Wikinews articles to use at sources. That's what that list of articles in the style guide thread is. It's not just exceptions either. Of the fifteen articles linked to the front page at the time, only two of them didn't have any present tense in them. It looks like standard practice here on Wikinews is to use the present tense when warranted.

I feel like you are personalizing and speculating about my moods and frames of mind yourself right now. Please stop.

If you look at the Crusader article talk page, you'll see I said "go ahead" eight times. I was not stopping Pi zero or Gryllida from making changes to the text. I'm sure you'll say that sometimes when you've shown your sources and explained your reasoning, sometimes you have to step back and say "So you still don't agree with me. Oh well." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right that I'm personalising this dispute because I see your approach here as decidedly uncollaborative and a waste of resources. You've been asked to abide by the style guide and you've said no. Then you tried to change the style guide to suit you, and you've personalized the standard as whims and fetishes of individuals. This behaviour is uncollaborative.

But nowhere have I speculated on your moods or frame of mind. Ca2james (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's see if we can bring down that level of hostility. I'm going to give you two questions and you answer whichever one of them you're more comfortable with. Good?

Do you believe that Blood Red Sandman and Qwerty and other drafters were wrong to use present tense in their articles and/or that Pi zero and Acagastya and other reviewers were wrong to approve those articles for publication? Simple mistake that just happened to go on for a long time? Blatant violation of the rules?

You just asked me about on-Wikinews sources, and I was able to provide you with a link to some. What do you think of this? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a common thread between here and Wikipedia but it isn't that I can't collaborate. It's this: When someone tells me "The sources are wrong. Believe and obey me instead," that doesn't work for me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Not good. Why would my being "comfortable" - a state about which you have no knowledge or information - have any bearing on any discussion? Answer: it doesn't, and by suggesting it's a factor, you're personalising the issue. I find such personalisation to be condescending and passive-aggressive and manipulative.

I think your "sources" are irrelevant to the issue at hand. You think that if you want to do something and other people did do that something (ie you can find examples of what you want to do even if those examples aren't directly relevant to what you want), you're completely justified in doing what you want. That thinking is fundamentally flawed. It also ignores the broader context of your problematic behaviour here. You don't understand how review works or why the process is what it is, you don't understand why Wikinews has different standards than other places, and you don't understand that the writer-reviewer dynamic is fundamentally unequal. So it isn't that you want to change things because you think Wikinews could operate better; it's that you want to change things because things don't work the way you want them to, and you haven't bothered to think about the merits of the approach used here.

I think your whole approach - ignoring standards and then attempting to change those standards to suit you, all the while personalising the dispute - is aggressive and not at all collaborative, because the end goal isn't to make the project better but to let you do what you want. If you're not willing to truly collaborate (which means doing things you don't want to do, especially when you think those things are wrong; collaboration means working within current standards, not shaping the project to suit you), then a collaborative environment like a wiki isn't a good fit for you. Ca2james (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to bring down the level of hostility. You are being very hostile.

Okay, I observe you're characterizing my efforts to keep you comfortable as evidence of wrongdoing, and you're not responding to any of the points I brought up and you're repeating the same points you've made before, recently. I don't think we can have a productive discussion, at least not right now. You saw fault with the big long discussion I had with Gryllida, so I hope you'll understand that I don't want to have one with you. Please take this as proof that I listen to you, even when you appear mean. If you want to try again another day, that's okay, but I think we're done for now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I don't want you to try to "make me comfortable". I want you to stop thinking about me in terms of how I feel because my feelings have no relevancy here. Look at what I say, not how you think I feel.

Notice that you are repeating the same points in multiple venues, so accusing me of doing that is ... Hypocritical? Disingenuous? One of those. In fact I reject the basis for your sources because they're a red herring to the issue at hand.

Finally, I did not object to your long conversation with Gryllida. I objected to the fact that you'd started yet another discussion on yet another page because you were being asked to do something you didn't want to do. It really is Wikipedia LQ all over again. Ca2james (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh good. You're back. I was thinking about your posts and I thought of the most wonderful solution. Instead of me leaving, you should arrive!

I was thinking how do I explain why I'm here and who'd do the draft work if I left, and I realized: YOU, buddy!

You should try your hand at drafting Wikinews articles. Thrn you wouldn't have to ask me these questions because you'd know. Gryllida snd Pi seem to like you and we'd all be glad to have you. And you'd really get some insight into the review process. I bet you'd BE a reviewer in a year if you wanted. And I'd be glad to help!

And not that anyone should disregard you now, but it would give your voice more weight in our discussions. So what do you say? Want to be publication pals? -Darkfrog

"It looks like standard practice here on Wikinews is to use the present tense when warranted." is correct, but pushing your point does not motivate people to explain when it is. How can you create motivation in a better way? --Gryllida (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

G, I love where you're going with this. This is why those long conversations are worth it. Which of my actions is the "pressing the point" in this scenario? Above, I told you that sources are what I find convincing and impressive. What does it for you? Previous Wikinews articles? Reputable essays? Logic examples? -Darkfrog

"Hi guys, your current language usage seems wrong, here are previous wikinews articles and reputable essays and logic examples".

And then no-matter what my or Pi zero's reply is,

"Hi again guys, your current language usage seems wrong, here are previous wikinews articles and reputable essays and logic examples".

Does such repetition work as a motivator? Is there anything that would work better? --Gryllida (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you asking me to address you in that way next time I catch an English error? I can certainly do that. Or are you saying you don't want me to do that? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not guiding you. I'm just asking whether there is a more appealing motivator than repeating 'nope, media is not wrong, I believe it'. Gryllida (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Yes, please do provide me with on-Wiki sources and logical examples because I find that useful" or "No do not provide me with those things because I do not find them useful," please.

Let's also go back to the part of your post that showed promise. You said "pressing the point." To which of my actions do you refer by this? Identify the action that bothers you so I can achieve my goal by doing something else, if reasonably practical. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I meant repeating. It is also called "sticking to your guns", figuratively speaking.

Is there a better motivator than "Please give me the information about this topic which I find useful"? Followed by "No, I don't find this useful. I don't find the style guide useful. I don't find your logic useful. I don't find previously published articles useful. I don't find your please-dance-now feedback useful. Please give me the information about this topic which I find useful."

What about "please give me any information about this topic that you find useful to learn from"? Gryllida (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I will gladly give you information on this topic that I find useful. That's outside sources, professionally published. However, this is what I've been doing from day one. "I have a source for this and I'll show it if you want" or "here's one source; I have more if you want." I've also repeatedly asked other people for their sources.

But if the thing the other person finds useful is "well this seems more sensible to me" or "well I say it's right, so that's that," that is not something I find convincing.

You and Pi zero both stuck to your guns too, though. If it's not wrong for you, then it's not wrong for me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess it is difficult to find information useful to you, because you reject the logic item (paragraph 1 here) by saying "You are not a paid accredited professional high quality journalist, and they are". Is that ad hominem (ref) or not? Is there a more efficient way? --Gryllida (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I consider sources more reliable and credible than reasoning. Pi zero thinks like a logician. I think like a scientist. I like evidence. To my mind, does > should. If we observe something does work in a certain way, then it doesn't matter what it logically should do. This is especially appropriate for the English language, which is famously counterintuitive, illogical and bizarre.

Ad hominem would apply if I rejected an idea because of who said it. What's going on here is "lack of evidence." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You've spent quite a lot of time here saying how things should work instead of observing how they do work. True logical systems work with what is present within the system itself. They do not rely on external sources.

Relying on sources leaves you vulnerable to cherry-picking and confirmation bias. Ca2james (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

With respect, Ca2james, I have been doing the exact opposite of that. "Hey, actual practice around here is to publish articles that use present tense" [how things do work], "so let's update the style guide" [how things should work]. If I'd gotten in everyone's face and said, "HEY! EVERYONE start following the style guide!" that would be valuing should over do. If I'd gone into articles and changed every present to past/present perfect, even where unambiguously inappropriate, that would be valuing should over do.

The vaccine against cherry-picking and confirmation bias is to have more than one person bring in the sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ad hominem

Hi,

"Ad hominem would apply if I rejected an idea because of who said it. What's going on here is "lack of evidence." "

You said,

• I think you're good at this, Pi zero, but I think the New York Times, CNN, AP and other professional sites are better
• New York Times, BBC, and Associated Press. They're professionals and we're not, so we defer to them.

That's rejection because of who said it, is it not? Gryllida (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not.

If your doctor says "you have a bacterial infection, so take antibiotics" and your neighbor, whom you like and think is smart but who isn't a medical professional says "I think you have allergies, take allergy medicine," and you defer to the doctor, that's not ad hominem. :Also, philosophy isn't my forte, but ad hominem involves saying something bad about the person making the argument. If I'd said "Don't believe what Pi zero says about English because he's eats too much ice cream," that's ad hominem.

According to this website about logical fallacies, it isn't ad hominem even if you do attack the arguer, so long as your "attack" is relevant. "Don't believe Mary because she's not a doctor" is not ad hominem so long as you're talking about medicine. So "I believe the AP more than Pi zero because the AP is made by professional journalists and Pi zero isn't one" is not ad hominem.

Because of you, I have learned more about logical fallacies. Thank you, Gryllida. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah. I guess your current point of disagreement with Pi zero is that he does not believe in the authority of that particular doctor.

He said "mass media is wrong", and the correct response to that is not "nope it is not, it is professional", but instead a visit to a doctor that you both trust (a good English dictionary or British Council or an English textbook or something else that you both consider trustworthy). Gryllida (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. I worked with Pi zero for many years at WT:MOS, and I haven't heard of any particular outside source that he likes. He tends to use internal logic when he wants to impress or convince someone, and I don't find that very impressive. Do you know of what kind of source he likes? I would gladly consult it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

wikt:ad hominem is defined as "an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself."

I suppose "Don't believe Mary because she's not a doctor" is ad hominem still?

To address the substance of the argument you could, for instance, a) discuss the symptoms of allergies and bacterial infections or b) visit the doctor to do a medical test to confirm the bacterial infection or c) do something else that is related to the point which your neighbour is making Gryllida (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

By that reasoning, you and Pi zero wanting to close the style guide update proposal on the [untrue] claim that the person who proposed it does not understand review is an ad hominem attack, and you should instead discuss the proposal on its merits. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Two things. 1) I think "Mary is not a doctor, therefore she is wrong" is an ad hominem but "Mary is not a doctor, therefore I prefer to not speak with her about this" is not -- the latter is not an attempt to argue against her idea. 2) "Mary is not a doctor" is not a personal attack; saying "Mary is silly, therefore she is wrong about my bacterial infection" or "Mary is a terrible cook, therefore she is wrong about my bacterial infection" would be closer to ad hominem. Gryllida (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Necessity for publication

At this talk page I asked "I'm also wondering: when you submit an article for review, does it usually mean you mostly do not plan to edit it anymore?" you said "No. It means I will make edits that are necessary for publication".

I am curious now, how do you know what is required for publication? You've said that clarifying what it means to "see live" is not required, "skin samples from how many individuals?" is not required

Does your definition mean that inaccuracies should be corrected, but adding clarifications is optional?

--Gryllida (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely includes inaccuracies that should be corrected but also any violation of policy, English language mistakes, and other things that I'm sure will come to me. Clarifications that are necessary are necessary and those that are not are not. Off the top of my head I think we should case-by-case that one.

Let me give you an example. I just wrote a draft about two mountaineers and I did one paragraph about how they were experienced. Let's say I wrote "Nardi had climbed Narga Parbat before but never reached the top." If another Wikinewsie goes "Hey! The source says he attempted to climb Narga Parbat but it doesn't say whether he made it to the top or not," I should respond with "Oh! 'Attempt' is mountaineer-speak for 'didn't make it to the top.'" The other Wikinewsie had a good-faith concern about accuracy, but no change to the article was needed in that case. Now let's flip it around and say I wrote "Nardi had attempted Narga Parbat before," and the other Wikinewsie goes "Attempted? What the blorgh does that mean?" (reading the source wouldn't have helped because it doesn't say) Since our readership is (presumably) partially people who speak English as a subsequent language, maybe we should change that to "Nardi had attempted Narga Parbat before, meaning he had climbed on it but turned back without summiting."

As to what to include and what to leave out, it's subjective. There is almost always more information that we could put into an article, but then the article would be too big. Off the top of my head, I don't think we should have a rule about it. It basically involves guessing at what the readers will want to know and we should expect that different Wikinewsies should have different guesses. For my own part, though, if the source articles decided that it wasn't necessary to include a given piece of information, it's probably not going to bother me too much if we don't either. But now that I think of it, sometimes I chase down more information anyway (look at pretty much anything I used that has "date of access" written next to it, or any much-older source, like this one about the Hauvasupai showing why Native Americans so often don't want to do DNA tests and who Pocahontas was that means I added some more. But finding it took work, and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to tell someone else to do all that work to serve a vision not their own.

I have no objection to you telling the readers how many whales were sampled if you can find that information (it isn't in the sources I used), but it's not speaking to me. It doesn't seem shiny and interesting and fun, so I don't want to do the extra work of running it down. The part about the crossbow? That, I think, will turn a few heads! But if you're feeling "ick! NO CROSSBOWS" then take it out. The article's still good without it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Waaaaiit what do you mean "clarify what it means to 'see live' is not required"? Do you mean you thought " this is the first time scientists have seen these animals live" was confusing? Well boop then.Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Time saving

I am about to exit this talk page shortly, but I just wanted to check whether you would like to share any examples of you putting effort into saving the time of another person as a part of collaborative work.

I understand that the above discussions, and my rejections of some of your articles, may seem not really me saving your time. I was unprepared to nitpicking. I am hoping to learn to handle it better in the future.

Cheers, --Gryllida (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Every time I volunteered a source without being asked--saved having to ask and wait for an answer.

Every time I took a stub article and expanded it--saved having to wait for the poster to get to it/figure out the site.

Every time I saw a non-ready article in the review hopper and fixed it up to reviewable condition--saved reject-and-redo.

Every time I helped a new guy figure out how this site worked--saved the poster having to figure out the site.

Generally the production of high-quality drafts that don't need as much work as other drafts--saves review time.

Most recently, the three times in the previous discussion that I suggested we close and move on (but you wanted to continue and I was okay with that). Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. Do you find 'compromise' useful for saving time, and if so, do you see it used at Wikinews for collaboration? Gryllida (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Do whatever you want to the article so long as it is correct; I will not fight you on it" is a compromise, so I guess I do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Does saying that out loud save anyone's time, as opposed to not saying anything? Gryllida (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

So your idea of collaboration is when you "drive the bus" and can do your own thing with no interference or comment or requests from anyone. But collaboration also involves compromise, which typically results in both sides giving something up or finding a middle way through a dispute. Darkfrog24, you don't do that. When challenged or when you disagree, you dig in your heels and the situation becomes one of "your way or the highway". In other words, you spend time and energy trying to convince the other party that you're right and you don't try to find a middle solution (and saying "do it if you want to" is not be an acceptable compromise on this site). You work fine with other people when things go your way but not otherwise - I daresay that's not an actual collaborative approach. Ca2james (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's look at the text at the very bottom of this page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Note that it says "by others." It does not say "If you don't want to be forced to rip up your own hard work with your own hands and replace it with something that isn't as good just because a stranger on the Internet wants you to, especially if they don't have a good reason."

Also consider, that when things don't go my way, and I quietly let it go, you wouldn't have found out about it, would you?

What do you think of trying your hand at drafting articles yourself? I think you should give the review process a try. You'd get some real insight into it if you tried it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The disclaimer at the bottom has nothing to do with expected standards of writing: it's both true that others may mercilessly edit one's text AND that editors are expected to abide by the style guide even if they think it's wrong or stupid or not best practice. And shifting the focus on me is a clear attempt to get the focus off of you... And is also clearly an attempt to focus on me as a person instead of my arguments, which qualifies as an ad hominem fallacy methinks.

Do you have examples of you letting things go? Not just the "do it if you think it's a problem" but of you either actively trying to find a compromise or you letting go and doing what you're asked to do (since you started refusing). Because I do follow what's going on here and I don't remember seeing anything like that from you. Ca2james (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

If abiding by this part of the style guide is important, shouldn't you also be talking to all the other drafters and reviewers who have not been abiding by this rule?

I don't remember a good example off the top of my head right now, but something will probably come to me. The point is that there wouldn't have been an argument or a big long talk thread, so it wouldn't have been that memorable and there wouldn't be that much left behind. I'll have to go look through old articles and remember what I was thinking.

Something is only ad hominem if it's not relevant, like "Don't listen to Ca2james' opinion of minimum wage laws; he eats too much ice cream." "Ca2james' understanding of the review process would be more valuable if he went through it a few times" is relevant. Why shouldn't your experience or lack thereof affect the weight I give your opinion? It doesn't make you bad or stupid or not worth listening to at all. But it does mean your understanding may be limited.

...but you can fiiiiiiiiix that! Want to do an obituary? That 90210 actor Luke Perry just died. Want to do science news? Eurekalert.com is a great place to find sources. U.S. politics? We don't have an article on Cohen's testimony yet, and we could use one. Art? I will gladly help you.

If you made reviewer, maybe Pi zero wouldn't feel so overworked. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Hi Ca2james, you lack writing experience" does not address the substance of the argument, does it? What substance did Ca2james tell you and how do you address it? Gryllida (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean he necessarily lacks writing experience, only that he does not seem to have drafted any extant articles here on Wikinews, and you can read my response to him for yourself. It's right there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ca2james, you lack writing experience here at Wikinews" (with your correction added and marked) does not address the substance of the argument either, does it? Gryllida (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I already answered that question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

1) You said "I don't mean he lacks writing experience, only that he maybe lacks it here at Wikinews", but you did not answer my question.

2) Also when I ask "X does not address Y, does it?" I want to hear your opinion about that, not "go read X yourself". Gryllida (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Well we don't always get what we want. You've taken on a condescending tone and I do not think it fruitful to go there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry.

I would like to know your opinion about that, please. Gryllida (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(By the way, congratulations, you've moved from "I am discrediting you" to "I dislike your tone"; that's progress.) Gryllida (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I was never discrediting anyone.

I commented on your tone because your tone changed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not wish to comment on any of these two statements here, as it may sidetrack this conversation.

I am still interested in knowing your opinion about the original question. Gryllida (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: (pinging because this is nested pretty deeply) Actually, according to Ad hominem, ad hominem "is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." So, yes, by talking about my experience here rather than the arguments I've made you're engaging in ad hominem attacks.

I sort of understand why you're doing that, how can I know anything if I'm not doing it like you do? And yes, there's something to be said for experience, but there's also something to be said for reading and understanding guidelines and how they work. And the fact is, my experience or lack thereof really isn't relevant except that I'm obviously butting in with my observations. Still, that butting in is not sufficient reason to discredit my opinions or observations.

And why am I not talking to anyone else about following the style guide? No one else argues against doing what they're asked to do like you do, which is what I object to. People slip up and don't follow the style guide, or they deliberately make an exception (while still following the spirit of Wikinews and its principles). But if a reviewer were to ask the writer to do something different, the writers will either just do it or find a compromise that works, because time is of the essence and they're working within the spirit of Wikinews.

But over the last year or so, you've balked at making changes, mostly because you think they're necessary or you think you're being asked to do different things friend different reviewers. When you receive a request you denigrate the reviewer request as a personal preference or a fetish rather than as attempts to align the article with the spirit of Wikinews as captured by its guidelines. Then you bring in outside sources to justify your position; those outside sources are almost invariably irrelevant (because Wikinews is not the mainstream media, so mainstream media standards and guidelines don't apply on Wikinews).

The argument over all that spans multiple pages; eventually, it dies down only to be repeated upon the next request that you do something different. I object to the arguments and their repetition. Ca2james (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Does saying that out loud save anyone's time, as opposed to not saying anything? Gryllida (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)'[copied by Darkfrog24]

Yes. It keeps them from thinking they need to wait for me. That might not matter on Wikipedia but it does here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you then wait for them? Gryllida (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's an example from a recent article. Pi zero claims my draft "claimed what someone was thinking." Whaaaaaaaat? No it didn't. It was fine the way it was!! Note the absence of talk page discussion. It wasn't a big deal and I treated it like it wasn't a big deal. This sort of thing happens all the time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Pi zero was right, there; saying that someone is doing something "with the idea that" (whatever) is equivalent to saying that we know what the someone is thinking about (whatever).

In that case the article was passed with a note to watch out for Wikinews saying what someone else is thinking, and no requests were made of you. It's great that you did let that go but that wasn't the situation I was asking about.. I was asking for examples where you were "either actively trying to find a compromise or you letting go and doing what you're asked to do (since you started refusing)." Ca2james (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Right. Pi zero makes edits I disagree with all the time, but so long as he does them himself, oh well. Tolerating other people making changes to articles we've worked on is how this place works. Making changes I don't believe in myself is not how this place works.

I don't remember off the top of my head, but generally if things get that far I have a good reason for believing what I believe. I have no more obligation to change my mind because Person X says so than Person X does because I say so.

But would the one about the singing mice count? While looking for sources to support my position, I ran across one that could be read as supporting Pi zero's position. I posted it on that article's talk page and by the proposal to update the manual of style, where I recommended that its contents be considered for inclusion. Covered "succession of tenses" or somesuch. So I guess I'm relatively good about confirmation bias and cherry picking.

Whenever you give me these questions, I think "Hm, I should check his user history for the last time he was in that situation," but then I remember. But were you ever in a similar situation on some other part of Project Wiki? When was the last time someone told you "I want THIS change to the article. No, Ca2james you do it," and you did it even though you believed it was detrimental to the article? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course I've had work changed and asked to be changed and I've argued and whatnot. But Wikinews isn't like Wikipedia in many ways; for one, on Wikipedia someone else will change things they think are wrong because one goal of Wikipedia is to get things right eventually. Wikinews is different in that the article has to be right now. There's a time limit on Wikinews and everyone has to work together to publish the best possible article. That means everyone has to work together and do their part to not hold up the process. Reviewers can't be "fixing" the article for an editor or they disqualify themselves from reviewing. It's unreasonable and against Wikinews principles for an editor to just leave things for others to fix.

Another key difference is that on Wikipedia all editors are equal but there is definitely a hierarchy on Wikinews. And this is one area where it seems you are seeing things as you want them to be, not as they are.

Yes, there are articles where the style guide isn't followed. But if people don't follow it, the first solution isn't to change it; it's to examine what's going on and address it with the contributors. And this is for two reasons: first, the guide cannot cover every possible circumstance so exceptions will occur. Second, the guide has been developed as a way to embody the core principles of neutrality on Wikinews. In other words, each of its elements has been chosen for a reason, and to change any one thing requires careful thought as to how to maintain core principles. Ca2james (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

So in other words, "No I have never had this experience." That can be fixed. The newsroom is right there.

Right, so I don't have time to sit there and pretend that Gryllida didn't make a mistake and guess and guess and guess at what pretend solution will satisfy someone with an imaginary problem.

I don't think the guide has been developed to embody core principles. This style guide looks like it's meant to be simple so that it doesn't put off newcomers. I don't think the "past or present perfect" line is meant to be taken that literally. I think whoever put it there just forgot "Oh, but present tense for ongoing things." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You, who takes written words and sources literally, don't think that the style guide is meant to be taken literally? Holy contradiction, Batman! Do you see why, when you contradict yourself like that, I think that you're trying to change the guide to suit you? It doesn't make any sense that the architects of the guide just forgot something, or if they did, it hasn't been fixed already, given how long Wikinews has been around. Ca2james (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hm. The way Pi zero contradicted himself this past week did bother me a lot, yes. So let's be consistent and talk literally.

The style guide never literally says "never use present tense." I think this hasn't been "fixed" because no one started inferring that "use past or present perfect" also meant "and never use present tense" until last week.

The style guide does use the present tense the way our articles do: "Jennifer Smith is best known for Really Boring Song, which appeared on her 1992 debut Mindlessly Rubbish Album," "Michelangelo's famous sculpture David is to be loaned to Djibouti for a year," "They are scheduled to meet next Tuesday," "The event is supposed to continue through August." There are more. I wish I'd noticed this before the proposal was closed.

So either the style guide is not meant to be read as "never use present tense" or the architects sometimes do forget things: they forgot to take these examples out.

Some of those present-tense examples have been there since at least 2005.

My proposal was not about changing the guidance. It was about clarifying it so people would not get confused or worked up and think that the style guide forbids present tense. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought of one. I absolutely do not think that science news articles should be held to the two-day rule because of the lag between making the discovery, publishing in a professional journal, and publishing in mainstream media. To me, treating the date of publication as a focal event is silly. So many news stories that would work well for Wikinews are unpublishable here on a technicality: the date of publication in a scientific journal is often more than two days before the date of corroboration in an independent publication. I contacted a scientist to find out why there was such a lag, but I don't remember what they said off the top of my head. Nonetheless, I've been going with the two-day rule and the silly "treat the date of publication as the focal event" workaround that we have here. I got so used to chucking out newsworthy discoveries that were published more than two days ago that I forgot I was doing it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a great example of collaboration! So... Why did you accept the status quo in that case and not with respect to other topics? Ca2james (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Because "We use present tense all the time" is the status quo.

The two-day rule is inappropriate for science news articles, but it was around for a long time before I got here.

The problem in this case is Pi zero didn't care about the "past or present perfect [but doesn't actually say 'only']" rule last week. He suddenly acted like I was doing something wrong and went on about "compromising standards" and "betraying [his] charge" when he literally didn't feel that way two days earlier and hadn't for years. Even if we avoid speculating about exactly what's going on in his head, I think it's safe for me to say "The fact that this article uses present tense is not the real reason Pi zero rejected it." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, the verb tense issue is clearly a problem because you don't even try to do it right. What others do against the style guide does not justify your own behaviour or magically become the "right" way to do things. But it also looks to me like the verb tense issue might possibly be the hill @Pi zero: has chosen to "die on" (as it were) with respect to you and your unwillingness to abide by the guide. You've sought to compromise standards for a long time, and you've wasted countless hours and energy by refusing to work with others when they ask you do something and by arguing for change without, it appears, truly understanding why things are the way they are (and that understanding matters). Ca2james (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"Don't even try to do it right"? Let me see if I've got this straight:

1) I'm not the only drafter who uses present tense. Articles that use it are so common that they outnumber the ones that don't, by a lot, and they have for years.

2) But when I use present tense, that's undesirable "behavior" and I'm "wasting people's time" and I'm "not even trying to do it 'right.'"

3) Noooooobody else who uses present tense is "behaving badly" or "wasting people's time and energy." This isn't a case of, "Hey, I just noticed that no one obeys this part of the style guide, so let's change that. Let's talk to Blood Red Sandman and Qwerty and Darkfrog and make sure everyone uses it from now on! (Thank you, Darkfrog and Pi zero for bringing this matter to the community's attention.)" Nope. People are talking to me and only me.

4) When I make it clear I don't want to do something and explain why I don't want to do it, and someone else keeps pressuring me to do it anyway, you say that I'm the one "being aggressive," even though I'm not stopping anyone else from doing it.

Does this help you see why I feel like maybe something funny's going on here?

Because if it doesn't, I think our conversation might be done. Wouldn't want to waste people's time, would you? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep your arguing against doing things according to the style guide and not working to the spirit of Wikinews on time-sensitive article pages, justifying your behaviour not as something as desireable to improve Wikinews, but as something that everyone else does so you should be allowed to do it and it should be codified so you can keep working against principles here, is aggressive and behaving badly and you are the only one doing it. And you do it over and over and over and you don't see a problem with it.. which is part of the problem. Ca2james (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if everyone else is doing something, then it is okay for me to do it too, especially if they were already doing it for a long time before I got here. To use your words, I'm going with how this place actually works rather than by how anyone thinks it should work.

That's why I think this is not about the present tense or the style guide. I think this is about social relationships and group identity.

I do have to ask: How would you know if I'm the only one doing X, Y or Z? I'm not the only one with complaints around here[22]. You talk about the "spirit of Wikinews" but you registered in January 2017 and you have fewer than 100 edits, almost all of them on talk pages. You've never drafted an article (at least not one that's extant). It looks likely to me that I know more about how things work here than you do, probably by a lot. Did you perhaps used to contribute to Wikinews using a different account? I know Acagastya has two accounts. Do you do a lot of lurking? We write all these articles, I'd hope someone reads them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the core of this argument, yes I agree with you that this is not just about the style guide, this is about social relationships.

I guess what is bad is that in arguments you tend to decrease confidence of your opponent:

• "i'm undoing your edit"
• 'you're not a professional journalist, i do not believe you'
• 'your edit count is low, better fix that'
• 'you didn't read the sources, better do that. i have difficulty saying what it is that you will find'
• 'others do it like i do, so why not revert your edit?'

Just looking from the side, this sort of thing decreases the confidence of your opponent in themselves. As a result, for them, raising this confidence back before preparing a response is emotionally challenging. I would encourage you to seek approaches which raise the confidence of your opponent as this may help with the efficiency of the team work.

Another important aspect is not to take their messages personally. If a reviewer is wrong or seems picking on you, it is important to respond without saying 'you are incompetent' or 'you are constantly picking on me, please go away' but instead respond in a way that raises their confidence.

I understand that this may be something that is difficult to do when you are continuously confronted with 'we are veteran wikinewsies and you are not'. But I believe that adding the above described tactics to you will greatly help with not judging each other's competence, instead people would start discussing the core of the argument more and more, leading to less conflicts and more resolutions. Gryllida (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree with everything you've said here, Gryllida, but since you've said it politely and seem to be sincere, I'll read it again later and give it more thought.

But I'd like you to think about it too. I'd like you to compare two people to each other: Compare Gryllida before reading the sources to Gryllida after. Which one do you think is more knowledgeable and credible? Imagine that Ca2james' next post is "I actually did draft ten or twelve articles under my previous username, Ca1james." Wouldn't you give his opinion more credence?

Is it really such a bad thing that I think those things are important? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Also... I never said "incompetent" and I never said "fetish." These words aren't coming from me. Where are they coming from? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Reputation does improve credibility. However, no, reputation is not a countable. Gryllida (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

My experience is irrelevant when we're talking about your actions. Please stop the ad hominem attacks and insinuations.

A style guide encapsulates how articles should be written. In other words, the guide drives the way things are written, not the other way around. And again, other people doing things is never justification for any other person to do those things.

If editors have questions about additional information in an article, then readers will have those questions too whether or not the information is in the source articles. One possible approach in response to questions about things not covered in the sources could be to say to oneself something like, "Clearly there's something about the way I've presented information in this article that is leaving things unclear. What's the best way to tweak the article to either answer those questions or remove the need for them?" Whether you think the specific issues are a problem or not, if an issue is raised then there is room for improvement in an article.

I also agree with Gryllida regarding decreasing confidence in your opponent when you reply to them; it comes across as tearing the other person down or dismissing them and it escalates, rather than reduces, tensions. Ca2james (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

(Adding: looking at the "just because others do something doesn't mean anyone can do that thing" and why I say that: Say Leslie beats their spouse. Kelly says "hey, Leslie is beating their spouse, so I can too, even though the laws are against it". Is Kelly justified in beating their spouse just because Leslie does it? Well, no, of course not, because beating one's spouse is intrinsically, morally wrong. That Leslie does it doesn't automatically make it ok to do. This same reasoning applies to even such things as following a style guide. Ca2james (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC))

No, this is more like following the speed limit. If all the other cars on the highway are doing 65 mph, you'd better do it too. The one car doing 50 mph is the one likely to cause an accident. There's no moral element to driving at a certain speed the way there is to beating one's spouse, though there are rules involved, so it fits this situation better.

I think your experience very relevant. By your reasoning, the things Pi zero and Gryllida said about me at the style guide proposal were ad hominem attacks and you all should have considered it on its merits regardless of what they thought of the proposer's expertise or deficiencies. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I did share a characteristic of you, but not for the sake of winning the argument, I don't think so.

I did not say "your credibility would improve if you did ... (these changes to you) ... until then I consider you wrong."

I did say "the efficiency of this discussion would improve if you did ... (these changes to you) ... until then I consider you either right or wrong, no comment on that." Gryllida (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say Ca2james was automatically wrong either. I was careful to say just the opposite, but yes, if I've worked on Wikinews and he hasn't, then it's almost impossible for him to know more about it than I do. -Darkfrog

Reputation is not a countable (by edit count, number of drafts, time spent at Wikinews etc). Gryllida (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The difference between 20 articles and 50 may not be so big, but a guy who's done no articles is not an expert. -Darkfrog

I don't see why not. Gryllida (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

We need a break.

We need a break because you are saying things that I do not think you believe. I don't think you're lying, just that you've got some inertia going and are a bit carried away. I think you're stuck in a moment where you care more about who's on what side and on winning, a bit like battlegrounding on Wikipedia, than on the core matters of the site. If you stop and let yourself settle I think you'll find that of course whether or not someone has worked on Wikinews articles matters to whether they're an expert on Wikinews' review process. The proposal thread is closed, so there's no ticking clock. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

A side remark, this is not name calling. His point was "I think edit count is not relevant. Bringing it up is useless and is a waste of time. Please focus on the content of the discussion instead.", I believe. Gryllida (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to come back with an opinion on this subject a week later, if you like.

I expect that I will think that reputation matters, but 'whether or not someone has worked on Wikinews' (for how long, or for how much) does not. Like I say now (and expect to agree with this in the future), for some people, starting from their first edit, their reputation skyrockets above that of other contributors who have a hundred of edits. Gryllida (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

and in some cases it is stagnant at very low, even when they have thousands of edits.
•–• 06:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Since you came back and were polite this time, I'll leave this here.

The post was highly aggressive and rude, used inflammatory language, and did not add anything that had not already been said by others. Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Going 65 mph in a non-65 mph zone (or 50 mph in a non-50 mph zone) can still result in a ticket because it's against the law. Sometimes, if the flow if traffic is 65, a person can also do 65 but they are doing so in contravention of the rules and if they get a ticket they still have to pay. "But other drivers were going 65!" will not get the driver out of paying the penalty, and neither will arguing that the speed limit should be changed because other drivers are going 65. The rules are the rules and breaking them can result in a penalty.

A person can understand the rules by reading them, and a person need not have exact experience in something to understand how it works. Ca2james (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Better a ticket than a car accident.

Right, or maybe you'd been reading Wikinews every day for ten years or maybe you'd written a bunch of Wikinews articles and for some reason they didn't show up under "Ca2james." I also said from the start that I didn't mean anyone should disregard what you have to say. I just think if you actually went through review a few times, or had a similar experience on Wikipedia (which you say you haven't), you might be saying different things.

I guess that's why I don't feel like I'm attacking you as a person by observing that you've never written a Wikinews article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Above, I said I had had similar experiences so where are you getting that I haven't had them? Your focus on me and my experience (and no, you're not "just observing" because you're implying that my views are invalid or to be discounted as a result) is classic ad hominem attack because it's an attempt to discredit my comments and focuses on me, not my comments. Which is to say attacking me. So please stop doing that.

In the speeding analogy, what on Wikinews is the equivalent of the car crash? Ca2james (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You did? [Reread post] You had someone insist that you make their changes for them? Did you do it? And did you face consequences when the article was then of poorer quality? I'm not talking about tolerating someone else making changes you don't like.

I am not attacking you or attempting to discredit your comments. Again, by your reasoning, Pi zero and Gryllida arguing to close the proposal thread because I proposed it was a personal attack and they should have judged it on its merits.

There are a couple different kinds of car crashes. 1) If I failed to revert a change that said something counterfactual, the readers could be misled, as in "the police were investigating" implying that the investigation had stopped. 2) If I produced articles that had past tense where there should be present and so clogged the review hopper with unpublishable drafts. 3) If I produced articles that had past tense where there should be present and the reviewers published them anyway and Wikinews got a reputation for being sloppy. 4) If I went around "correcting" Blood Red Sandman and Qwerty's work so it contained no present tense and so became unpublishable or misleading and left a bad impression on readers. 5) If I obeyed orders to make changes I didn't believe in and then got punished, blocked or otherwise penalized for the resulting poor quality of the article. This happened to me on Wikipedia. One admin told me I was required to do something. Then I did it. Then I got blocked for it. I was able to point to the diff with the order but no one gave a $#@%. 6) Probably more.

While I've got you here, I have a question. If I could show you an on-Wikinews guideline that's been here a long time that says to use present tense (but does not happen to say to use it every time), would that affect your view of this at all? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Quality is subjective, and what is correct in one place may not be correct in another. I don't always understand why someone wants something done a certain way (although I do try to understand), but I do understand that there are reasons for things. It's not a big deal, really. There's always more than one way to do or say something and none of them can really lay claim to being "right".

You're twisting the definition of ad hominem above: what the reviewers have been discussing with you is your behaviour, which has been a problem. And which appears to be about to get you a ticket out of Wikinews.

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, your representation of what happened on Wikipedia is not accurate. I assume you're referring to the situation where you told someone that you couldn't participate in the discussion (which the admin told you to do) and also made reference to a discussion about the topic area (which an admin did not tell you to do, and which was found to be a contravention of your topic ban). Had you stuck to the first part you wouldn't have been blocked.

One thing that occurred to me about the speeding example: following the flow of traffic speed is an unwritten rule. Ironic, that, given your evident distaste for them. I'm not sure that the accident scenarios you've given necessarily apply because they're mostly based on your insistence that you're being asked to do something "wrong", which I disagree is the case.

I don't know if seeing another guideline would change anything, because it would depend in what the guideline actually said and how the guideline fits into the broader context. Ca2james (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you perhaps talking about six words that were up for a whole forty seconds before I self-reverted?

You consider yourself an expert on Wikinews. How about you write those unwritten rules down? That would solve this whole issue.

I don't know, man, it's a really good guideline... But I'm worried that you've showed up here determined not to be pleased with anything I had to say, highly mobile goalposts at the ready. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I put unwritten things it into a personal essay, this allows me to remember it and to receive feedback in the case I got it wrong; and it may become policy if it is useful. Gryllida (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly! Yes! That is what I am talking about!

If you think "All drafters must immediately comply with all talk page 'suggestions,' even if they don't agree with them," then write it down and submit it to the community for approval. If the community goes "Yes," then all drafters should be held to that, not just me. Or maybe the community goes "Hm, no that's too extreme, but maybe we could do this instead..." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Guardian attributes this so we probably should too

To be clear (in case). We don't attribute because other news orgs do; not directly, anyway. We attribute because clueful wikinewsies thought about it and worked out what we ought to be doing. The principle generally applies to other news sites too, so that in this case when we see the Guardian attributing something that should be attributed, we might say something approving about the Guardian for getting it right. --Pi zero (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

In what I perceive as your vision of Wikinews, Wikinews should attribute more often than reliable sources do, so I, a clueful Wikinewsie, consider an in-text attribution by a reliable source a clue. Also, as you know, I generally defer to the professionals. How fortunate that there are so many of us with so many different perspectives. That makes it so much less likely that a mistake will slip through. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I think what you are trying to do with this post is to establish that you don't agree with me. Duly noted. Maybe you should make a post like this one where Dan the new guy will see it. I don't always agree with your vision, but if this is about rendering or keeping Wikinews consistent with it, you should tell the new guys how you interpret policy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Well... you're more clueful, on balance, than the average Wikinews newcomer, but less clueful than your evident self-image.
• Your naive deferal to professional journalists abput Wikinews issues is a fundamental flaw in your approach. It's not at all simple, of course: you aren't good at the sort of individual reasoning wikinewsies are called upon to exercise ubiquitously. That's not, in some metaphysical sense, a "defect"; some people are like that, and at their best can be highly valuable contributors within a community, in a role with the right sort of structure to it; such as, one strongly suspects, Wikipedia gnomes. Awkwardly, though, for your fit here, Wikinews isn't shaped that way; this place is made for a different sort of individual. It hasn't escaped my notice that you've described me as a "logician", which from context I do think you meant pejoratively though I wouldn't be surprised were you unaware of doing so.
• You prefer to believe everything is just different opinions, and you rate your own opinions about Wikinews just as high as mine, all evidence to the contrary. I'm deeply pessimistic on this front.
• As for what I'm trying to do with my comment here? You've clearly missed the direness of the current crisis. I wish, totally unrealistic as it may be, for a way to avert the grim consequences of the situation, hence my efforts yesterday (just about universally unsuccessful) to find something, anything, I could usefully inject as a comment into the situation. Trying to explain everything to you all at once would clearly be unworkable (in multiple ways at once); raising issues one at a time (though you may notice, I'm not doing that nearly as well as I might, here) is the evident alternative, other than giving up on saving anything from the situation. I don't like to give up.

--Pi zero (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

By the standards Ca2james used not long ago, that could be considered a personal attack.

If it's not just personal opinion and preference, then it should be written down in a formal policy or guideline. If it's too ugly to acknowledge, then it's too ugly to do. -Darkfrog

What?? That's not at all the definition of ad hominem I provided above or at all what I said. Ad hominem is a personal attack when used to discredit the opponent as a person instead of addressing the argument the opponent is making. Ca2james (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Pi zero is calling me naive and disparaging my capacity for reasoning instead of addressing the point I was making.

Ca2james, it came up in a previous conversation that you consider yourself an expert on Wikinews. How about you try your hand at writing down these invisible policies that Pi zero has so far not been able to put to words? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I didn't say I was an expert. I'm not. But I do understand what I'm reading, I do understand that unwritten cultures exist, and I've tried to help you understand all that (inasmuch as I understand it). You really don't understand all of that and that's not a bad thing: the problem, and the bad thing, appears because you don't care to understand all of that. You think you know how things work and you are wrong. But you don't say you're wrong, you say this site isn't doing it your way. No, it isn't, and it doesn't have to. Ca2james (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If I didn't care, I wouldn't be asking you to write it down for me. You believe you understand Wikinews and you believe that I don't: Enlighten me. Write it down in a formal context and submit it to the community to be an official guideline. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Definition of politeness

Seeing [23], I found it surprising that you have called the sentence impolite. Looking at wikt:polite, it says that's "Well-mannered, civilized.", those two are defined as

• Having good manners; polite, courteous and socially correct; conforming to standards of good behaviour.
• Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, reasonable, ethical.

Is it really socially incorrect to say that you "do not understand" something? --Gryllida (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "Don't mess with what you don't understand" is rude.

This person was clearly not here to have a productive discussion about flag removal policy, so I didn't engage with him/her. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you find "You do not understand how the (thing XYZ) works." rude too? Gryllida (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It can be. Depends on the context. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Attacking a person versus attacking a behaviour, and how to respond

Hi Darkfrog24,

Following on some discussions above, I would like to take the opportunity to show you a few possibly interesting and relevant ideas.

1) Difference between personal attack and criticism

• Personal attack is directed at you.
• Criticism says what is bad, and provides some supportive reasoning (either valid or invalid).

Examples:

• You are a fool.

  personal attack; no criticism

• You do not understand dates.

  no personal attack; non-criticism as reason is not provided

• You do not understand dates, there is 12 months in a year, not 14.

  no personal attack; criticism as reason is provided

• You are a poor collaborator. I think when someone asks to make a change, you should do it yourself at least sometimes, not always give it to them.

  no personal attack as it is directed at your collaboration style and not at you; criticism, as a reason is provided

• You are new, I suppose you don't know anything about how to do dates.

  personal attack "new therefore do not know nothing"; criticism (with invalid reasoning but at least it is present)

Since you like external sources, here are a few:

• https://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/dealing-with-criticism.html
• https://www.quora.com/Where-is-the-line-between-constructive-criticism-and-personal-attack-When-things-are-said-behind-a-person-s-back-is-it-considered-constructive-criticism
• https://www.reddit.com/r/LeagueOfMeta/comments/38l200/valid_criticism_or_personal_attack/

2) How to respond: ignore personal attacks; when a message contains a mix of personal attacks and attacks at your behaviour, respond to the latter while ignoring the former

• When people attack your action or knowledge, you should not become offended. It is not a personal attack.
• If it is not a personal attack, it is best to respond constructively. Aim to address the issue, without dismissing it.
• Personal attacks are best ignored (on the spot).
• If a message contains mixed personal attacks and attacks at your actions, it is best to understand the "attack at your action" part and -- while discarding the personal attack -- respond constructively.
• If the personal attacks are repeated, the attacker should be approached at their talk page (NOT in the same topic where they attacked you) a day or two after (NOT immediately on the spot) suggesting which messages you saw as a personal attack and that you would like this to stop.

Since you like external sources, here are a few:

• https://blog.liberationist.org/stop-criticizing-others-it-will-make-you-more-attractive-a1a379e083b2
• https://buffer.com/resources/haters-and-critics-how-to-deal-with-people-judging-you-and-your-work

I hope you find some of this useful. I would be glad to know your opinion about this too.

--Gryllida (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Such diligence, Gryllida. I do like external sources. [takes a look] I like professional sources, written by experts, published, that sort of thing. I read the Quora article and it's good but it's just one person's opinion. You and I are also people with opinions. I don't think this guy's better than we are.

But clearly you think the Quora article is good, so let's start there: "A personal attack will focus on blame and guilt. Will try to diminish all the person to that error - be it small or big." That's what I feel is happening today. Blame is being laid at my door and no one is moving toward the solution: Writing down these unwritten policies so that I may view and understand them. To cite the other source you offered, I feel the criticism being thrown my way is destructive, not constructive. Pi zero insinuates that I "don't understand" whenever I don't agree with him. Yeah it could be coincidence, but I feel manipulated.

The solution is simple, though probably work: Write down all these rules so that I know they're not made up on the spot for me as an individual. If Wikinews has a rule that says "All talk page suggestions must be implemented by the drafter, whether s/he believes in them or not," then that needs to be written down where people can see it.

Here's the pattern: 1) Someone on a talk page insinuates that they want something or want to make a change. 2) I explain my point of view. 3) I get "How DARE you insinuate that it's even POSSIBLE that you are right! YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE YOU'RE YOU! Obey your master, dog!" Actually what goes through my head is a lot more intense than that, but we've had too much drama already and I think this is enough to get the idea across. Bddpaux said something the other day about getting up and moving on, but that doesn't work if I'm the only one letting it go.

I really appreciate the way you and I can actually talk about this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I wish to add that I have read every single source you posted here. I don't put much stock in blogs, but I do think their point 3 is relevant here: "Stop guessing other people’s intention."

That's what's going on here. I keep guessing at why you and Pi zero and others want what looks like doglike submission from me. If the conduct expectations were written down, I would get to stop guessing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I require doglike submission from people. I would prefer if you didn't dish me into that group. Gryllida (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it feels like you do. How can I express "When you do X, I feel Y" in a way that you find acceptable? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Demonstrate to me what is a doglike submission and what isn't. In my opinion suggesting that a certain change is required for publication isn't. To the best of my knowledge, I haven't gone any further than such suggestions. Gryllida (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I will have to think about this one in order to give you a really good example, befitting the energy and thought you are putting into this conversation.

For now, though, did you see this diff about the difference between asking for a favor and not? Part of it is when someone says "do THIS because you are not my equal," I feel like if I do it, I'll be proving them right. Like if someone says "You are my dog. Wear this collar and crawl on all fours," well you wouldn't do it, would you?

Another part is what I'm picking up as emotional labor, to put it gently. You know when you have a real-world boss, sometimes you have to manage and flatter that person. You obey and say "Yes, boss!" but it's understood that it's because that's your job, the way we understand that someone standing on a stage wearing makeup is not really Hamlet and didn't really murder poor Polonius. Some bosses make their employees go "You're so smart" when they really don't think so and glower at anyone who doesn't generally act like they truly agree with everything and not the reality that they are obeying because that's the deal inherent in the job and they'll get fired if they don't. Sometimes the boss will change his mind and pretend that he's not changing his mind, "No, I've always hated the color green for our business cards! How could you be so stupid as to order green cards?" and expect the employees to pretend they don't know that he loved green last week, and spoke about his love for it in three meetings, and is on record in the minutes of those meetings as saying he loved the color green for the business cards. The matter about suddenly not allowing present tense even though we did the previous week has some similarities to that.

Gryllida, I think you are very good at this but you acknowledge on your userpage that you're still learning English. I've been writing English professionally for a long time now and I'm a native speaker, so yes, I think I'm better at English than you are, and the idea that I should pretend that I don't think that bothers me a whole lot. There's no stage here. There's no curtain. There's no established understanding that it's not real. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Does (A) these things being unwritten, or (B) you disagreeing with them, make this blame nonconstructive? Gryllida (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The criticism is nonconstructive because no solution is offered. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that this is required for valid criticism. "This road is unsafe, look it has a hole in the middle" is valid constructive criticism, even though no solution is offered either. Gryllida (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I consider "you are naive," "you are not capable of [the good kind of] reasoning" with no solution offered to be non-constructive criticism. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a judgment. Does it come together with any meaningful content attached to it?

Example: "You are forgetful. Every morning when going to school you forget something, either a pen or your lunch or a book." Gryllida (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Your example comes with evidence that the person really is forgetful. No evidence is offered here. I do no think that valuing the opinions of published professionals over that of a semi-anonymous person on Project Wiki is naive. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A peripheral remark touched on here, which you've mentioned on a number of past occasions in various terms. You allude to "why you and Pi zero and others want what looks like doglike submission from me." This seems to me to go to the crux of the matter. What we want is not what you're describing. On another recent occasion you mentioned a boss-employee relationship, which seems to be getting at the same thing; again, nobody is asking that of you. We've been unable to get across to you what we're asking for, and the reasons it's not getting across seem to be a mixture of a whole bunch of things variously messy complicated and intractable. The elephant in the room —okay, one of the elephants in the room; it's quite crowded in here— is, what sort of collaborative relationship are we asking of you? I'm wary of several difficulties in contemplating another attempt to explain that:  past attempts to explain this to you have failed, with intimations both that the manner of explanation might not work for you, and that the relationship might for one reason or another not make sense to you; composing an attempt to explain it is likely to take a massive investment of time and attention; and there's some doubt in my mind as to whether you'd simply dismiss what I said as eccentric personal opinion — though that could synergize in complicated ways with some sort of misunderstanding of the message.

I'm also interested to address (in another section, and at some better moment if only one can be found) the interesting question of why not write up what we're alluding to in the form of project documentation; because I do have some answer-like things to offer about that. --Pi zero (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Well sounds like we're getting somewhere.

I have several ideas of why you don't write it down, one of which I've already told you about.

You once said you want the reviewers to be teachers and the drafters to be their students. The fallacy in this is that sometimes the drafter knows better than the reviewer on some point or other. The implication that I could learn things from anyone here is not a problem. Everyone knows something that other people don't. The problem is the rejection of the idea that I might have something to teach others. Not just rejection but significant hostility. That's one of the things that makes this smell so fishy. The air must be cleared.

So I'll go first and clear part of it: If by :attempts to explain" you mean "I went to your talk page and told you that I was right and you were wrong," that didn't work because you gave me no reason to believe you.

If you want me to reject my own judgement and replace it with yours, to believe not what I see but what you tell me, I need something more than "because I am your master and I say so." Had you been able to say "Here is this written Wikinews guideline. It has been here for a long time." or "Here is the archived discussion in which the community agreed on this rule, even though we never formally wrote it up. Here are several previous cases in which other people were asked to do then what I am asking you to do now" that would prove, at least, that no one was making anything up on the spot. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that does seem, off hand, to be a good demonstration of one of the reasons it'd be a waste of time for me to put a lot of effort into articulating something for your sake; you've got these odd distorted ideas you claim were said to you, that are pretty clearly based loosely on things you were told in the past, modified to fit into the narrative lines you gravitate to (mostly, either dark lines, or lines particularly useful as excuses for disregarding what others say). --Pi zero (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"Claim" were said to me? Which diff do you need? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone being a diligent disciplined student does not exclude the teacher learning something new from them. Gryllida (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

But here 1) I'm not a student at all and 2) the idea of you learning something from me was nonetheless completely and wholly rejected.

The teacher-student dynamic does not work here because teachers can be presumed to know much, much more than their students, because they're adults and the students are children or because the teachers are experienced professionals and the students are not. For these reasons, a student can be expected to just snap to it when the teacher says "No, do this instead." This is an all-adult anonymous Wiki where no one's credentials are known. That level of obedience is not appropriate here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Everyone interested in participating in this project is a student; an uninquiring mind has no place here. Sadly, no; you're not a student. --Pi zero (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The key difference here seems to be between inquiring and submitting. Pi zero, I've taken some initiative and started a Wikinews essay. I encourage you to take it as a starting place for expressing your vision to the community. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You are the only persistent contributor to this project I have ever seen who has failed to grasp pretty much any of the core principles of what the project is and how it works. I've never seen any persistent contributor fail to understand even a few of those principles before. Perhaps it's my fault; I spoiled you, tolerated you and kept trying to help you understand what was wanted by demonstrating with fixes to your articles; but other persistent contributors in the past had always tried and succeeded in learning the basics, and even though not everyone became adept at all of it, that was okay because they did know what they were trying for, and cared to keep trying. And of course you also demand that we either spend all our time doing nothing but servicing your demands that we petition you for permission to have a project that isn't just an extension of your will, or simply allow you to continue exercising contempt for the project and everyone on it. You're not remotely qualified to write any sort of essay about how Wikinews should work, and the fact that you aren't aware of that is part of the problem.

All this started when I was tempted to thrown you a soft ball, giving you an opportunity to agree that you certainly hadn't meant your remarks to sound as if you had no respect for anyone else here. I was looking forward to completing that review, thought it an interesting news event, hoped the review wouldn't have any unexpected problems and thought it probably wouldn't since I'd already skimmed the article and checked it for obvious copyvio, and thought I'd have it done long before midnight that day. I went out shopping and came back to find a response from you saying, no, you mean those remarks just the way they'd sounded. I spent the rest of the day (all the time I'd thought I would be finishing that review and moving on to other things on the queue, by other contributors) looking hopelessly for something to say that could prevent the situation from meaning your work could never be reviewed again. Finally, when I admitted heartbroken defeat (I anticipate you mocking my honesty, there), that your will to hold the whole project and its denizens in contempt could not be remedied, you said not to overdramatize the situation. I dind't think you'd top that... until some of your remarks today. Like the one about "Wiki where no one's credentials are known." --Pi zero (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You say you want to complete the review ...what exactly is stopping you? Do you consider the conversation between Gryllida and me incomplete?

Pi zero, I often think that you are demanding that I service your needs and that you are trying to make this site an extension of your will—and you will remember I'm not he first one to say so.

Let's focus on one point where we're almost agreed: You're not remotely qualified to write any sort of essay about how Wikinews should work, and the fact that you aren't aware of that is part of the problem. I wouldn't say not remotely and definitely not "not aware." Remember how I kept asking you to do it? You claim that there are things, invisible but massive things about Wikinews that I just don't understand and you do. Yes, I think you would be the best person to write down what these things are. Yes, you are more qualified, by far, than I am for this task. But I get the impression you've decided not to do it. You've repeatedly said that you don't know how to put it to words. So I took some initiative and got things started. Maybe if you give it a try the right words will come to you. ...part of the reason I started that essay was because of what Gryllida says just below: "the burden of resolving it is mutual and not purely ours." I'm just trying to do my share of the work around here.

And yes, your credentials are not known. I don't know whether you went to journalism school. I don't even know your real name. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You've implemented a spectacularly effective, though I think quite unintentional, denial-of-service attack on the project, drawing us in to this stuff. That's another thing I evidently screwed up royally by indulging from early on, though perhaps I was pre-conditioned to that mistake, from our en.wp past. You make comments with multiple misapprehensions embedded in them; there's no possibility of addressing all of them, or often even one in its entirety, so one tries to address some one very narrow point, which goes horribly awry as we fail to get it across and additional side misapprehensions pile up; and then eventually you object that we don't explain things. You've already failed to understand (or believe) our past explanations, and formulating new ones would be a humongous effort wasted (if it could even be completed) when you neither understood nor believed them either.

Who you, or any of us, are outside Wikinews is, for the first cut, irrelevant to Wikinews; not only is there no such thing as a professional wikinewsie, it's inherently impossible for there to be such a thing. The whole project is tuned to facilitate gathering and applying earned-on-project reputation. The upper echelons need people who have excellent instincts for judging stuff, including judging other wikinewsies — which (sorry) isn't you. Just not one of your strengths. For many purposes a workable surrogate is professionalism — figure the people being paid to do something are the experts — but even aside from its flaws, that has no applicability to Wikinews. Which... might... still be not a problem if you weren't in denial about Wikinews credentials.

(Btw, at the risk of stating the obvious, when you say you disagree with "remotely", and then say you disagree with "not aware", you're contradicting yourself.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"Denial of service"? Pi zero, is someone making you post here instead of somewhere else?

I just suggested a moratorium, so I'll just to explain my previous post instead of any additional response. By "I wouldn't say 'remotely'" I mean that I do not consider myself completely unqualified to write about how Wikinews works. I only think you'd be better at it than I would. When I say "I wouldn't say I'm 'not aware,'" I mean the fact that I repeatedly asked you to write the essay and pointed out how since it's supposed to be about something that you understand and I don't, you'd be better at it, should be considered evidence that I think you'd be better at it. Does that make more sense now? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I reckon what we are asking is that after a problem is identified, the burden of resolving it is mutual and not purely ours. Gryllida (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Depends on the problem. If the problem is "You do not understand this thing that exists in my head and my thoughts" then it is not possible for me to write those thoughts down for the other person.

Maybe we could build a FAQ-style structure that you could fill in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I started a Wikinews essay on one of the issues that we've talked about in the past week and a half (one of the less emotionally loaded one). I think it should be called either WN:SPEED or WN:WHOSEJOB. It's basically where "all drafters must obey all suggestions" rule would be if we had one. I invite and welcome your insight and participation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The reason for suggesting that you write personal essays about unwritten procedures

A cut from the previous section,

I do not think "All talk page suggestions must be implemented by the drafter, whether s/he believes in them or not," is true. However, in this particular instance I think that

a) you find it a lot easier to find these unwritten rules;

b) having them written down is more important for you than for everyone else who just learns them from discussions;

c) having them written down may turn out to be helpful for some people in the future, who find it difficult to learn from discussions;

d) having it in an essay means that, unlike a proposal to change a policy, any feedback is voluntary and the utility of the essay is of primary interest to its author;

e) if something that you write in your essay is wrong, everyone gets an opportunity to correct it, which is better than you following a misinterpreted practice silently.

Gryllida (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

a) I don't understand this one.

b) Yes.

c) YES.

d) Well yes but the idea is that if it really is what the community works then it would become a guideline.

e) Not 100% on what you mean by this.

I don't think I should be the one to write the essay. 1) Pi zero thinks that I do not understand how Wikinews works and there have been minimum two me-toos. 2) My speculation about how I think Pi zero wants this site to work is really REALLY UGLY. Whether I am right or wrong, it is going to make people upset and angry if I tell them what I think other people want from me.

I think the best person to write down how this site works or "works" would be Pi zero, but he is not the only one capable of doing it.

Also, remember, if I'm the one writing a proto-guideline for how Wikinewsies treat each other, it's going to read "We are all colleagues and equals," which Pi zero and Ca2james have explicitly stated that they do not believe. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

By (a) I mean that because for me there is no difference between learning from a discussion or from a wiki page, often it is difficult for me to know what it is that you don't grok.

Are you worried about the possibility of you getting it wrong in your personal essay? How would that be a problem? Gryllida (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh but there is a difference!

1) The Wiki page addresses the whole community. A discussion addresses only me. 2) A Wiki page stays mostly still over time and a discussion cannot help but reflect its own time. Both these things prove that no one is making up pretend rules just to mess with me.

What that means is that if it's just a discussion, I don't know if the person talking to me is just making it all up.

"Well the rules say you have to give me your lunch money/do my work for me/bark like a dog" is an inherently suspect statement. It looks like the person is just making it up because they feel like pushing someone around. And then I say "Oh, where's this rule written down?" and the person says "It's not. It's in my HEAD. Just believe whatever I tell you and do whatever I tell you like you were my dog and you'll be fine." That's also inherently suspect. This is compounded by my own observations: Everyone here was "There is a RULE saying 'no present tense,' so OBEY IT!!" but they were only saying it to me, even though multiple recent drafters had also used present tense. That suggests to me that there is no such rule and people were making things up on the spot just because they want me to be their dog.

If it's a Wiki page, the speaker can say "See? That rule was already here before we started talking. I could not have made it up just to mess with you" and "See? That rule really is for everyone and not something I made up just to mess with you and you alone." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I said there is no difference for me. I already know that there is a huge difference for you. This is why it is a lot easier for you (but not for me) to see what items are undocumented. Gryllida (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The things that I believe need to be documented are whatever these big important principles that Pi zero says I don't understand are. So I don't really think I'm the best person to write this stuff down either. (And neither does Pi zero. YOWZA does he ever not think so!) But I have started an essay on one of the issues we've talked about anyway, and I've invited the whole community to participate. Maybe that will get us started and we can move on to one of the principles later, like a stepping stone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Quality of reasoning: diving into their head

Following from "you are incapable of [the good kind of] reasoning" quote above. I suspect it occurs because you sidetrack conversations. Sidetracking is defined as this:

• An alternate train of thought, issue, topic, or activity, that is a deviation or distraction from the topic at hand or central activity, and secondary or subordinate in importance or effectiveness.

Examples:

• "Hi Darkfrog24! We need past tense. With the present tense it is something we don't and can't, know." "No, we don't, mass media doesn't." (could be "Why can't we and don't we know? Mass media uses it.") "It is wrong and often inaccurate." (good but vague, because the 'Why can't and don't we know?' question was not asked) "No, it is not wrong, it is professional." (already side tracked) leading into a conversation about whether being professional matters.
• "Hi Darkfrog24! This improvement would be nice to have." "Go ahead do it, I will not revert." (could be "This is an optional extra which is not required for publication and makes the article look too big and this is why I do not wish to add it", or "this would indeed be a nice improvement to add, it is in source number three.")
• "Hi Darkfrog24! Please do not mess with tags which you do not understand." "No, I understand them." (could be "Hi! I think this tag is not needed because the conversation has been dead for over 11 months. Do you agree?")

Basically this is a "here is why I do it" focused approach. It means that you are interested in showing your approach, but you are not really interested in knowing whether they agree or what they think. In my opinion it is important to show this.

There are three ways to do it:

1. Show them your reasoning, and ask them to provide their reasoning to you.
2. Show them your reasoning, and ask them whether they agree.
3. Ask them to provide their reasoning to you.

Example:

• "Hi, this tag does not need to be removed." "Why not? The conversation is over 11 months old."
• "Hi Darkfrog24! This improvement would be nice to have." "Would it not make the article too big? Is it required for publication?"
• "Hi Darkfrog24! We need past tense. With the present tense it is something we don't and can't, know." "Professional mass media uses it all the time, don't you agree with them? And why is it something we don't and can't know?"

This in my opinion may make it less difficult to reason with you. Also, to the best of my knowledge, none of these reactions are submissive.

--Gryllida (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The pattern I have observed on Wikinews is this:

1) Someone tells me to do something or insinuates that they want something.

2) [Sometimes I do it.] I explain why I'm doing it the way I'm doing it or why I don't want to do what they're telling/insinuating—which is what you're recommending here, right?

3) Conflict. Usually in the form of the person getting angry that I didn't immediately jump and do what they wanted in step 1.

So yes, I think explaining why I do what I do is a good idea, but I've been doing that for years here and it does not produce peaceful results.

As for the thing about tags. I don't think the anon actually cares about tags. I think the anon saw that you and Pi zero and Ca2james were ..."attacking" might not be the best word. "Piling on," perhaps—and wanted to join in. The anon does not want a productive discussion; he/she wants a fight. The right thing to do is to not answer posts like that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to place a guess here.

Is it that my "Make the change if you want; I won't revert it" made you feel unappreciated? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It shuts the conversation down and makes you seem like an "administrator of this article". The reader is like "What??? Did Darkfrog24 even like this idea?????? Or they just don't mind it (neutral)... :-/"

Instead you could say "this looks like a good idea", which is encouraging, and also leaves opportunity for continuing the conversation about how to implement it or what could be an even better idea. Gryllida (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That's fine for when it does look like a good idea, but 1) it doesn't always look like a good idea, and 2) I'm not a liar. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Usually I think the idea is neutral. Six to one half a dozen to the other, as the expression goes. I didn't think how many skin samples would make the article worse but I didn't think it'd make it better either. Also, there was the extra work of running down the information. Also, there's the general vibe that I don't want to tacitly indicate that I am a willing servant. So how would you like me to encourage you to make your recommended changes yourself? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Flash and substance

Naturally, I've spent the past couple days thinking about this. Speaking to you as an individual, @Gryllida:, is it not that you want me to snap to it whenever you insinuate you wand something and enact suggested article changes whether I think they're a good or not, but that you want me to adopt a more encouraging, nurturing and supportive tone to attend to the emotional needs of whoever it is who made the suggestion and so foster a more friendly work environment? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Moratorium

Pi zero just said on another page that the site has been hell for the past [actually a week and a half]. How do we all feel about a moratorium? I don't know how this is preventing Pi zero from reviewing the articles he wants to review, but if he thinks it is, okay. How about we just take a break from all this obedience/not understanding/personal stuff and do what we actually came to Wikinews to do for, say, seven days, and come back to it on Tuesday the 19th with fresh eyes and calmer hearts? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Then you may wish to stop editing, as we will be unable to talk about your edits. I try to do this in the most concise and efficient manner still there is so many observations and questions. I hope you are OK with not editing during this period. Gryllida (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I'll keep drafting, and if you guys don't want to review my drafts, don't. As always, I support your decision to spend your volunteer time how you feel like spending it. This week, you have felt like talking to me on talk pages. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What do I do then if I have a query about one of your changes? Like with the specific information you put in, or the timing, or the topic, or how you wrote a message to someone etc? Suggesting I just shut up about that is a bit counter productive don't you think Gryllida (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh HECK no. I do NOT mean for you to shut up!!

What would you have done about it before the decapitated crusader article? To my mind, you would do that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you suggest to stop approaching you at your personal talk page for a week, then? Gryllida (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Not specifically, but if it helps you to do it that way, sure. It could work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

When you say "this obedience/not understanding/personal stuff", are you referring to others saying "please obey", "you are not obeying", "please understand", "you do not understand", and their personal judgments about you? Gryllida (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That sounds pretty close. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I reckon I haven't used any "this obedience/not understanding/personal stuff" on this page previously? Gryllida (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't remember off the top of my head. Kind of distracted at the moment by Pi zero deleting an essay right out of my userspace. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Basically, Pi zero said that something here, probably the size of this conversation, was tantamount to a denial-of-service attack on the site. I've invited other participants to stop or take a break at several points in this conversation (except for the anon; that I shut down). The other party has usually decided to the continue and I am almost always okay with that. Since Pi zero points out that other people not involved in this conversation might not be okay with that, I'm suggesting again that we cool it, at least for a while. It might result in a more productive conversation in the long run anyway. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

'Email' requires login

Re [24], emailing users requires login, FYI. Gryllida (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I did not know that. I will try to remember not to suggest emailing me to our mysterious anon. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Undeletions

Hello, It took me a few days, but I got around to your undeletion for "downturns" and by the time I did notice there was another called "slowdown". (Sorry, if the names are not exact). I agree with you 100% in principle, you should be able to dream up any policy or guideline you feel like as long as it is within your userspace. There are some exceptions, of course (Genocide, spam, harassment, etc.) but generally you could propose most anything and furthermore, you should feel free to work on it in your own user space. Once finished, you could submit it to the WN:Water cooler and let people voice their opinions. I can tell you, however, as a practical matter they seem unworkable. I understand you are trying to shorten discussions, but what is the punishment for violating the downturn rule for example? Do you really want to issue blocks to regular contributors on a project this small? And how long is the block for going over by a few words? I know Pi zero called it a 'game' and looking at it, he's not far off. In my mind, it will boil down to people using abbreviations until the rules make the messages so short one says "GTFO" and the reply is "FU". Just for fun, I looked at your recent conversations on various talk pages. It's not universal, but your messages are the ones that get longer and longer as the conversation persists. I am not saying you are the problem buuuut ... Well, we all have issues to work on. I encouraged Pi zero to restore your pages, but I will equally encourage you to stop fighting for their restoration. Because they will never come to pass and I think we have both written more words about them than you put into them. Already violating the idea of 'downturn; aren't we? Anyway, I am getting sick of it. By the way, you have some excellent articles published on the front page. Congrats, --SVTCobra 05:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's less these specific essays themselves and more that writing userspace essays is a normal activity around here and I'm alarmed that anyone would try to frame it as misconduct.

I wasn't thinking of them as anything that would be enforced but rather as a voluntary exercise, for when both parties want to be considerate. Blocks never crossed my mind. When people said "unenforceable" I thought they were referring to how to get people do it, but it sounds like you're talking about how to punish people if they don't. But this is good concrit. It would work if it were a tradition, but you can't just stand up and say you're making a tradition; it has to just happen.

Of course I wasn't using downturn in those conversations. I hadn't had the idea yet.

Thanks. They're all team efforts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

user essay template phrasing

Is it necessary to get into complicated discussions on the details of my wording? --Pi zero (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It'd probably be more productive to just keep improving upon each other's versions and triangulate toward a good wording, BOLD-style. I'll go next in a couple hours. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I have serious doubts; I thought that phrasing through. It's not like I'm eager to write an essay, though. ("What Words I Chose and Put Where on my Summer Vacation".) So maybe sufficient unto the hour is the evil thereof. --Pi zero (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought it through too. Couple hours. See if you like it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that the term vetting was pointedly expunged from that template some time back because it's not necessarily how that works on Wikinews. Which gets into one of those principles-of-Wikinews I sometimes refer to that you just haven't been grasping. In this case, I do get why the idea doesn't come naturally to you, or, more blatantly, why explanations of it are either incomprehensible or simply unbelievable to you, but for somewhat that very reason I have no effective way to explain it to you. (Which is not, by the way, that I "don't have the right words". I'm very good with words; the real challenge is getting across concepts that aren't shared, and worse, how to deal with concepts that can't be shared — which ought to be a problem reserved for science fiction, but it turns out we're actually living in a world like that.)

Anyway, where we are is, you want to explain just a bit more of how community essays differ, but vetting describes a process that doesn't, usually, explicitly manifest as a formal vetting process. If I were to describe how we do it, in terms that most wikinewsies would likely recognize, I fear it would sound implausible to you. So I'm looking for a way to describe it that explains more that nothing, doesn't overspecify it (as vetting does), and is going to sound reasonable to you. --Pi zero (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to take out the word "vetting." Okay, I replaced it.

Look at this from another angle. I got the impression that you believe that I'm trying to use essays to recruit newcomers to my diabolical viewpoint like some kind of Wikinews Harvey Milk (I'm not, by the way). But think of a hypothetical newcomer who comes to Wikinews. That person might read an essay written by me, but you know what they're very likely to read? WN:CONTENT. WN:WRITE. WN:WWI. WN:4WP. They don't list the principles to which you refer and they have a few lines in there that might contradict them. Don't worry about me for a second. Think about communicating with that new guy. Or imagine it was twenty new guys all at the same time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Wikinews_talk:Original_reporting#Consent_for_audio_recordings

This query affects policy and other contributors, and requires attention from reviewers or administrators. Would you agree? --Gryllida (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is a suggestion about policy. It does not suggest changing policy, but the page it concerns is a policy. I'd say more "the whole community," but that includes reviewers and administrators. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem can not be resolved without attention from reviewers and administrators. Would you agree? Gryllida (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well maybe it could done without them, but that strikes me as unlikely. I'm sure we could come up with a theoretical scenario in which it was handled without a single reviewer if we felt like a puzzle.

Why? Is the "items to be attended by reviewers and administrators" schedule full or something? Or do you just want me to post a note in the policy water cooler? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "talk page guidelines" do not apply here, do they?

Re [25] I don't think we have a policy which allows the removal of rude comments from personal talk pages at Wikinews.

In my personal opinion, the content which you have removed should be understood as "this write-up does not adequately represent how this project works, and a shortcut to it is not needed".

In my personal opinion, also, this task has a low priority. I encourage you to use your essays in your personal namespace as a guide for your own work; if that works out well, I am sure others will propose addition of shortcuts as appropriate. Gryllida (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

They do apply here. A few weeks ago I saw a Wikinews policy page that said "we use these talk page guidelines" and linked to the Wikipedia page. I can try to find the exact Wikinews page if you like but I don't remember which one it was off the top of my head.

The thread was about "What title do you think would be good for this essay" and Pi zero answered with "Don't bother finding a title because you're TOO STUPID to write essays." That's heckling. The rules allow me to shut that stuff down before it becomes a fight, so I'm going to do that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It'd be great to find where we link to Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Gryllida (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We do that more than once, actually, but I'll see if I can find it. The recent conflicts here have had me rereading a lot of Wikinews policy, and it does run together. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think he said you are too stupid. That's a personal characteristic.

Rather, he said "you do not understand". This is a characterization of your current level of knowledge, which does not suggest inferiority of your brain. Gryllida (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It amounted to the same thing.

At this point, Pi zero has had lots of chances to write down whatever it is that he believes I don't understand, and we know his fingers aren't broken. When there's a simple solution, and someone won't use it, then something else is going on. The most obvious answer to why he's lashing out at me like this is pretty ugly, and stating it here is unlikely to help.

When he tries to pick a fight with me in my userspace, I'm going to delete his posts. He's making us look bad in front of the new guys. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sharing your lackings with you may feel like shame, but it is not a bad thing. When done without diminishing your intelligence (that one tool that allows you to grow your knowledge), it can lead to making you more informed about what additional work needs to be done. Gryllida (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The "lackings" as you put it, are not real.

I've been here for years now. I've seen how this place works. I don't actually misapprehend anything. Pi zero just wants me to think I do. Are you familiar with the story of the Emperor's New Clothes? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree you observe Wikinews for a while, but it appears you are not fully following some concepts. It seems you need a lot of things written down, else you face difficulty working with others. That's something that others are unable to address as quickly as is required for your learning curve to be sufficiently steep.

A somewhat offtopic hypothetical example: do you have documentation at home for the lunch and dinner family procedures as well? I imaging without it, following their unwritten rules is a huge difficulty. Without documentation, you may end up having a meal half an hour before or after everyone else; or you start with the dessert first; or you leave the table before the head of the table stopped eating. Yet usually in the family such rules are not documented. By many people (not all, of course, but many) things like this are learned by requests (someone instructing you to please come to the table as everyone has already gathered) without spelling the rules out.

Similarly, the writing here is not solo (compare with solo driving, with nobody directing the driver in their motion) and it has never been an official recommendation. Writing that into an essay and suggesting to make it a guideline is a bit disappointing... Gryllida (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if there really is some mysterious principle that I'm just not seeing, then the thing to do is to write it down.

I'm sorry, what are "lunch and dinner family procedures"?

It seems you've missed something. You know how the first comment on the essay talk page is "Hey, Acagastya, you write a lot of solo articles, don't you? Want to contribute?" Acagastya's process is to call dibs on an article by starting it, then write a draft offline, then upload the nearly finished thing. Yes, solo drafting is a thing here, and it's been endorsed and supported by other users. The recommendations in IDRAFTER are meant to prevent the kinds of edit conflicts that Acagastya has had with myself and other users who did not know that's what he was doing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

SOLODRAFT/IDRAFTER does not propose inventing something. It's more like a description of something that's already been around for a while but might be hard for a newcomer to see. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Acagastya's writingn is not solo. After the initial upload, he expands the story based on feedback, if it becomes available. Gryllida (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

What you're describing is what I mean by SOLODRAFT. I have repeatedly had conversations with Acagastya about how he doesn't want people editing his articles until he's ready. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Him not being ready for you to edit directly does not exclude you from writing an edit proposal at the talk page. Gryllida (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Since we're talking about the content of the essay, let's take this to the essay talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

About direct editing

Jumping into the direct editing deprives the author of writing practice. It also wastes the helper's time which could be better spent working on other articles. Why do you find it more efficient?

Perhaps it seems to you that direct editing is more quick and gives people more complete articles. I do not understand this point: asking for help is very quick and easy. Do you think that they can not read messages quickly? Or do they find it difficult to reply?

Also, if you think that direct editing provides more content for the article and earlier, you can do it in your personal sandbox. This way the original author complete as much as they can, and you merge later. Do you consider this a better option for training newcomers than jumping in? --Gryllida (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is faster and gives the reader more complete articles.

Why bother with a personal sandbox? Why add an extra step with all that delay?

No, I consider collaboration to be the best way to show newcomers how things work here. Imagine you're a new guy. You write an article and hit "review." The next thing that happens is that a reviewer comes and yells at you for not getting it perfect on your first try. Do you think Wikinews is a fun place to spend your volunteer time?

"Giving the author writing practice" is not the goal of Wikinews. At most, it is a means to an end. We may be an amateur site, but we'e not a training ground. What we do here isn't practice for something else. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Scientists coin Stormtropis genus for smooth-legged spiders

That's {{stale}}, I can't review as I was involved in editing. I guess you can take it off the review queue to save the precious reviewer time , by replacing the review tag with the stale tag, if you like. Gryllida (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I'll email the corresponding author. See if they're more interested in talking to Wikinews than the killer whale guy was. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

In this case it is not ready for review, either. Marking it with {{prepared}} {{original reporting}} may be of use. Gryllida (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this is still not done. The article status should be updated. Gryllida (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you please do this? Gryllida (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way I can say "no thanks" that will not make you feel disheartened?

This article got tied up in drama, and I do not wish to perform the aforementioned overt act because it's likely to be misread.

It's possible that Pi zero knows that he should not have deleted my essays but doesn't want to undelete my essays because he feels put on the spot, because he's worried the people who want him to will lord it over him. If someone else does it, they cannot do so. This feels like a smaller version of that. I'm worried how it'll be read in the weird social game with no rules that's going on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks I was just checking. I've updated the article status accordingly, hope to hear from you about the original reporting soon. Gryllida (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I figured I'd look into the other one first. Work's picked up this week, so I've less time for Wikinews. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Temporary undeletes

I'm temporarily undeleting both pages. Please do let me know when you're done (though if I don't hear I'll assume after a while it's been taken care of). --Pi zero (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I have requested information on how to do a specific type of page transfer at Meta-Wiki. If I don't have an answer in a day or two, I'll do it the simpler way.

I still think you should just undelete them permanently. It is very disheartening when admins and reviewers go against policy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

There's no reason for a complicated operation. You're the sole copyright holder of the final versions of both pages. I've been expecting, once the pages were undeleted, it would only take you moments to take care of the thing.

(Btw: Pretty sure we've long since established that each of us disapproves of the other's actions. On my closure comments and since, I've been filtering out digs at your position; I encourage you to do likewise.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been. We're on the same page there.

I'll wait for the answer to my Meta question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(Just to note, the reason I mentioned filtering was that your immediately preceding comment was less than successful in that regard.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

...the "disheartening" comment? That seems mean to you? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I remarked to you earlier to not communicate with Pi zero extensively. Responses to his messages may be appropriate, but nothing that concerns him as a person. This time you have attacked his obedience to the policy on this wiki. Please do not do that. --Gryllida (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Gryllida, you seem to be confused about why I am talking to Pi zero even though you told me not to. I read your suggestion, thought about it, and made my decision. I am a colleague listening to another colleague's advice, not a subordinate obeying orders.

It also concerns me that you find "disheartening when admins and reviewers go against policy" to be an attack but not the things Pi zero has said to me, like the rationale he gave for the deletions and the claim I said anything improper to SVTCobra. It's not a personal attack if there's evidence, in this case our deletion policies. Neither of my userspace essays met any of the criteria, so summarily deleting them was against policy.

I appreciate your efforts to keep the peace, but the double standard bothers me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I was repeating my suggestion. You are free to discard it if you wish. Bothering Pi zero like this may result in a drop of the reviewing productivity on this wiki. We do not wish this to occur.

Administrator judgments about deletion are backed up by two kinds of evidence: documentation, and precedents. Someone could find the precedents for you, but I don't think this is urgent, particularly if you succeed at finding the new venue where the essay could be hosted. I have provided technical assistance to you at Meta, which is hopefully useful to you.

I am not sure what to do with non-urgent questions like this. I don't want to make it seem like I am discarding it. I have an organizer, and I could put it into the first week of May if you like. Would this be a good solution? Then we would be able to postpone this task and do more news writing meanwhile. Gryllida (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I profoundly doubt that any such precedents exist.

There is another reason I don't want them deleted. On Wikipedia, I was accused of a whole lot of things that I did not do. For example, I was accused of harassing a new guy. I had a thank-you note posted to my talk page by that very new guy. I was able to point to it. If someone comes and says "You were TROLLING on Wikinews!!" I want to be able to point to these essays and say "No I wasn't." I don't want the evidence deleted.

I concur that it is not time for another long discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.

I guess comments like "It is very disheartening when admins and reviewers go against policy" can be interpreted as an invitation for a long discussion. If you do not think today is a good time for such a long discussion, perhaps it is best to not write comments like this today; instead come back to it at a later time which is more appropriate. I recommend this approach. I hope it is useful to you. Gryllida (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Since we're talking about diplomacy, allow me to say "look at that." (TONE: Comment is meant to be positive.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be developing into a misuse of meta. You're proposing to use meta as a storage area for a backup copy of information that, regardless of page deletion, remains available here for adminstrative consultation. I was given to understand the purpose of temporary undeletion was to rescue your content for use in pursuit of an appropriate generalized guideline on meta (where, I note, your opinions about how Wikinews-in-particular should work would no longer be relevant). You're being given lots more time than you need to do that. I'll leave them up for a bit longer and then delete them again. If there's a future administrative need for the record, it'll be here. --Pi zero (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems there is an official way to store pages like that and I'm looking into how it works.

Expect this to take a day or two. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I just checked and it looks like I need to get a Meta admin or importer to do this for me because I don't have import permissions. This could be a couple days. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If you find a meta admin who thinks this is a legitimate use of meta, we can undelete the pages again for them. It doesn't sound legit to me. --Pi zero (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Well of course you don't think so, but you're not uninvolved.

I found the correct place to make the request and made it just now. It will be a lot easier for the Meta guys to see if the request is legit if they can actually see the drafts when they click on the link instead of having to go through some kind of cross-Wiki administrative request. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

There's no "of course" about it; this is separate. The fact that you're treating it as part of the earlier incident, but omitting mention of that reason for your complicated request at meta, suggests to me you're gaming the system. From your remarks over there it sounds as if you've already got the information. So I figure on re-deleting the pages before I turn in tonight (which could be any minute now, or possibly not for as much as a half hour from now). --Pi zero (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Separate from what? What earlier incident?

What information? Pi zero, I cannot import the file because, on Meta, you need import permissions, which I don't have. I have to ask an admin to do it for me. Leave them access to the information they need to make whatever decision you think they need to make. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If your purpose is the development of a more general behavioral guideline, you don't need import. --Pi zero (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

You'll understand why I don't consider you unbiased about that. Besides, you made it clear you don't want to participate in developing them, so it's not something with which you need to concern yourself. Give the guys at Meta some time to take a look and make up their minds. I do not have them at my beck and call. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

My concern is to protect other projects from your seeming desire to export disputes to them from here. --Pi zero (talk) 06:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Pi zero, you accused me of something I didn't do in a formal context.

Maybe you meant it dramatically, but that doesn't mean no one would ever take it literally.

That's what happened on Wikipedia. Someone got dramatic, made up some exaggerations, mixed them with out-and-out lies and the admins were too busy or too tired to actually look at what I actually wrote. If someone calls me a troll or heaven forbid tries to file a complaint at some point in the future, I want to be able to point to the essay and say "See? That is trolling?" even if no one looks at it, just like I was able to point to the thank-you-for-helping-me-when-those-OTHER-guys-harassed me post from that new guy and say "See? The so-called victim doesn't think I harassed him," even though no one looked at it. At least I can look at it so I don't go crazy and think I really did go back in time and murder President Kennedy or whatever. Think of it this way: Someone else established that I have to do some proactive defense before you got here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

How about we export the essay to .xml file which can be imported to another wiki as it includes the content as well as the history; email it to Darkfrog24; and then remove the pages from this wiki? Gryllida (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Because I need a Meta sysop to import them for me, and it would simplify the process if they can see what they'd be importing without a fuss. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Seeing that the essays were deleted today, I'll leave the decision about this export to Pi zero.

You can also self-host a wiki on your home laptop (using dynamic dns) and import it there. Installing MediaWiki on a debian system takes about two minutes. Gryllida (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Climbers article

.....looked interesting. Any way it could be freshened up a wee bit??--Bddpaux (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

And here I thought this was going to be a dull day. I'll see if there are any new developments. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The most recent stuff I see on a two-minute web search is from March 9, I'm afraid. This one may have gotten past us.

Ordinarily I'd suggest interviewing someone by email, but this is a death-in-the-family situation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for writing about discoveries, Darkfrog24

Image by Arturo de Frias Marques.

Thank you for writing about the discovery of species and the weather, Darkfrog24. They are really interesting events. The manner in which mass media writes about them is shallow and vague, and you taking them to Wikinews makes for a clear report.

I am also grateful for your understanding, and for your asking of valid questions, in various discussions. I am hopeful personal essays become a useful note-taking technique for you, to complement the existing documentation without editing the existing documentation directly, and without necessarily requiring any approval or vetting procedure.

Cheers, --Gryllida (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Gryllida.

I can see my essays going to community status once they're finished, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll take that long discussion, if you move it to a separate section and confirm that yes, you would like to have a long discussion. :-)

I don't think such a counter-argument diminishes my gratitude to you for the things that you have done, or their potential. Gryllida (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Nah, I just don't want it to look like I'm agreeing with you and then have someone accuse me of being inconsistent later on. People treat inconsistency like it's a war crime. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Evidence regarding present tense

Nice, Pi zero said earlier " ... "are looking into" is inaccurate because it claims something we don't, and can't, know ... " Does w:Present_continuous#Common_uses pass as evidence for it. This verb form is used "To describe something which is happening at the exact moment of speech". Pi zero was objecting to reporting that the investigation is happening at the exact moment (of publication) because this fact is unconfirmed. Gryllida (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No it does not pass as evidence for it.

Pi zero can be a very logical person and sometimes acts as though the English language were more logical than it really is under actual use.

News articles are a snapshot in time. In English, it is understood that the present tense refers to an event ongoing at the time of reporting, not at the time of reading. Here's a source: [26] City University of New York.

If you find this expert credible, we could email her with this specific question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes at the time of reporting not reading,

Say we report on Thursday "police are investigating" means we need a source that says that the investigation is ongoing as of Thursday? Is there a source for that? Gryllida (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The way we work, I'd say using the present tense from sources printed Wednesday is still okay, so long as there is no reason to expect that the investigation has since stopped. Again, if you want to consult the expert, I'm game. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

We are not reporting expectations only verifiable facts? Gryllida (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is how we report verifiable facts in English.

You don't have to take my word for it. What kind of source or expert, on-Wiki or off, do you find credible and impressive? Let's not waste anyone's time showing you something you won't care about.Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

To provide you with the source I need to know what is the problem here. I do not fully follow it. To simplify it here is a series:

1. We agree that we only report verifiable facts.
2. We agree that present tense relates to what is ongoing at the time of speech.
3. We agree that publishing 'police is investigating' today would mean the fact 'police has an ongoing investigation at the moment of publication'.
4. We agree that publishing such a phrase would require that the reviewer somehow verifies the fact. Typically the sources are from a day or two ago, or several hours ago.
5. We agree that the reviewer usually does not have access to such a current source that would allow the reviewer to verify the fact.
6. We agree therefore that the fact 'police has an ongoing investigation at the moment of publication' is not possible to verify.
7. We agree therefore that the phrase 'police is investigating' can not be published in an article at Wikinews.

Please let me know which part of this list you disagree with. It would make it a lot easier to find the best source for it. Gryllida (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I meant I would find you a source. Just tell me what kind you respect. I was offering to do the work.

Okay. We do not agree that "police are investigating" is impossible to verify to a reasonable standard given Wikinews' lag. If you read enough source articles (which you are already doing if you review Wikinews articles) then this will eventually click for you.

Maybe it is time to let this rest. Let everything everyone has said settle in your head, read some source articles without the pressure of a WN conversation and see how you feel after all the emotions have cooled down. -Darkfrog

I think you wish to make an assumption that, if a source said "police are investigating" two days ago, then they are still investigating. I am not comfortable with this assumption. It is not only because two days is long and they may have finished the investigation; it is simply a matter of principle of not making any assumptions.

If they said it two minutes before I click "publish" I would not be comfortable with this, either. I would wish to write, in some kind of English that is deemed acceptable, that "they were investigating as of two minutes ago, and we do not know whether or not they are investigating now". --Gryllida (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not an assumption. It's how the English language works. Read enough of our sources, which I figure you're already in the habit of doing, and this will click for you. No need to rush it. It'll happen on its own.

Bddpaux complained about the two of us having a perfectly civil, reasonably productive discussion over on the mosque article, so it looks like perfectly civil discussions aren't allowed on Wikinews. We'd better stop. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

What I mean is that reporting 'they are investigating' requires making an assumption that during the 2 minutes or 2 days or whatever else the lag is, the investigation did not stop. This is in reply to your last comment here, and has nothing to do with the English language. Gryllida (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You have made it clear that you think it involves making that assumption. Have I made it clear that I think it does not?

If you don't want to wait for this to click for you in time, the only other thing to say would be for you to tell me what kind of source you would find credible. You clearly don't intend to just take my word for it, and I can respect that I may have to run down a resource or two, but I've heard you out too and I'm not convinced. Time to accept it and move on before a third party complains again. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Re your remark above about "how the English language works". You're pointing at things done in msm and saying "see, they do that, and they get paid for what they're doing, so it must be okay". Which doesn't at all follow, btw; it's ordinary for some poor practice to become ubiquitous in a profession. In this case, it's not about how the English language works, but rather about precise, or imprecise, use of whatever language one uses. Here on en.wn we're very precise in our use of language, and tend to deplore the sloppiness that creeps into msm. It's one of the several areas in which we expect to do better than most of our msm sources. --Pi zero (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

We've been through this already, Pi zero. Accept that I do not agree with you and move on. I've shown my sources and explained my position, and you still have the right to prefer your own opinion to mine. Respect my right to prefer mine to yours.

To outward appearances, you didn't care about this until very recently, approving articles by myself and by other drafters that used present tense in a professional way. Changing your mind isn't a war crime, but you should say "Hey, I changed my mind."

Let me see if we can move on fruitfully. I request your opinion. Scenario: On the talk page, someone proposes a change, in tense, in content. The drafter obeys as you seem to want me to obey. After publication, it becomes clear that the readers were misled, and we have to do a retraction. To your mind, whose fault is it? Suggester or implementor? -Darkfrog24

You're assuming your opinion carries as much weight as @Pi zero:'s. It doesn't. You don't have to agree with anyone to follow the style guide: you just have to accept that you are being asked to do something you disagree with, and find a way to do it. Ca2james (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

My opinion actually carries more weight than Pi zero's to me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Emphasis on find a way. If there's a problem that needs fixing, how you fix it is up to you. Suppose the existing phrasing isn't SG-compliant because it uses present tense. You consider what would happen if you simply changed the present tense to past tense, and conclude that it would be saying the wrong thing (or that it would be misunderstood, or whatever); well then, that isn't the way you should be fixing it. You should be finding a different way to fix it, that works for you and is SG-compliant. Finding a third way that doesn't have either of two problems is a basic technique for moving things along rapidly and smoothly on Wikinews (or, for that matter, on Wikipedia or most any sister project). --Pi zero (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is not SG-compliant.

You didn't believe it was not SG-compliant until this month.

If you want to keep things moving rapidly and smoothly on Wikinews, then accept that I disagree with you and move on. Per WN:WRITE, among other policies and guidelines, I don't have to make changes to articles if I don't want to. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• For the point about a third way —which is a matter of collaboration versus obstructionism, and not specific to Wikinews or even to wikis (it's more of a life lesson)— it doesn't even matter whether it's compliant with the style guide. A version isn't okay with user A, another version isn't okay with user B; so when A says the existing version isn't okay, and B changes it, as a matter of common sense B doesn't chance it to a version B isn't okay with. The goal is to find something both are okay with.
• You are creating a long-term-unsupportable burden on reviewers. Nobody's forcing you to write articles in a way that creates that burden; the English language isn't forcing you to; and I don't think you're unable to wield the English language effectively. There are only two ways to "move on": either you contribute without doing that, or you don't contribute. We would greatly prefer the first of those two possibilities, which is why we engage you in dialogue about the matter; but we need one or the other.

--Pi zero (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I promised not to revert anyone even if they did something that I think is wrong, so we're good. No obstructionism.

It wasn't an unsupportable burden on reviewers last month. You have had zero problem with drafts like the ones I write at any point in your time on Wikinews.

I cultivate good writing habits for my job. Even if I were willing to produce content with improper English for Wikinews (or anywhere), I am not willing to risk accidentally doing it at work. Please respect this boundary. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has told you to use improper English; that's —sorry to be blunt— just silly. You've been making two different kids of statements about this that aren't accurate, and since I've got an instinct to point out inaccuracies I tend to mention both and there's then confusion between the two. You've been saying that people are requiring you to use a certain kind of English, which is false; as I've pointed out repeatedly, you're being told certain things should not be done, and what you do instead is up to you. That's the point that really matters. Quite independent of that, you've been saying that certain constructions (which nobody is requiring you to use) are improper English, when —supposing we are talking about the same thing— they are not. The second point, however, doesn't matter nearly as much exactly because nobody's requiring you to use that particular construction; the concern is to avoid gratuitously switching around between tenses, not to use a specific construction to accomplish that end. --Pi zero (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

You and I have a difference of opinion on this matter.

I will continue my pattern of never edit warring and respecting other parties' right to edit and change my work as part of our established collaboration process.

I would like to stop talking about this—for now. People have complained about our talks. We're not getting anywhere, and this issue is too tied in with the creepy power dynamic stuff. I feel like you're trying to get me to say "uncle," and over a matter that no one cared about until very recently. Best to let it sit for a while and come back to it with clear eyes later. Let all of that dissipate. Until then, I plan to, as Bddp put it, "just report the news." If you want to change the tenses, go ahead. I promise no edit warring over this (or anything, as usual). Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────┘
We can not delay, and the present situation is not a complete solution. To resolve this, in addition to not reverting, I suggest against submitting an article with the present tenses in it for review. Especially for things which are not eternal; "police are investigating" is not, while "Paris is a capital of France" is. Gryllida (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I decline your recommendation. This isn't really about the present tense. If it hadn't been that, it would be something else. I'm not a servant or employee.

Time to ask: Would you, Gryllida, rather have no draft at all? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer the draft existed in {{develop}} state until and unless it is ready. Gryllida (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

That's what I do already. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Happy Easter, Darkfrog24

Hi Darkfrog24

Happy holidays this Easter (19th to 22th is a long weekend in the UK). I hope you have some great and sweet time with your wonderful friends and family.

Here is a cake for you:

See you around,

--Gryllida (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Aw, thanks G! Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Troll feeding

Regarding that side discussion on the neurosurgery article talk page: please don't feed the troll. --Pi zero (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You think Ssr is a troll? The guy's user history goes back to 2007 and he or she has composed articles for Wikinews. They swear less than that anon and they do more work around here than Ca2James, so I think Ssr should get at least as much patience as the less-deserving of those two. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course they're a troll. I remember when they left, and I see the content of what they say. --Pi zero (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Troll" is someone who doesn't mean what they say and is only trying to start a fight. But Ssr's posts could be sincere frustration with our deletion rate, low readership and arguable redundancy with Wikipedia, all of which seems plausible. Also, consider that the post is about Wikinews in general and not any one person.

Speaking of stuff directed at one person, over the years, I've told you to stop encouraging this person and asked you for support against someone who was literally cursing at me. Remember why you said no. I'll keep an eye on Ssr in case they do something trollish but no I won't promise not to talk to them.

If Ssr declines to talk about solutions, then perhaps he or she should be invited to blow off that steam somewhere else, but just pointing out a problem isn't trolling. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, like this guy. That's a troll. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You're misjudging Ssr's motives. --Pi zero (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Could be. I don't know the guy that well. I'm judging based on what I see. If the guy starts cussing at you or making trouble, I'll be all for taking action, but I've seen people say way worse things here on Wikinews. Let's not make a bigger deal wondering about what Ssr might do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You care way too much about cussing. I'm interested in content. --Pi zero (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The reason I focus so much on cursing is that it isn't subjective. Is "$#@%" a curse word? Yes it is/no it's not. No quibbling. Someone can write something just as bad without using curse words. But Ssr didn't. Like I said, if he starts making trouble, I'll support asking him to take it somewhere else, but he hasn't started making trouble. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course curse words are subjective. Just ask whether "bullshit", in the Frankfurtian sense, is a curse word. And yes Ssr is making trouble. --Pi zero (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

What trouble? Is something happening off the talk page somewhere? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ssr opposes fact check prior to publishing. I do not think there is anything constructive to say to them, that they do not know. Gryllida (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Well he didn't say anything anti-fact-checking when I was around.

Right now, this conversation is longer than the exchange between Ssr and me. If he really is as rotten as you say then I'll see it for myself soon enough, and if he doesn't act rotten, then it's all of our gain. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It is my understanding that he favours quick publishing over completing the fact check correctly, particularly in the cases when fact check takes over two weeks. Perhaps it is not obvious from his words, but here you have my understanding. Gryllida (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's what we shouldn't bring up in front of Ssr, then. If Ssr thinks anyone is saying, "Hey, do you still hold that WRONG and STUPID position that we should publish quickly and not do our wonderful, PERFECT review?" S will be tempted to go, "That's not wrong or stupid and review's not perfect!! YES I DO!!" If we're worried he's here to start a fight, no need to start it ourselves. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I've already brought this point up in their sight, twice: here and also at their talk page. In both places, I would openly admit that 1) our reviewing practices are not perfect, 2) work is in progress to improve them, and 3) while people suggesting to abolish peer review altogether is not uncommon it should be done elsewhere. Gryllida (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Inviting S to be part of the solution. I like it. That's pretty much what I did on the Neuroscience article talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that their personal talk page can be a more appropriate venue, as 1) the discussion topic is not related to that particular article, and 2) their tone is a bit toxic and discouraging suggesting that it is better to bring it up in a place that is less likely to be read by others (articles talk pages are read more often than contributors' personal talk pages).

In either case as this contributor has started out in a toxic way, they might fail to have a constructive response, and a sysop may have to terminate the discussion (in either venue) with a request to not continue unless a constructive solution is found. I hope you are able to cooperate with such a request in the case it is required. Gryllida (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Please don't make this about whether I'm going to obey like a good little doggie. That bothers me a lot. Makes me feel the need to prove you wrong. Just don't go there. The power dynamic here is weird enough. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
I am asking for your cooperation in the case a sysop considers that further continuation of a discussion with ssr is unproductive. This is a common shared goal of improving this site, that leads to all involved parties winning in the case it is successful.

This is in contrast to little dogs being asked to obey, of which they receive no gain. Gryllida (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

After having sent this I now think that there is nothing wrong in little dogs obeying what they are told. They receive gain in the form of less stick punishments, more food rewards, and more time spent doing enjoyable things with their owner in the case they spend less time training.

Obeying is something children do in a family and it usually is a healthy commitment of children to the relationship. The same occurs in the relationship of a teacher with a student and is also a healthy feature; on the contrary, children and students who do not obey can be a problem.

This does not exclude the possibility of the children, or students, raising their concerns about rules in case they want to improve them. I've seen many cases in which a student or a child communicated with their supervisor and came to mutual agreement about a new modified set of rules to obey. Gryllida (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

And I'm saying "don't ask." When you put on airs and tell me what to do as you so often to, I have to either obey you and let you think I'm your servant or make a point of not obeying you so that you don't. Do not put me in that position. Talk to Ssr if you want to. Don't if you don't. Leave me out of your plans.

EDIT CONFLICT: THAT IS THE PROBLEM. We don't have an obedience relationship. I'm not your dog, your kid, your student or your employee, but you keep acting as if I were. On several subjects, such as English writing, I find I know more than you do. I'd give you lessons, adult-to-adult if you wanted. You could go find some actual children or dogs and cultivate their obedience, but do not expect me to play pretend.

Leave me out of your plans for Ssr. If I see a conversation and want to participate, I will, like I did with De W's unblock request. Right now, I don't think S did or said anything wrong on the article talk, and I think you aren't doing such a bad thing by asking him if he has any ideas for how to improve Wikinews, but do not ask me to commit to any plans. I don't make promises when I do not know what they will entail. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Comparing obedience with that of a little doggie implies lack of trust to its owner with the judgments that they are making. Is that so? Gryllida (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I usually enjoy theoretical discussions, but other people have complained about them here on Wikinews. Before this goes any further, what do you want to accomplish with this conversation? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm exploring your perception of obeying as a humiliating kind of interaction. I want to learn more from you about this angle. Gryllida (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

To address the complaints (if you care), there is live chat, for which I personally recommend Quassel IRC. The downside is lack of transparency, as only a dozen or two people at most will be able to read our discussions. The upside is that it is in real time, and information can be shared quickly. Gryllida (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel like doing that right now. Perhaps some other time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
Does that apply to live chat only, or to the exploration of the obedience as well? Gryllida (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Both, yes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This may involve your continued exposure to requests which may leave both sides unhappy (the requester unhappy with your lack of obedience, and you unhappy with being asked in the first place). Are you sure you want this to continue to occur, as an alternative to a peaceful discussion in which I try to identify the core of this disagreement without adding any restrictions? Gryllida (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Simple: Stop making such requests. There is no need for you to do so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

As a direct consequence of our functions as admins and reviewers, we routinely make requests ranging from mild suggestions and advice, through strong suggestions and advice, all the way up to requirements. None of which are this mindless-obedience thing you've repeatedly described. All evidence suggests you don't grok any form of obedience other than the mindless/abject sort, creating a serious handicap for you and major problems for others here as well. (This evidently isn't the only significant difficulty you've having here that's causing problems; but it's one of them.) --Pi zero (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

And yet you get so irritated when I refer to reviewers as my equals. Pi zero, when you want to know what I do and don't grok, ask me to tell you what I'm thinking. I've had my eyes open and it has become clear that the "treat reviewers like teachers/sources" model is inappropriate because the reviewers are, among other problems, not sufficiently consistent with written policy, each other, or themselves over time. Not a war crime, but not usable either.

The review process appears to be the only time that obedience or hierarchy of any kind is endorsed by written Wikinews policy, and then it does so in limited fashion—Gryllida's authority is over articles, not people. Right here, however, Gryllida is telling me, "Do you promise to support action against Ssr, a person whom you've seen do nothing wrong, even if it should happen that Ssr is right and the sysop is wrong?" and I'm saying "Don't put me in that position. Leave me out of it."

If Ssr really is so rotten, S will do something rotten where I can see sooner or later, but considering I've seen you cry troll about people who merely did not agree with you, it stands to reason that that may be all Ssr did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no "and yet" involved. I was addressing a single difficulty, one that had just been mentioned and whose resolution, if achieved, could lead to improvements even if other difficulties remained unresolved. Specifically, you evidently do not function effectively in the sorts of asymmetric collaboration involved. The collaborative difficulty might (potentially) be addressed even if other difficulties remain in place, and some of those other difficulties (such as the "and yet" you mention) might be more intractable as long as the collaboration difficulty remains.

I lack confidence in your estimation that I've 'cried troll about people who merely did not agree with me'. --Pi zero (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Me. You said it about me. You called my essays trolling, and they're not. I know because I was with me when I wrote them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

If we continue like this, you don't trust anything I say. Gryllida (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(1) Gryllida (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Basically you are saying "When you have a suggestion that I take a different course of action, such as stop talking with ssr after I started it, or start adding information to a draft that I did not plan to add previously, I do not want you to make these requests. I want to stay isolated, continue to do what I am doing, and do not need any such advice." In my opinion this alienates you from others. I am proposing that you utilize the energy of others to your own benefit: I think this can lead to you learning new things that you did not know before, as well as accomplishing goals that you would be unable to accomplish previously.

• For instance, when they ask some work to be done and it seems too massive, you show appreciation and invite them to do a part of the task.
• For instance, when they ask you to stop doing something, you show appreciation and invite them to address problems which seem to be unresolved, which you originally wanted to address by continuing your original activity.

I am seeing both of these kind of interactions good for you, as well as for others. Of course, for these wonderful things to occur, you should show that you believe that my completion of a part of a task would be appreciated by you and you believe my output would be accurate and useful, and that you believe that my suggestion to stop a particular activity is worthwhile and you are willing to address the original problem together in a more efficient way. Gryllida (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Currently I see no indication of your belief that output of my work is valuable. Same with Pi zero's reviews of your articles. If they are unappreciated or unwanted, they can stop. Gryllida (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The review isn't for me. It's for the reader. It doesn't matter if I appreciate it or not.

This is an amateur website, and although Pi zero once guessed (correctly) that I have professional experience, we are all acting in amateur capacity. In that way, we are all equals. Asymmetrical collaboration doesn't work because no one is better than anyone else.

Gryllida, let's flip this around: Look here. You can probably tell I've been in science news for a long time, long before I came to Wikinews. I know a lot about it that you don't. By cramming yourself into a position of artificial superiority, by putting on airs with "no no no reviewers are teachers and drafters are students," you lose the chance to improve because you have put yourself in a frame of mind where the lowly drafters are being bad if they correct you. If you think of all of us here as colleagues, then you're ready to see what everyone has to offer.

To bring this back to the original issue, I think you and I have very different ideas of conflict resolution. But in this case, you and I both did the same thing: ask Ssr if S knew of any solutions to the problems raised.

I'll state what I want from this conversation: For it to end. Any final words before we let all this cook in our heads for a while? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

In any social group, everyone is better than you, otherwise you have no value from participating in the group. Gryllida (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not think I have ever heard that particular idea before. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

To be more precise, everyone is better than you at something. (To my knowledge, suggesting that people completely avoid directing you in your work implies they are worse than you at everything; a position that is doomed to fail, unless a person is working in absence of others.) Gryllida (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

But learning is not the primary goal of Wikinews. Writing the news for our readers is. That some of our drafters and reviewers may learn a few things occasionally is a side benefit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Does each act of accepting a learning opportunity --ideally every time one is offered-- lead to more effective news writing? Gryllida (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Around here? No. As I said, usually, the only thing one can learn is what that reviewer happens to want in that moment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Is the seeming inconsistency of reviewer feedback a result of your perception? It seems introducing you to a concept in written discussion repeatedly and consistently results in your annoyance rather than your noting it down somewhere. I don't think this annoyance should occur. Gryllida (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not my imagination or perception. Remember, I can go back and look at previous articles. You've seen me do it. I'm not working from memory.

Also, about reviewers saying things more than once and my finding it annoying. Consider this: Reviewer Robby says "You spelled that word wrong. It's 'greh,' not 'gray'!" and I say "Nope, it really is 'gray.' The other option is 'grey.' Here's a dictionary." Then Reviewer Robby tells me two weeks later, "STOP SPELLING 'GREH' WRONG!" Of course I'm going to be annoyed. So if you told me something more than once, maybe you just didn't convince me that you were right. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes I think it is a problem of not convincing. Not a problem of reviewers being whimsical or wanting one thing today and another tomorrow. So since you read the same thing from reviewers multiple times you can put effort into reaching agreement, it is a process that both sides need to work on not only reviewers themselves. Gryllida (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That's only the case in situations where there isn't a clear right/wrong, like when it's only a matter of opinion on both sides. If I have a dictionary that says "gray"/"grey" (and lots of source articles and previous Wikinews articles that spell the color that way) and Reviewer Robby doesn't, then no it is not on both sides. I do not have to come to agreement with Reviewer Robby. Reviewer Robby needs to educate himself. If Reviewer Rachel and Reviewer Richard also say "No! It's 'greh'!! Spell it the way Master Robby told you to, or else we'll punish you! Now apologize to Master Robby for lecturing him." then all three of them need to educate themselves. Or they are playing a creepy game in which I have not agreed to participate.

Key issue: Sources. Dictionaries. Wikinews articles. Professional articles. You'll notice I'm not asking Reviewer Robby to take my word for it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't informing him to the point of reaching agreement make news writing more efficient? --Gryllida (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this conversation has turned productive. You have asked a good question.

The issue is that I can't make Robby agree with me. Robby should look at the dictionary and say to himself, "It really isn't 'greh' after all! Even if I never admit that I was wrong, I will also never tell drafters to spell it 'greh' ever again. I'll drop the matter" but usually Robby goes "Dictionaries don't count!" and if you show him a previous Wikinews article/written policy/etc. instead he'll go, "Those don't count either!"

My options are then either 1) obey like a dog/slave/servant/Waylon Smithers/etc., lie and tell Robby I agree with him and do a disservice to the reader and embarrass Wikinews by putting 'greh' and Robby's other mistakes in the article, 2) waste my time and patience by coddling Robby like a nursemaid, taking away "gray" and writing a bulky, unnecessary "color between light black and dark white" workaround just because Robby, or 3) show Robby the source once or twice but then accept that he disagrees with me and say "I will not spell it 'greh.' I will explain why not again if you want" and then drop the matter. Assertive but not aggressive.

Now if you can think of a 4) that'd be great, but it has to be something I can do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I find options (1)-(3) unacceptable with (3) being the worst. Option (4) can be continuing to inform Robby until agreement is reached. Gryllida (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

So in your eyes, I should 4) tell Robby over and over that he is wrong, linking to the dictionary/Wikinews policy every time until he is finally worn down and caves in? That does not happen.

What happens is that Robby will run to the disciplinary system and say "Darkfrog24 is harassing me! Darkfrog24 always tells me I'm wrong even though I'm a reviewer, and that means I'm always right! Darkfrog24 is being disruptive by not agreeing with me! Darkfrog24 is disrespecting me by thinking a dictionary knows spelling better than I do!" Here on Wikinews I have been blamed for "disruption" when I showed evidence. You were there. You saw. On Wikipedia, I even had someone claim I was lying, that I'd made up the information in the sources I showed and I really did get punished even though I had those sources right there to show.

So I will stick to 3). Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You really dislike this Robby, don't you? "Telling over and over that he is wrong" is REALLY not handy. Could you just ask him, "what dictionaries do you use?" and look up the word there and show the results to him. Gryllida (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer Robby is a useful fiction. But the things he does are real.

I tried that and it doesn't work. You may remember my asking "Do you guys have any sources that back up your position?" in previous disputes. You remember what happened next, don't you? It was either some version of "I don't need a source" or "you just don't understand." I think I understand just fine. Asking for sources only works when the other person can say "Yes, I have a source; here it is!" but that almost never happens. Again, your form of conflict resolution requires me to depend on the other person acting in a certain way. I can't make them go find a source that might not even exist.

May I suggest a 12-hour break so that this conversation does not flood the "recent changes" link? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you really dislike the fictional Robby? The fictional response that you have provided to him was really anything but handy. Two things.

1) I think that when a person does not trust a dictionary and you ask them which dictionaries they trust, "I don't need a source" is invalid. It is their own fault that they refused to accept your source; the burden of sharing what sources they find acceptable is on them. If they do say 'I don't need a source', just ask them, "Do you really not trust any dictionaries? I don't think this is the case, and indeed it would also make it very difficult to come to agreement about spelling. Please tell me how to choose a dictionary that we could both use."

2) "You just don't understand" is in my opinion easy to act on: just say "I really want to understand. I will do my best. Please explain it to me." Gryllida (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I will sit here for 12 hours, until 12:27 26 April UTC, and not add any new messages until then. Gryllida (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I realize I did just ask Pi zero to ask me what I was thinking if he wanted me to know, so I'd be a big patootie if I rebuffed you for doing exactly that. But we should slow down so that we don't clog the RC for other Wikinewsies. On a larger Wikiproject it wouldn't matter but it does here. I composed this reply last night and waited to post it.

In the past few years, studies have shown that offering people evidence that contradicts their opinions just makes them dig in harder: Science information [ New Yorker] The Atlantic article says "The people who dismiss your claims, or even those who just ask how you know, are not people you can count on to automatically side with you no matter what," and that is what is happening here, I think. I make it very clear that no I won't side with people based on identity, but that's what's wanted. EDIT: The more I read this Atlantic article, the more useful I find it. I recommend it highly.

Fictional Reviewer Robby allows me to describe the kinds of things that reviewers do around here without targeting any one person. If I say "the time Acagastya did this" or "the time you did that" or "when Pi zero said the other thing" it would be more confrontational than necessary. Robby is a useful fiction.

Yes, I agree that "I don't need a source" is invalid. But it has happened, both on Wikipedia and here on Wikinews, and the parties have told me why they do not trust dictionaries/other sources. I have asked Pi zero to write down his underlying principles many times. He has said he does not know how to put them to words. I have come to believe that they do not exist.

So I guess what I'm saying is that your ideas aren't bad, but I tried them many times and they did not work. The more I think about and experience this type of conflict, the more I think the best thing to do is expose people to the resources they need to educate themselves and then let them do it at their own pace. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
While you say "I tried them many times and they did not work", now I have suggested you new ways how to respond to "I do not need a source" and "You do not understand". To the latter, "please write your underlying principles" does not work; "I will try to understand. I will do my best. Please explain it to me." could possibly work better. Would you like to give it a try?

Yes, Robby is useful fiction. I am glad that we have him here. Gryllida (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I have already tried something similar to that already, though a little less servile in tone. It was more like, "Take your time. Whenever you feel like writing it down, I'll read it. No hurry." I don't think it's a dumb idea; that's why I tried it, but it does not work. I think we must simply accept that we have differing views and work around them.

Did you get a chance to read the Atlantic article? I already knew a little bit about the issue, but it was a real eye-opener all the same. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there anything servile in emphasising your commitment to trying to understand, and your clear wish that they please explain it to you? In my opinion these two points are key, and a clear signal of your dignity, whereas your response nearly misses them. Gryllida (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is.

Part of the problem is reviewers putting on airs. Claiming to know better or to be better than other contributors here, whether they really do or not. If we all treated each other as colleagues most of the time it would not matter if I said something a little submissive once in the while; it would be interpreted, correctly, as excess politeness. But there is this game of pretend going on, and I do not want people to think I have consented to play.

Did you get a chance to look at the Atlantic article? I cannot recommend it highly enough. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for collaboration. Your help was very timely. If it were not for your support, I would not have completed my work. Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I love barnstars! Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

do it yourself

Hi Darkfrog24

I'm quite offended at "I mean it looks like Gryllida made this suggestion just because G feels like suggesting something, feels like getting involved and having a hand in and having the article reflect his/her own voice and vision. I'm fine with that, so long as G does it him/herself, and I'm trying to be polite about it." at Talk:Newly discovered theropod shows another avenue to flight, say scientists. It is disappointing when others not only forget that my suggestions are not out of my personal pride or authority but for the benefit of the readers whom I want to make more informed, but also when others expect that questions which I ask are well within my competence to address in the story myself. While this can be the case for many stories, clearly this is not the case here. I appreciate you asking me to confirm this, which I did.

--Gryllida (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry to offend you, then, but I'm surprised to hear you say that's not why you made the suggestion. It really does look like that's what's going on.

If you believe a given change is to the benefit of the readers, then why not just make it? Why go on the talk page and ask me to do it? If you're uncertain, why not make the change yourself and then start a talk page thread? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

argument

Hi Darkfrog24

When you want to persuade someone about that point -- 'paper says' -- why not start with asking the other person what do they think of the concept and of your source? Do you really need to start your response with "you are wrong"? I think this is something people learn at a very young age before they commence school. It is a more important and fundamental concept than names of dinos and the eras. Is this not so?

I'm just asking, because not only lack of your usage of this principle is decreasing the efficiency of interactions with peers and reviewers, but also explaining this to you is a laborious task. I don't think many people undertake it. I just wanted to quickly check whether you are aware of the procedure.

I am hoping that your answer is not "But asking them for an opinion about my concept is me being a slave. I do not want to do that.". If this is the case, just write 'Yes, it is.' and do not put effort into spelling it out; then I will attempt finding supporting documentation.

Thanks and regards, --Gryllida (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you talking about the "you happen to be mistaken" that I said to Pi zero?

Pi zero has already told me what he thinks of the concept and of sources—he's not impressed with them. Why ask a question that he has already answered?

The goal of that post is not to persuade him. It's to just make an offer of a source quickly so he can say no and we can move on.

I don't expect Pi zero to be persuaded. Remember the Atlantic article I showed you about how offering people proof doesn't tend to change their minds? I don't know what to do other than offer proof, so that's what I'll do until I think of something else.

If you mean there is some persuasion technique that you know about that would be appropriate here on Wikinews, please do toss me a link to an article about it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Gryllida/Persuasion maybe for a good start, if you are interested in persuading and not just spending time. Gryllida (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Persuasion or everyone just accepting that we disagree with each other and moving on.

When people expect me to believe that I'm wrong/stupid/etc. with no proof, I feel a disrespected. Showing me proof would be easy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Wait a second, "Persuasion" was the link! I checked out your essay and I like it. I think on this particular issue, Pi zero and I are both dug in. There's emotional baggage attached, but it's got some good stuff for preventing new conflicts from becoming entrenched. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Technical note -- Links are colored in blue here. Sometimes people also mark them in bold.

I'm glad you like it. Thanks for sharing that. Gryllida (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

How you read news

I would like to read news every day, and am looking for help. How do you read your news? What software do you use? (I use mPages RSS client for Firefox, but I would be happy to learn what you use.) --Gryllida (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I use Firefox too, G. I like the Guardian and subscribe to the New York Times, but I got ideas for some good Wikinews reports bu listening to NPR in the car. -Darkfrog

Fram incident on English Wikipedia

Hi Darkfrog24/Archive 1,

I have not been around here for a long time. I gave up trying to contribute, but was thinking of you recently when I stumbled on this wiki-controversy and saw it was being covered by slate, buzzfeed and breitbart, and particularly by The Signpost which has devoted to it several articles (one of which has been deleted) in the last two issues. Freshness should not be an issue with statements continuing to be made by Jimbo, WMF, Arbcom, you name it.

I personally believe that more mainstream news sources would cover this story if they could figure out what was going on. Wikipedia has become too much of an old boys network with a secret language that few can follow. It is open and transparent only to insiders.

I also believe that Wikipedia has arrived at the fork in the road. How they resolve this may mean life or death to this movement.

So how about it? Up to the challenge? Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean you want someone to draft an article about the Fram business? Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Not sure what you mean by draft an article - is this wiki-news terminology? What I was hoping for is a wiki-news story explaining this incident which is very confusing, not only to people who do not understand wikipedianese, but also to most people who are totally immersed in it. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Re drafting an article, see the first pillar at Wikinews:Pillars of writing.

Also to keep in mind, Wikinews:Newsworthiness#The Wikimedia exception. (No, I'm not saying we couldn't cover it.)

I've been thinking myself this is a crucial moment. It's also a really intense exercise in Wikinews:Neutrality. --Pi zero (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by @Pi zero. I don't have the time at the moment to read the information you linked to, and am glad to see that you are not completely ruling out a wikinews story. A well-written and vetted story about this incident, even though a challenge as you say, can be used as a source for articles on the topic at various wikipedias. The English wikipedia community has afded its copy because at the time there were not enough RSes but there are at least two other wikipedias that have allowed it, for now. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Ottawahitech, "drafting" means writing the article draft. But I'm afraid you haven't confirmed that it's the Fram business you mean. I'd love to see some links to the articles you mentioned. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes,do, I mean the Fram business. Links to Wikipedia articles can be located through Wikidata. Links to the individual articles at the signpost are on enwiki. Google does a great job of finding everything else, at least for me (not sure if it provides the same links to others). I would love to have the time to provide those links, but I am on an unreliable connection, on an unreliable device, and to top it all some software keeps changing what I type. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Nasty! Good luck, man. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Dupdet

I'm a bit concerned about how, well, anyone might use dupdet if set loose with it without... some sort of guidance or something; not sure what would be effective. We specifically and particularly do not want people to think in terms of only avoiding verbatim copying, as that might lead to copying with word-level subsitutitons here and there — synonyms, verb forms, and the like — which does not avoid accusations of plagiary. It's all more frustrating, from my perspective as a reviewer, because we want our reviewer edits to provide intensive feedback to reporters on what to do differently, but in the case of distance-from-source the best solutions involve extensive medium-to-large-scale rearrangements of text, which reviewers are not allowed to do as they'd then have to disqualify themselves. It's a puzzle, how most effectively to encourage best practices. Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Solution: ESSAY!!

If you want people on Wikinews to do things a certain way, write an essay advocating that way of acting. It might become a guideline or policy one day.

You and I have had our differences, Pi zero. We still have them, in fact, but you have seen me use and quote your essays with enthusiasm. An essay with examples is a wonderfully non-confrontational way to show a reporter what you want. Perhaps you and I could work on one together. I do have an anti-plagiarism scpiel that I wrote for some students that might do to start. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Okay, I've got the skeleton of an essay up. Let 'er rip! Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

[Decanting some thoughts on this subject. Keeping in mind, time for writing essays comes out of development time for dialog and dialog-based tools which, in turn, comes out of time for review...]

Though I do like a good essay —they have their place— I feel it's not always the most effective way to deliver how-to knowledge. Depending on the circumstances and the recipient. I'd actually been thinking about other means. However, yes, an essay could be useful. In this case, it's been discussed, and attempted at least twice that I know of, over many years. There was brianmc's attempt, at Wikinews:Plagiarism; as we're discussing composition of essays, there's also some interesting discussion on its talk page (noting, my own attitude toward his essay has matured since). He had in mind not so much a how-two guide as something to convey the importance of taking it seriously. And then there's my own effort: User:Pi zero/essays/How to use sources without plagiary. Over the years I've discussed that essay, mostly I think with BRS, but the discussion has probably largely been off-wiki, or scattered here and there so there'd be no way of recovering the concrete record. To explain where my thinking for it started: A remark I've sometimes heard from others, and thought a few times myself, is "but there isn't any other way of saying it!"; not envisioning what else to do seems to be an especially common, difficult, and frustrating experience for anyone trying to use sources without plagiarizing them, to which it's just adding insult to injury to then be told, when one goes looking for help, "write it in your own words" (or, "use your own words"). The question is, how do I do that? For which I found a startlingly illuminating experience was the first time I reviewed one of BRS's synthesis articles. Synthesis sentences often drew information from widely scattered points in the sources, and source sentences often contained facts that got distributed to widely scattered points in the synthesis, resulting in a whole that was remarkably straightforward to verify from the sources yet didn't remotely resemble any of the sources at any level from overall organization down through paragraph and sentence structure to lower-level wordings. I was reminded, actually, of the difference between listening to a Joplin rag and playing it, where from the inside one can see the structure of the thing in a way that just isn't visible (or, not to me anyway) from the outside. I wished there were a way to share this inside view with newcomers struggling to understand the scope of possibilities for "using your own words". I imagined presenting in parallel a synthesis text and two sources, with highlighting to show which parts correspond to each other, and letting the reader click on different parts of the text to select which parts they want to see correspondences for. Two major troubles with this idea were the lack of suitably interactive wiki pages, which resulted in my setting that essay aside in favor of spending a bunch of years developing interactivity, and the lack of two sources for use in such an illustration that could be hosted on the wiki without (ironically) copyright violation. I hit on the idea of using something from fiction old enough to be in the public domain, which is how I got started on the example that's under construction for the essay. --Pi zero (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hm, not terrible...

What I put in my essay about the tool was "Dupdet looks like it's a way to identify duplicate text so it can be rephrased. But you should use it to count stretches of duplicate text. If you've got more than two, overhaul the article." Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Two things that come to mine for me about dupdet: (1) the word-sequences it detects are often clues to much longer passages that differ from the source only by superficial word-level substitutions, so that a human has to study the dupdet output with an eye to similarities of context; and (2) when rephrasing is wanted, it's important to include structural rearrangements in what one does rather than applying mere word-level substitutions. The word-level-substitution-isn't-adequate theme I've found important to emphasize.

Notice the pattern, in these three essays (brianmc's, mine, yours)? The pattern I see is that everyone has a different idea of what should go into an essay on this subject. :p  It matters partly because it greatly retards exporting ideas from one such essay to another. There are some facets of your arrangement I quite like, but have no immediate clue how to integrate with my own essay.

I notice, btw, one of your examples involves saying that "Coolest Reliable News described Smith's actions as very brace", but that's not a good example because it's a subjective call by the news source and, therefore, we wouldn't report it except in those rare situations where the news source becomes part of the story. --Pi zero (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Iranian article

Sorry this article didn't make it. I am deleting it soon, if you want to paste some/all of it over into a sandbox page for later reference. Your call. --Bddpaux (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Which Iranian article? Thanks for the heads-up. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Can't remember the exact name, but it appears to be gone now. Just added the Aband template to your Brazilians article as well, if you want to do the same.--Bddpaux (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Eh, Wikinews is pretty much a "freshness be a harsh mistress" site. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Sao Paulo

works because it's not actually the cat, it's a mainspace redirect to the cat. --Pi zero (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it quickly became clear it was the tilde above the a in "Sao." A common issue with cats here on Wikinews. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

We do consider it an acceptable style choice to use the no-diacritics form in an article. Though I can understand wanting the usage in the article to match the category tag. (Myself, I no longer see the two as linked, after much cat-work.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Darkfrog24/Archive 1,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikinews and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Fish

Did I get the science bits correct in setting up this category? Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ditto for Category:Sharks --SVTCobra 07:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

They look okay to me. There's a bit of a kerfluffle in the taxonomy community about "fish," but the bottom line is that we're communicating with our readers, who are likely to define fish in the manner popularly understood. (Short version, a lungfish and ceaolocanth are both more closely related to humans than to tuna, but we still classify them all as fish. Here, enjoy some pictures.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra, Darkfrog24: If there's a kerfuffle, our readers — who are research-y enough to go to the category — should basically know that. This is getting heavy for the intro, so maybe shorten the intro and put some stuff in a usage note? --Pi zero (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the definition of "fish" currently given in the category's lede is good and will satisfy anyone who knows about the kerfluffle, though perhaps I misspoke in calling it such. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I reworked it a bit, retaining the same elements, but hopefully making it a bit more clear. As a side note, my impression was lungfish were long ago not considered like other fish and if there was any recent reclassification it involved hagfish. Anyway, that's just a layman's impression from the far, far sidelines. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The only rule about English that doesn't change over time is "write for your audience." If someone comes to Wikinews and wants to read about lungfish, will they expect them to be listed under "Fish"? I think that yes they will. If that changes ten years from now, we update the category, but I consider our audience well served with the layman's impression. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The question isn't whether lungfish get listed under Category:Fish. The question is whether someone who is researching in our archives ought to be made aware that there may be some instability over the meaning of the term. --Pi zero (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

So far, said instability is strictly about cladistics. Again, not something our readership is likely to care about. It might enter the popular consciousness eventually, but it isn't there now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Popular consciousness isn't the issue, nor is expert consciousness. Possible discrepancy between the two, though, is just the sort of thing one mentions in a usage note. (It looks as if it now reads somewhere along those lines, giving the researcher something of a heads-up. I'm kind of appalled by the absurd balooning of taxa in recent years; "superclasses within the subphylum", indeed. What ever happened to "King Philip Came Over For Good Soup"?) --Pi zero (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It was replaced with "Kermit and Piggy Cursed Our Filthy Gym Shorts." Honestly, though? Genomics. Back when cladistics was getting started, people barely knew about genetic associations. They did the best they could and classified animals based on observable traits. However, with fish, there's the fact that there are only so many ways to move through water efficiently. Even birds have a bunch of different body types that work reasonable well for different niches. With aquatic organisms it's tail-up-and-down, tail-side-to-side, or manta ray. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"okay, I hit review on this once last night and once this morning, and the request didn't go through TWICE"

As the maintainer of the software that implements that button, I need to know as much as I can about any problems with it. What did these request-not-going-through incidents look like? --Pi zero (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

They looked normal. The last-night time, I don't remember if I hit the review button or went into the code and changed "develop" to "review," but the this-morning time I definitely hit the button. I didn't turn off my computer or close the window until after the process appeared to have completed, taking me to the next screen. It looked like it had gone through, like always. In the Newsroom screen, the title still appeared under "Development," but some lag in that is normal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Very strange. Btw, there is a "refresh" button in the newsroom that brings it up-to-date. --Pi zero (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, here is a further thought on this, fwiw: The dialog tools are client-side software; that is, they run on your machine. So if you don't actually see the modified page with the {{review}} tag on it, it's a good bet the operation hasn't completed yet. --Pi zero (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Three tips

Three tips (which I hope will be useful for you not in just this one story but also in others)

1) Similarity of structure

I would like to remark here that the similarity of some passages to sources -- not in phrases but in the order that they go one after another -- is quite troubling. There is parargaph

"Police said they were called to Fishmonger's Hall shortly before 2 p.m. local time, where Khan had attended a conference on criminal justice and prisoner rehabilitation, called "Learning Together," run by the University of Cambridge's Institute of Criminology. Khan had been wearing a fake suicide vest, police said, adding that the attack started inside Fishmonger's Hall. Khan stabbed "a number of people" inside the hall, police said, and The Times reported that one of the two killed died inside the hall. " (source)

"According to police, they were called to Fishmonger's Hall at Cambridge University around 2:00 p.m. local time. The University had been hosting a program called "Learning Together" for criminals wishing to rehabilitate. Khan was attending a related event. Police also said that Khan claimed to be wearing a suicide vest, though it was later found to be a harmless fake. " (yours)

As it is a feature of author rather than article I am commenting about it here. It is a bad mix of background with details without connection between these pieces. Can you please avoid this?

2) Missing details

Also some important details about the third person removing the knife and police surrounding the criminal with guns out are missing in the wikinews report. I hope this is not on purpose...

3) Attribution

Also it is important to note where the information comes from - lots of the information about how the event went is either from police or from social media and the source of each information should be stated clearly for the readers to be aware.

Thanks, Gryllida (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Move alert

Hi. In case if you were working on the CDC article and have not saved your edit, I have moved it to US Centers for Disease Control sends measles experts to Tonga, Fiji, American Samoa. Don't lose your edits.
•–• 18:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Acagastya: This was most conscientious of you; thanks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Oops

sorry, didn't mean to interrupt if you're editing the article. --Pi zero (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If you mean the stampede article, I was done. A single-edit thing. A felt-like-a-single-edit thing. You are conscientious as ever, Pi zero. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Greeting folks

You left a nice note of greeting on that user's talk page. I think that's great; a friendly greeting to a new user is altogether a good thing. Alas, that particular account had the clear markings of a spambot (generic introductory message saying their gender, where they're from, and some supposed interest, followed by something like "take a look at my blog" with a link to some completely unrelated commercial site, often in a non-English language that isn't even remotely consistent with the persona they just claimed). I block several spambot accounts of that general sort per day; but in this case I felt bad about it, because I really did like the nice note you left them. Anyway, I wanted to leave a note of approval for the spirit of you greeting. --Pi zero (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The possibility did occur to me.

Possibility #1: Imogen is human. I have provided a happy greeting. Our chances of a long-term wikinewsie have increased. Good effect points, say positive 1200.

Possibility #2: Imogen is a bot. I have made an ever so mild fool of myself. Negative effect points, say 5. Mitigating factor: If it is a bot, it will be deleted along with the post I made showing my mild foolishness.

It was a calculated decision. I am good at math. You probably made a similar one before making this post. Good effect points to you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration effort: analysis; 5Ws

Hi Darkfrog24.

This year you have written the following.

title	comments or corrections made
Solar panel efficiency could be boosted 30%, say scientists	"H" not answered; 'affordability' neither attributed nor supported by figures; wrong order of paragraphs?
Easter Island mayor blames lax traffic standards for truck-statue smash	"H" not answered
Canadian government representatives meet with Wet'suwet'en leaders over pipeline	"elected councils" unexplained; one para copied from source
COVID-19 may spread like flu, say scientists	over generalization (corrected by reviewer); attribution missing (reviewer);
World Health Organization names new coronavirus COVID-19	'H' missing; numerous claims vague and not attributed - reviewer, again
First foreigners die from coronavirus in Wuhan, China	missing 'When' in lede; attribution missing; rm analysis; vague figure - reviewer; again; again x2; reviewer
Seismic activity continues to shake Puerto Rico with 5.2 quake	attribution missing - reviewer
Samoan government ends state of emergency over measles outbreak	attribution missing - reviewer

Can you please afford

• removing analysis and
• inserting more attribution and
• answering the 5Ws in the first paragraph consistently

in the future? This would not necessarily require in depth research, and it would reduce the work that the reviewers need to do. Thank you.

--Gryllida (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Gryllida, I don't happen to have time to go over this with you. I am doing something else right now. Your comments might be valid and they might not, but you've taken to ordering me around and I don't want to do anything that could encourage you to act in a way that I don't want you to act. I'll just say that on cursory glance, this post of yours seems polite.

On same cursory glance, I'm guessing you mean "H" for "how," as in "In the lede, you did not say how the agent performed the act that is the focus of this article." In my opinion, the "5W" rule is a suggestion. You see it in writing textbooks given to young highschoolers. It's a stage to go through while learning how to write well, but it is not the end stage. It's a "do this most of the time and you'll be close enough" kind of thing. It's not a "you have to do this all the time" kind of thing. If you look at professional news articles and many of own Wikinews articles, you'll see that that's more or less what they and we do: most of them most of the time, not all 5W all of the time.

In other words, the quantitative question "Does the lede say who, what, where, when, and how?" is a tool to help us answer the qualitative and subjective but far more important question "Does the lede introduce the article well?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh well I guess you've intrigued me. I'll take a closer look at some of these. Help me, but I'm a sucker for a nice clear chart. That thing is really pretty to me.

Easter Island article: I didn't hit review because I couldn't find a corroborating source in time. Everything about that article is moot.

Solar panel article: 1) The paragraph order isn't wrong. It's just not exactly what you personally happen to think is best. You and I have different interpretations of the paragraph order guideline. That's all. If you want a change in paragraph order, go on and make it. You have every right to think your way is better than mine but it's not okay for you to act like I don't have the right to think my way is better than yours. We are all colleagues and equals here. 2) I already told you about the affordability thing: The sources do not say, so we both cannot say and don't have to.

Samoan: As per the attribution, we don't have to attribute facts that are not controversial. "128 teams participated" is not controversial or in dispute. Pi zero is free to add extra attribution if he wants to, but it's not actually required for publication. Let me see if I can find the exact Wikinews guideline that covers this. Ah, it's Pi zero's essay WN:ATTRIBUTE. The statement "128 teams participated" is not "analysis, or opinion, or disputed." Rather, it is an objective fact that no one has questioned.

"The Chinese government's initial response to the outbreak was to attempt to conceal it" is not analysis. It's the international consensus, and I got it from the sources provided. I didn't check every link you labeled "analysis," but I'm guessing this is what it is in most cases, something from the sources and not original research on my part.

I'm out of time, so I'll look at this last link: [27] This happens a lot. The source says "over two million," but if I put in "over two million," it will bother Pi zero because of copyright/copying/plagiarism issues. So I say it in a different way "millions." Then Pi zero sees it and thinks "'over two million' is better!" (which it is) and puts that there. But because Pi zero did it himself, it doesn't bother him or seem as copyright-problematic.

So to sum up, a lot of this is just you and I interpreting the rules differently. If you want an article to match your own vision of what it should be, as always, I welcome your contribution. But do the work yourself. Wikinews requires us to consent to be "edited mercilessly and redistributed by others." In other words, I do have to let other people rip up my work and remake it into something I don't think is exactly best, but I am not required to rip it up myself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• "The sources do not say, so we both cannot say and don't have to." suppose they don't have to, but don't you want to? Wouldn't it make you and the readers more informed?
• Perhaps it is better to attribute anything that is only from a single source, or that was untrivial to obtain? Counting number of teams is not a trivial task. Compared with, say, a murderer pleading guilty. (Opened a query here.)
• "Millions" may lead the reader to believe "nine millions". It is an exaggeration. I do not think Pi zero replaces "over two million" with "millions" just like that. Gryllida (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the "official guideline" status of a document is not good enough for you to follow? Gryllida (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite know what you mean when you say "official guideline status of a document." Are you trying to cite a Wikinews guideline or something else?

Per your three examples here, they all boil down to "I think the article would be better if someone did X." That's the disconnect. It's not about whether a given change would make the article better or wouldn't. It is about whether it is necessary or not necessary. You seem to think it's my responsibility to make the draft into (YOUR personal vision of) the best possible version of itself. It is not. It is the responsibility of whoever hits review to make sure the draft is good enough to publish as-is. All of these were.

• No, I don't want to. I've explained many times that adding that extra information would require hours of extra research running around looking for an additional source that I have guessed is not there to find. No I will not waste hours of my time just because you feel like it, and the fact that you don't think it's worth your time makes me wonder why you think it's worth mine.
• It's not about whether it's better. It's about whether it's necessary. If someone else wants to add extra attribution, that's fine.

The bottom line is that Wikinews is a volunteer site. Everyone here has work or school or should be assumed to have other obligations that are important to them. I am donating my time. The only person with the authority to decide how much time I will donate is me.

This conversation is very similar to many we've had before. It is time for you to respect my wishes, accept that I will not obey you the way an employee would obey an employer, and move on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, WN:5W's status is "official guideline". Gryllida (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It is a question of motivation. Everyone else thinks that (a) making that change would make the article better; (b) they want to be that one person who makes it better because they have time and knowledge to do so. I am wondering now, which of these two steps you are not willing to make? Alas, it seems both. Gryllida (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

So you were talking about WN:5W. Then you must note that WN:5W does not say "all ledes must contain 'who,' 'what,' 'where,' 'when,' and 'how.'" It doesn't even say all articles must contain them. It says they are "flexible reminders of the kinds of information important to include." It says "how" should be included only if the mechanism is unclear and that "why" is often subject to neutrality issues. Sounds good to me. In my experience it's pretty common for people to remember the name of a guideline and forget what it actually says. On Wikipedia people cite WP:BATTLEGROUNDING when they mean any kind of being aggressive but if you read what it actually says, it cites various specific kinds of fighting dirty. People act like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS means "Don't complain if someone wrongs you on Wikipedia; you must passively accept all punches" but it actually says "Don't use Wikipedia to right wrongs out in the real world." It sounds like you had a memory shift about WN:5W. It's perfectly normal to need to reread the guidelines once every few years.

What I am not willing to do is play along with a let's-pretend game. "Darkfrog24, can you pretend that Bill or Bob or Gryllida is a professional journalist and that you're their stupid intern who must jump and dance for their amusement?" Nope. You guys do that if you want but leave me out of it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Re: 128 teams, where did the number come from?

1. Did you count them? Then you don't have to attribute it to anyone else.
2. Did you ask the organiser? Then you must attribute them by writing "..., the organisers told Wikinews".
3. Did the organiser say that in a public statement/press release? Then you must attribute them by writing "..., the organisers said in a press release/public statement".
4. Did the organiser tell another news agency? Then you must attribute both the parties by saying "..., the organisers told XYZ agency".
5. Did other news agency count it? Then you must attribute the agency by writing "..., XYZ agency reported".
6. If multiple agencies reported that, you should say how you got that information by writing "..., multiple reports claimed". Give credit where credit is due. Someone is ,making the information available, and they must get their credit.--103.66.49.33 (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Nope. None of that is necessary. The word "must" does not apply. You can add that extra detail if you feel like it (and if the information is available), but it is not required for publication. Per your fifth point, attributing a fact to the news source, at least a few of the reviewers here don't like that and have told me so. Per your sixth, if multiple agencies are reporting something, then it's common knowledge. That's a sign that the information does not need to be attributed in most cases.

It comes back to this: All initial drafters are volunteers and have only so much time to devote to each draft. The drafter does a bit of mental triage. What do I think is important to include? I do that. Then if any of my colleagues want to add or delete text, they get to. Attribution is not necessary for every single fact; articles would be too cumbersome to read if it were.

Read WN:ATTRIBUTE and you will see this for yourself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The fifth point makes sure that you give the credit to that news agency who bothered counting. Maybe on-field counting, or looking through the attendance list, or via CCTV camera. They did the work to get that number, not you. So they must get the credit. There is no ethical way to bypass it.  :::What if that news agency got it wrong? They made a blunder and reported incorrectly? By not attributing, we are damaging our reputation by reporting false information, as well as not even crediting where the information came from.

This is not a rare incident. Take this article for example. The radius of the star was 80% of Jupiter's. Multiple sources including CBC reported it. To quote CBC, "The small star is just slightly larger than Saturn, or 80 per cent the size of Jupiter, with a radius of 49,000 kilometres". They made a mistake while reporting the actual radius. 49000 km is 80% of Saturn's radius, which renders the first half of the sentence incorrect.

For this article, Premier League source claimed Zlatan has won one UEFA Champions League with Inter Milan. However, that is not true. So if someone were to write "Player A has won XYZ award", when in fact he didn't, that is damaging our reputation. But, if you were to write "Player A has won XYZ award"

If multiple agencies are reporting it becomes a common knowledge. Are you sure? Multiple news sources stated for this article the letter was dated May 15. But when it was confirmed with Commonwealth's PR, it was May 9. Not only the well-known MSMs were wrong, it was factually incorrect. Showing multiple photos of white swans don't prove all swans are white. It proves "yes, there are many white swans" but does not say anything about the existence of black swans.--103.66.49.53 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The news agency is credited by being listed as a source. That is what Wikinews requires. Drafters may go above and beyond requirements if they wish. In fact, it is better if they do so once in the while and not every time because listing the source in-sentence every time would make the article cumbersome to read. What is not appropriate is to demand that someone else go above and beyond requirements. IP users are not blocked from editing articles. You go right ahead whenever you want. Now respect my wishes and leave me alone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I am sure the 'WN:Attribute' page will be updated with examples and reasons for them, as a way of consensus. This may take a while, perhaps several months. Wikinews documentation has a backlog, please be patient.

There is one thing that can make this backlog shorter: writing drafts which pass the review quicker. When one can not provide steps toward this mission which is stuffed with teachers and inadequate documentation, it is best to let willing students to do this.

I think the "do it yourself", in the cases when it is a substitute for "I do not wish to learn this concept or read any of your documentation for it", can be safely replaced with zero words. Gryllida (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I've asked Pi zero about updating WN:ATTRIBUTE. He's decided not to. If you can get him to do it, good on you, but ask just once and then respect his wishes and leave him alone.

I think I've established that I did take an interest in learning the concepts and reading the documentation. They just don't say what you wish they said. You are perfectly free to propose changes to any Wikinews guideline or policy that you see fit. However, if the guidelines are changed to "Drafters must obey all demands that they change the article to fit the personal preferences of all suggestors, whether they have time or not, whether they agree with the change or not, whether the change is required by policy or not," I don't think many people will want to volunteer here.

The Wikinews review backlog is caused by the dearth of active reviewers. We simply don't have enough people. I believe you are a reviewer, aren't you Gryllida? I see from your user history that you haven't actually done review in a while. If you want a smaller backlog, the solution is in your hands. Now leave me alone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The number of teams in Samoa was actually added by me. The data was published by the WHO, but its origin was the Samoan government (via the Recovery Appeal). I have decided not to attribute it to them, as I have wanted to avoid repeating 'government' over and over again. To help the reviewer, the sources of the sentence were added as hidden text. - Xbspiro (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

<pi zero briefly drops in> Small note: I have not decided not to update WN:Attribution. I 've not yet gotten to it. En.wn has been slow to update documentation since long before I got here; from what I've heard, it's a common property of small news organizations, as their time tends to go into news production to the exclusion of time for writing about what they're doing. --Pi zero (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up

I am afraid I have a problem with this "leave me alone". We have an important unresolved question here.

Are you comfortable writing "I corrected 1,2,3 and I did not correct 4,5,6" instead of "do 4,5,6 yourself. [I hate teachers and I do not think it is required and it is not professional]"?

This means others have an opportunity to think about asking you for help implementing the change ("I want to do this myself but I find it difficult <navigating the source, understanding the subject, finding contact info, whatever>. Darkfrog24, can you help?"), instead of face-desking and thinking that you absolutely hate these proposed changes 4,5,6. Gryllida (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Gryllida, I am quite finished. If you wish to continue discussing this, do it on your own talk page or some other part of Wikinews that does not send me an email. You've said your piece and I've said mine. Time to move on. Per your feelings, I've already told you that I usually feel your suggestions, on their own merits, are not that good but not that bad.

I answered you a long time ago: here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Abandoned

Hi. Thank you for adding the {{abandoned}} template to files that needed them. I just wanted to highlight that it is better to use {{subst:aband}} because this adds the date automatically. Cheers. -Green Giant (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Mortgage payments article

.....could probably easily be freshened up with just a bit of source re-work.....? Just a suggestion. --Bddpaux (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll look at it later if there's time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I took a quick check and didn't see much in the way of new sources for new developments, not none, but not much. I'm cool with this draft aging out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

pangolins

Just continuing discussion from here so it does not disappear from non-admin views before we are done: I found another reason (Coronavirus: China needs to stop!) why your article is so important. Thought I would share with you. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

For my own future brain, Ottawahitech is talking about the article about the scientists who proved that SARS-CoV-2 probably went through pangolins from bats and that it wasn't related to HIV. This article is likely to age out and be deleted because the Eurekalert press release doesn't match what the scientific study says and no one in the MSM has corroborated either one. One of the sources I speculated about using cited a study that proved SARS-CoV-2 wasn't made in a lab.

For Ottawa, hm, that Kyle guy makes a few interesting points. I put the content we wanted to use in two articles on the Simple English Wikipedia: [28] [29] Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Between 3 and 10% of recovered COVID-19 patients tested positive again

Not sure if you have eard about this yet? Is it fake news Ottawahitech (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I had vaguely heard. I already took my Wikinews break from work today, but if you want to run with it I might be able to help some. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey, happy quarantine

Just wanted to say thank you for all the hard work you've been doing man. I really appreciate it!

Thank you, whoever you are. My job is still actually going strong, so I Wikinews when I can fit it in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear everything is going good!

Any idea why the original poster(op) was blocked on wikinews? I see no reason provided in the pink box that shows up when one looks at the op's contributions? Or am I missing something? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The pink sections says it was for "inserting nonsesne/gibberish into pages."

OP was an IP address, so I assumed it was Acagastya not logging in again, but it looks like Acagastya's the one who blocked the IP. It could be newly minted admin Acagastya just wanting to use the admin function now that he or she has it. That seems likely especially considering the IP's last edit was deleted from the page history instead of just reverted even though Aca describes it as mere "nonsense-gibberish. It's overkill. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Boy (man?) you are quick! I did not even consider the possibility that this ip was aca himself, but you are most probably right looking at:

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.224.32.30

And here I thought editors at wikinews were supposed to spend their precious volunteer time working on articles instead of chasing imaginary ips. cheers, 14:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, there are three problems with the (frankly) mud you're slinging at acagastya. Not that admins aren't used having mud slung at them. One, nothing about the IP or its behavior offers any support for it being acagastya (the internal evidence, which I've just looked over, indicates some bored... person in Indiana lacking the imagination to do anything more constructive than randomly embed images and fart noises on various pages 'round the project; I'd say acagastya has been settling nicely into the "cleanup on aisle three" aspect of adminship, and their block in this case was quite appropriate). Two, your accusations aren't a plausible fit with acagastya's character. And three, you're not doing will on our principle of "don't assume bad faith". --Pi zero (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Ease off, Pi zero. Saying "I thought the IP who posted a NICE message on my page was the person with a history of not logging in" and "deleting rather than reverting a nonsense edit is overkill" is not slinging mud. It's not assuming bad faith. It's not an accusation. If you think it is, then you need to start holding your own posts to a much, much higher standard. I have looked the other way on a lot of mud from you, not even counting the times you claim I'm blind, stupid or both—those I call you on, as you know.

These are tense times, and I think you need to be careful not to start fights. Since you seem to think I was talking about the block, and not the deletion as "overkill," maybe you just didn't read my post carefully. You can reread it if you think that would put your mind at ease, but if it would upset you, then just go do something else. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The mud was "just wanting to use the admin function now that he or she has it", not the IP assumption. Gryllida (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't consider that mud either, Gryllida. ("Mud" meaning "an insult" on the order of calling someone a jerk but not as bad as calling them a liar.)

People, especially people who are a bit younger, tend to be a bit exuberant about such things. Believe me, if I think Acagastya's action were harmful, I would have said something to Acagastya about it. Right now, I just think it's overkill. People with a brand new tool to use tend to overestimate how often or how much they need to use it. It wears off when the newness wears off, a self-correcting problem that does not usually require intervention.

Just in case this is the point of confusion, I do NOT think Acagastya blocked their own IP account just for funsies. I initially though that the poster who put the nice Clifford the Dog picture here was Acagastya. When I said "I assumed it was Acagastya not logging in again, but it looks like Acagastya's the one who blocked the IP," I meant "so the IP is probably not Acagastya." No I do not think Acagastya went in as an IP just to test the blocking function. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed "just wanting" is an insult, implying the only reason for the block is his want (and there is no other legitimate reason to.) Gryllida (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Then it seems you think it is an insult and I don't. It is also far, far less critical than the flak I've taken on this site, to which you voiced no objection.

I think things IRL are very tense and we should end this conversation now, so I'm putting this thread under WN:SLOWDOWN. Anyone may make a post in this thread so long as it is at least twenty-four hours after their last post. That should keep everyone's heads cool and words polite and considered (I do not consider your post impolitely worded, Gryllida; I just disagree with you). This does not apply to posts about articles or anything else. Just put them in their proper thread as normal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Without you acknowledging that it is both an accusation and an insult, seeing how the person is presented in the text, we may not proceed. Gryllida (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

If the things Pi zero likes to say about me are not insults, then this is nothing at all. If this is an insult at all, then so are the things Pi zero says about me are very serious.

A high standard can work. An everyone-toughen-up standard can work. A "people are allowed to attack you but you may not even mildly criticize others" is not fine. Perhaps you think "But Acagastya is a reviewer. That makes him your boss! Lowly workers must never criticize the boss, but bosses may criticize lowly workers. Why aren't you kissing up?!?!" That is because that is not how things work here. Per Wikinews policy and guidelines, we are all equals. Per WN:INTRO we do not have a hierarchy, and adminship applies to technical tasks alone. Here is also WN:ETIQUETTE for your perusal.

Your time is better spent drafting and proposing a new, public, written and explicit rule for whom you want to submit to whom and in what way. However, if it reads, "reaching reviewer status or adminship means you are allowed to criticize anyone else you please and they are not allowed to reciprocate," then very few people will want to volunteer here.

We've had this conversation before, Gryllida. Accept that I don't want to play social games and move on. Moving on may take the form of writing a real guideline. I even did the legwork for you. Either put your money where your mouth is or call it a day. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Pi zero says things about your work without misrepresenting or attacking your person in the text. This is acceptable. Gryllida (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Pi zero both misrepresents my work and attacks me as a person. Whenever I disagree with him, he claims I have some kind of defect that prevents me from seeing underlying principles that he claims are important but refuses to write down or define, strongly indicating that no such principles exist and that they are an excuse to order people around. Maybe he doesn't realize he's doing it. In the comment I made about Acagastya, I say basically "he did it because he had a new tool and felt like it." An admin action is a public action, and if I feel it's overkill I get to say so. My opinion matters exactly as much as everyone else's.

The only explanation I have for your post here is "Pi zero says this is bad, so I must agree with Pi zero for social reasons." If you want to play pretend-boss-and-pretend-underling with Pi zero, that is between the two of you, but leave me out of it. Have fun, but I'm not playing. I decline the role of pretend-enemy.

I think you need to think about what you want from this conversation. If it is for me to think of myself as not worthy to state an opinion of others while passively accepting that whatever Master says about me must be right because it was Master who said it," then your time is better spent going to the Wikinews policy pages that explicitly state "Wikinews aspires to be non-hierarchical" and "everyone matters as much as everyone else" and proposing that they be changed.

Now leave me alone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I suppose your view is that Pi zero was attacking you, and you were attacking acagastya. Is this correct? This is a hierarchical wiki; if you remove my message, I'm taking this to ANI. Gryllida (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

My view is that Pi zero was attacking me, many times, and that I am not attacking Acagastya.

No, it is a NON-HIERARCHICAL Wiki. I linked you to the policy. This is my talk page and I am allowed to remove messages from it, especially when I am trying to prevent a fight.

There is a global pandemic on and I am not here for you to take your frustration out on me. I do not have the emotional energy to teach you why trying to force people to think of themselves as less-than is bad.

By saying "if you don't allow me to continue [let's say harassing because I can't think of another word right now] then I will take punitive action," then you are daring me to delete your comment because if I don't then I'm tacitly consenting to taking orders from you. It is manipulative and it is wrong. I'm trying to prevent a fight by drawing a painful conversation to a close.

We need formal dispute resolution. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Harassment

This is an administrative warning. You've been harassing other active contributors on en.wn, creating a highly toxic social atmosphere on the project. Some major recent examples:

• You accused an admin of serious abuse of their privileges, without having seen the evidence on which they based their administrative action. You thereby committed a straightforward violation of Wikinews:Never assume. When another, veteran admin examined the evidence you didn't have access to, and found the administrative action was commensurate with the evidence, you simply disregarded this.
• When other users have raised concerns on your user talk page — which is a major function of user talk pages — if you didn't want to hear what they had to say, you would selectively remove the comments you didn't like. Not only is that short-sighted, since it discourages others from seeking to discuss things with you rather than escalating them to a higher level, it also tampers with the potentially-administratively-relevant record of the concerns raised.

You also recently responded to a not-ready review with a flamboyant (to the point of interfering with the serious function of the article talk page) response insinuating that it was extraordinary for the reviewer to base their review on project guidelines. That's the same reviewer you already owed an apology for falsely accusing them of administrative misconduct. --Pi zero (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The person being harassed here IS ME. Gryllida was badgering me after repeatedly being told to stop.

No I did not accuse anyone of anything. I made a normal comment in casual conversation. Other Wikinewsies including you personally have said far harsher things about me, including you specifically.

The comments I removed came from editors who were badgering me after repeated instructions to leave me alone. I had heard them out and we were talking in circles. Wikinews guidelines allow me to curate my own talk page.

The images of fireworks are consistent with WN:ETIQUETTE: Give praise where it is due.

The person owed an apology is me.

If you believe that Wikinewsies are required to quietly endure badgering from others, go propose a guideline saying so

Per Wikinews policy, we are all equals here. The authority given admins applies solely to technical matters. It does not mean "Once you become an admin, you are allowed to criticize others but no one may give an opinion of you."

If you believe drafters should be some kind of emotional servant to admins and reviewers, then go draft a guidelines saying so.

My participation here is not consent to abuse from you or anyone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I will now try another step in dispute resolution: Ask the community to get involved. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

You're wikilawyering; you insinuated; you have not been attacked, you've just gotten a lot of negative feedback because you've been causing a lot of problems for others. The community is already involved. And I repeat: you're creating a toxic atmosphere on the project by harassing others. I'm letting you know, in my responsibility as a an admin, so that you have the opportunity to self-improve. --Pi zero (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Scroll up. Acagastya just called me names like "ignorant." Go tell A to apologize to me and to stop creating a toxic environment. If your standard for courtesy is so strict that "this admin action is overkill" counts as an accusation and attack, as you say above, then you should make a post like this one on Acagastya's talk page.

But if you truly believe "other people may make personal attacks against Darkfrog24, who is not allowed to voice any opinion, whether negative or positive," then your time is better spent defining it in an essay and proposing it as a guideline, because it is a radical departure from the principles of this project.

Another possibility: There is a global pandemic on. We probably all know people who are sick or in dagner because they work in health care. I am not okay with people working out their anxiety by attacking me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Ignorant is a characteristic of what a person is doing, not a personal attack. Gryllida (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

No, ignorance is personal. Overkill is a characteristic of an action and not a personal attack. When you badger me for saying something to someone else, but defend other people when they say bad things about me, I feel that you are trying to turn me into some ind of punching bag. I'm not anyone's dog, little brother, or mommy to scream at, and you have to stop treating me like one. Either we all talk loud and toughen up or we all lower our voices and act delicately. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

AAA

Added a query to AAA. Please understand that being limited to talk pages is not a bin; this is the correct place to reach consensus and it is still powerful. Thanks --Gryllida (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what a bin is. Did you put this in the right place?

It occurs to me that, as an involved party, Pi zero should not act as an admin in this matter. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I meant the rubbish bin.

He will be able to share his view on this; if everyone agrees that my proposed limitations are a good idea, then they can be actioned by any admin. Gryllida (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw your proposal and I find it premature. I provided a link to the water cooler discussion where I request dispute resolution.

There is a global pandemic on and tempers are high. The thing to do is follow the established process, which needs time to work.

Bottom line, locating the rule I read years ago that says Wikinewsies are allowed to curate their own talk pages would resolve this.

It would help a great deal if you apologized for continuing to post here when I told you I was not okay with continuing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

backlink. I confirm that I'm sorry for the disruption of your personal space, and you can remove this entire section if you desire; I only felt it necessary to post it here because otherwise you might have been unaware that a discussion was opened at AAA. That would have been awfully bad. Gryllida (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

You are required to notify me when you post a complaint of that kind, so you did right, excepting that you should not have made the complaint at all. I meant to apologize to me for continuing to badger (or choose another word) in the "happy quarantine" thread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

You can remove that entire section, if you desire. (In my defense, I aimed to output as few judgments as it was practically possible. I hope this is helping you with your well-being.)

I only felt it was necessary to participate in that discussion because another person seemed attacked, and there was a seeming misunderstanding (by you) of what specifically made it seem that way. I wouldn't retract my first remark there. Seeing that attempts to explain it were in vain, in that section and in the next one, I've given up.

However, I'm sorry for making that conversation too long.

I hope that, when someone approaches you with "did you attack Alice here?", you will be able to say something different from "Rob attacked me there!". This was one of the points that made that discussion excessively long; we didn't seem to really become able to get to the point of specifically what and how read out as an attack.

If I approach such a situation again, it will be in a different way; I will try to maximize the chances that I will not need to explain such things more than once, thus lengthening the conversation.

Thanks and best regards, Gryllida (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
informing the concerned editors about AAA is a rule of thumb: so that something does not happen behind their back. It is generally done by the one who creates the AAA request. Expecting one to not do that is considered going against the proper functioning of the project.
•–• 19:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

There is currently no dispute about that, Acagastya. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi DF,

Thanks so much for your message yesterday (which I can longer locate?) Anyway I was way too tired yesterday to respond and like to apologize to you for not doing it and just to come back today to find out everything here is in chaos, or at least thats what it seems to me?

Anyway, I have discovered during my recent wiki-travels that this upset is not unique, not to you, not to wikinews, and not to the general wmf movement, but to the whole world. I don't know if this is consolation for your predicament, but I hope it is.

I am trying very hard at the moment to concentrate on covid-related issues, both on wiki and in real life. Yes it is hard to ignore the background noise and the backseat drivers, but I feel it is a matter of survival both virtually and not.

I hope when this is over we will have time to address all the issues we are confronting right now Ottawahitech (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Since a formal accusation has been made against me, I do not have the luxury of tabling this until later.

I would like it if you gave your two cents at the water cooler. Nothing on Wikinews or basic courtesy demands that you do so, but you are certainly allowed to. I included you on the list of involved parties but didn't say what position you held.

As I said, a "no one's allowed to say negative things" rule might be restrictive but could work and an "everyone may voice their opinion and everyone toughen up" rule would work, but "other people are allowed to shout but you may not even whisper" is very, very hurtful to me. It's like that old saying "Don't fight fire with fire" might be okay, but not if you follow it with "don't fight it with water, don't fight it with foam, don't evacuate the building, stand there and burn."

If you want to talk about the thing I posted on your talk page about privately, my "email this user" is enabled. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump's malaria drug

Just thought I'd share with you: I was watching cnn earlier, where the reporter (a woman) interviewed Dr Wilbour Chen in regards to the drug trials they have speeded up. They mentioned one of the issues was people currently taking the drug were afraid they would face shortages if the drug is approved for covid treatment. There was mention of an interview with a woman suffering from Lupus who was taking this drug, but unfortunately I could not listen to it.

Please take care of yourself, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I heard of that last week. It's so sad.

I've been trying to focus on things that I'm worried might get overlooked because of the pandemic, like what's happening with indigenous peoples and with strikes. I managed to revamp the article about the Mashpee Wampanoag, but I'm still awaiting corroboration of the new focal event. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Short block

I've applied a short block to your account. Per generally observed standards for blocking actions, this is preventative, not punitive; you've been spreading misinformation. You've had reasonable warning that this was a concern. If you're willing to agree to limit yourself as Gryllida has outlined at AAA, I'm inclined to simply let the block expire, and we'll see how things go. --Pi zero (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: I have in mind option (c) that Gryllida described, "limit partitipation only to new articles and talk pages of these articles and personal talk page but nothing else". --Pi zero (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Pi zero, you are an involved party, so you should not apply a block to my account. I also performed no disruptive action, so you should expunge the record. If you think requesting dispute resolution or participating in a thread after someone's posted an accusation, then you should post a link to the diff and own up that you think so.

A block from anyone is premature because my request for dispute resolution is under way. I must be able to participate in that dispute resolution process, and this block prevents me from doing that. It also prevents me from participating in discussion of the policy changes that you have proposed, which makes it look like you have an ulterior motive. You have created the appearance of impropriety.

Correct the situation and remove the block. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

If you actually want to prevent disruption, the answer is for you, Gryllida and Acagastya to stay off my talk page and accept that no person here has the right to abuse me or expect me to tolerate abuse. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

{{unblock|Blocked in violation of policy.

Per WN:BLOCK "Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict." Pi zero is an involved party in this dispute and should not be blocking any other involved party. I also disputed some changes that the blocking admin made to a policy, the discussion of which is ongoing. Either of these things alone is enough to render this admin ineligible to perform the block.

Pi zero, I could buy this was an oversight on your part, but correct it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)}}

Comment from blocking admin: The fact that Darkfrog24 doesn't like to hear what I have to say does not disqualify me from administrative action in the case. --Pi zero (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Pi zero, you are involved in two disputes with me right now. You create a toxic environment when you violate policy.

I've heard what you've had to say many times. You need to accept that I do not share your opinion and move on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Pi zero is not in a conflict with you; he has in the last week limited communication with you only to the benefit of other contributors. Also you kept misleading others, and don't seem to commit to any change (such as the proposed limitations), I don't think an unblock is wanted here. --Gryllida (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Conflict #1: Pi zero has not been a disinterested observer here on my talk page. One of the posts I deleted was his. Conflict #2: The other conflict is about his proposed changes to WN:INTRO.

This feels like a strategic action to prevent someone with a habit of disagreeing with you from participating in discussions of proposed changes to policy. You should avoid even the appearance of that kind of impropriety.

Gryllida, if you think "Darkfrog24 is not allowed to voice an opinion" and "Darkfrog24 must sit still while people call D 'ignorant' and other insults," then the person in need of some limitation is you. 03:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Correcting WN:INTRO seems like a less urgent issue than resolving your dislike of authority here, which has interfered with reviewing and publishing your work, has mislead other authors, and has resulted in wiki-lawyering that has delayed review of complex original reporting. If you want to propose changes like that, you've got at least improve your timing. If it were only for the WN:INTRO correction and everything else was fine, I'd've unblocked three hours ago (and Pi zero wouldn't've blocked in the first place).

I'm not going to speak about the insults here; I am sure nobody would be fascinated by the idea of insulting you on a page which you are blocked from editing, and you will have plenty of room to converse about that, wherever it occurs.

--Gryllida (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The long-term problem here is that you think have a reveiwership or adminship grants people social privileges that it does not grant. But a global pandemic is NOT THE TIME. You are scared of the virus and trying to find something you can control and treating other people as a receptacle for your feelings in that way is not okay.

You have said your piece, now stop spamming this page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
You have said your part of global pandemic more than enough, Darkfrog24. Stop pretending you know someone else's mind. You have done that enough, and if you continue to break never assume, this will not help your case.
•–• 04:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, this is a warning: if you engage in causing hindrance to the administrative discussion, you would lose access to edit your talk page.
•–• 05:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The person hindering administrative action is YOU. Stop harassing me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow this is really frustrating for both of you. Quite obviously Acagastya meant your hiding of content, which Pi zero reverted. If you didn't understand this yourself, perhaps you need a friend (IRL) to assist you with communication on the wiki.

How about you move this page to "User talk:Darkfrog24/Messages"? Then it won't show notifications that much, and won't bother you as much by email. Gryllida (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Gryllida, moving all this somewhere else actually a good idea. I may come back and do that later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Longer block

You've made clear your intent not to curb the behavior that led to your last block, and indeed you even blew through my suggestion to address the matter on another page. So I'm adopting the suggestion at AAA to apply a substantially longer block, which was recommended as a preventative measure with size chosen to let pandemic tensions ease. I am, however, concerned that underlying issues will remain after six months if I don't clarify here. We're all (I hope) interested to see you settle into a constructive role on en.wn. Here are several difficulties I see in your approach to the project, which tend to interlock with each other.

Note, going into this: In recent times I've usually not been as blunt about these things as I'm about to be. Your negative reactions to criticism have had the unfortunate side-effect of discouraging honesty, and lately I've sought to say as little as possible. However, my purpose here is to try to help you with the underlying problems that have led to the block, which it seems to me I cannot do by saying as little as possible, nor by shying aware from bluntness. I am not, thereby, "in dispute" with you; quite the contrary.

• You have tended, historically, to treat attempts to explain anything to you as either an exchange of opinions between equals, or as personal attacks. Since people passing knowledge one-to-another is the primary way knowledge is disseminated on en.wn, and doesn't fit either model, limiting things to those two models seriously curtails your ability to increase your knowledge of the project.
• You have clearly indicated you believe you have nothing to learn about the project (well, okay, I pulled that punch: honestly, you've indicated you are more of an expert on how the project works than the entire rest of the veteran Wikinews community put together). This is a problem because it's not true. Your development as a Wikinewsie has been substantially arrested at a rather early stage in our learning curve, creating more work for the rest of us as we have to compensate. Compensating this way is something we're happy to do for newcomers as they're learning the ropes, with the hope that as they learn more the burden on us will drop to a more reasonable level. It's a problem when the level of burden doesn't drop, since the drop allows us to greatly increase our output volume over time. Some of our long-time contributors we've happily helped along even though they never fully master some aspects of Wikinews writing — happily, because they gamely struggle to improve. You've projected an impression that you're not trying to improve. If that impression is wrong, perhaps we can do something to make it look less that way; if the impression is right, that's inherently a problem that's going to need some sort of redress to allow you to function effectively on the project.

• You said something on that article talk page with the newbie, about being qualified to teach newbies because you've been here for four years and written a whole bunch of articles. The trouble with that reasoning is, those statistics aren't in themselves a reliable measure of knowledge about how the project works. You haven't been improving much during most of that time, and correspondingly the effort by others to move your articles through the process has not dropped. The number of articles you've gotten published doesn't reflect how much compensatory extra work others put into those, nor how many other articles didn't succeed for directly or indirectly related reasons (which is very hard to assess); or to take the optimistic view, how many more articles could have been produced if that effort-drop had occurred.
• In that incident you also underestimated the problem with your remarks to the newcomer. You made a whole series of incorrect statements, not limited to the point acagastya raised about neutrality (though that's part of it). You misrepresented what kinds of articles Wikinews publishes (no, OR does not contrast with "discrete events"); talked about "guessing" why that type of article isn't allowed when there's no mystery about it (policy and guideline violations), and incorrectly suggested the problem with the article type was some sort of inferiority of Wikinews because we're a volunteer project (rather than because of our neutrality policy); threw in a gripe about how somebody with "a journalism degree or years of working at a newspaper [... could]n't use it as a credential" (whereas such credentials even if verified wouldn't mean anything here: while some professional journalists have fit in quite well here, others have failed here disastrously because they ignored the goals/policies of the project).

• You've repeatedly put forward professional journalism as a superior standard that trumps the Wikinews style guide. Besides the simple unworkability of any project submordinating its own style guide to the whims of contributors, it's been pointed out to you, and honestly should be rather self-evident once noticed, that we're not trying to do the same thing professional journalism sites are trying to do, so the very idea of using professional journalism as an exemplar of what we're trying to do is a non sequitur. Wikinewsies over the years have been quite familiar with various flaws of mainstream journalism and our infrastructure seeks to do better on various of those things, which is very far from viewing msm as an exemplar.
• On multiple occasions over the years, you've indicated that the only two interpersonal relations you conceive for a project like this are technical equals, or master-servant (a.k.a. employer-employee). Unfortunately, neither of those sorts of relationships is applicable to Wikinews. You've repeatedly claimed that everyone on a wiki is equal, which is not true of any wiki. Wikipedia makes some pretense (unsuccessfully, as some of its critics have been known to point out) of embracing some such radically egalitarian philosophy; the Wikinews infrastructure embraces individuality and deliberately nurtures awareness of the individual characteristics of each user (cf. WN:ROLE). Even Wikinews !voting on local policy (such as RFPs) explicitly factors in accumulated reputation; e.g., at the low end, outsiders are welcomed to express opinions but their opinions carry no weight.

--Pi zero (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

In other words, learning did not work, and the only venue which you supported was writing documentation. When you tried writing documentation, it seemed inconsistent and contrary to the existing interpretations or practice. When others tried to write, you would offer new interpretations, and nobody went out of their way to prioritise documentation writing over news writing. That was sad; instead of limiting your contributions to what you can do well (correcting wiki markup) to reduce reviewing burden, you kept doing what the situation did not permit you to learn (write content with inverted pyramid; without copyvio; aim to answer 5Ws; attribution; research the story; the reputation thing), and as you kept doing it poorly, it got out of hand. Sob. Sad face. I am sorry I could not help, and was only told to go away. I wish there was a working solution. Now I can only suggest to learn another language, perhaps that is a good way to position yourself among people who know something better than you so that you can practice relationships and learning there, possibly without the pain or slavery. Yes, learning a new language contains zero slavery. Please consider it. While language grammar rules are written, vocabulary is not, and neither is the culture. --Gryllida (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Pi zero, per WN:BLOCK you should not be issuing blocks against people with whom you are in a dispute yourself. I did not see any suggestion from you on another page. I gave myself a 24-hour time out from the water cooler discussion so that I wouldn't be tempted to reply after every single post. What was the suggestion?

In writing my response to your comments here, I believe I've put my finger on exactly what has been causing all these problems:

I don't trust rules that aren't written down.

I believe we are all equals here because Wikinews policy, a rule that's written down, says so. Per Wikinews policy and guidelines, we are all equals. Per WN:INTRO, we do not have a hierarchy. This idea is not coming from me. So it's not only that the principles you seem to believe in aren't written down, it's also that they actively contradict things that are written down. "Don't believe what you see; believe what I tell you" is an inherently suspect statement.

Written policy is written for a reason. If policy exists only in one person's head, then only that one person may consult it. That person might change it to suit their mood, either deliberately or without realizing it, but it puts everyone else at so very profound a disadvantage that even a partially egalitarian Wiki has great trouble functioning. When the rules are invisible, who can tell the difference between "You broke a rule?" and "You did something I personally did not like?"

• I disagree with this characterization of me.
• You claim I act like I have nothing to learn, but in fact I've often asked you, "Is there policy on this? Is there a previous consensus conversation on that?" and other versions of "Is there some written reference that I could consult?" "Oh there isn't? Want to write one together?" But when you don't get an answer enough times over and over, the only thing for it is to stop asking.
• "I do not see why someone who has been here four years and drafted over a hundred published articles (I mean myself) should not tell a newcomer how they might one day come to do the same if they choose to continue volunteering their time." I stand by that. Frankly, when you tell me that I shouldn't talk to a newcomer about a very basic idea, it feels ...it's hard to explain exactly what kind of hurtful. It feels like you think there's something wrong with me because I think of myself as having worth. This has happened many times here. It's fine for you to think you're right and I'm wrong, but you've often said things that left me thinking that you felt you were so right that my disagreeing with you is proof of some defect. You often attributed my disagreeing with you to being blind or stupid. That is why I feel personally attacked.

• If memory serves, you once praised my instruction of a newbie.[30]

• I have no problem with the idea that people who have been to journalism school and worked at newspapers would be more qualified to write articles containing analysis than we would be. We're amateurs or at least acting in amateur capacity. Like you say, we don't do the exact same thing here.
• I don't think this is about the style guide. I believe you're talking about the issue with past tense last year. My decision to use present tense where appropriate was based not only on general practice in the wider world but also on common practice here on Wikinews going back years. Every reviewer I saw, including yourself as recently as the previous week, used and approved articles using present tense the way I used it. The reviewer in question speaks English very well but is not a native speaker and made a very understandable mistake, which I corrected. To all outward appearances, you immediately changed your mind to agree with the reviewer. This made it look to me that you cared more about a drafter correcting a reviewer than about producing a good article. It made it look like you felt the reviewer was owed the pretense that he or she was right, even if it was provably not so by either Wikinews practice or published-source criteria.
• I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, Pi zero, but—again, a look at the departures lounge—that your principal problem with me is that I disagree with you about things you care about, like the way the social structure here does and should work. For example, let's say you genuinely and sincerely believe that I shouldn't be allowed to say "it's overkill" of an admin action while in casual conversation. In contrast, you actively defended that admin when he came here and called me some pretty awful names. That's not only treating me like I am not this person's equal, but treating me as something so lowly that you think it's my job to let him abuse me. That's not some non-toxic not-equals-but-not-master/slave relationship. That's "you're not allowed to criticize him but he gets to do whatever he wants to you and you must in fact hold still and let him." I feel like I came here to write the news, but there's this play going on and people want me to pretend that I'm less knowledgeable, less kind, less of a person than I really am.
• I've looked and looked and found no written policy or guideline saying that reviewers or admins gain any special social privileges on Wikinews, like being allowed to call people names or tell other people not to answer newcomers' questions.
• I see Gryllida has posted. I will respond: "Learning" only works when there is something concrete to learn from. "I am right and you are wrong becuase I say so" offers no opportunity for learning. On an anonymous project like this one, we cannot use our real-world credentials without outing ourselves. That is why citing policy—creating it if need be—and outside sources is so fundamental. Otherwise "I want you to learn" is indistinguishable from "I want you to be more submissive to me personally. I want to give you orders because that's fun for me."

Putting all of these things together, you say you want me to "improve" but when the rules are in other people's heads where I can't see them, "improve" is functionally indistinguishable from "become more obedient and submissive to me personally," and I'm sure you can see why I wouldn't be comfortable with that.

The answer, then, is to take those rules and put them somewhere public, like a written policy or guideline. Even if I find those rules are things I don't like, and I and others decide to stop contributing here, it would take this shadow of suspicion—that Wikinews' expectations and your own are the same thing—and dispel it. We can take "believe what I tell you" and transform it into "believe what you see."

I would like this block lifted, but right this moment I formally request that the word "misinformation" be removed and replaced with something that has to do with the discussion that took place at AAA and not Pi zero's beliefs about my statement to Charis. The word misinformation makes it look like I was lying or something, and the discussion at AAA focused more on things like tensions from the COVID-19 epidemic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the article by Charis is likely to be deleted and the talk page discussion erased, and since it is so important to all this, I did a quick copypaste of the whole thing and put it here. -Darkfrog24 

Darkfrog24

"Overkill" and "ignorant"

@Green Giant: I just now read your response in the water cooler thread where I requested dispute resolution. I don't agree with all of it, but I wanted input from an uninvolved party and that's what you are. From this I am extracting, among other things, 1) You do think I'm allowed to remove talk page posts by others. 2) You think I should retract the "it's overkill" portion of my statement about Acagastya. I have a question before I proceed. It is important to me.

Do you think he should apologize for or otherwise retract the "you are an ignorant" comments that he made about me, which I feel are attacks, or do you feel that he's allowed to talk do that and should do it again?

I would like this block lifted, and I'm planning a proposal, but I think I need to know the answer to this first. I also want your input on something. I feel the core problem that has caused all this conflict is that the social privileges that Pi zero seems to believe reviewers and admins are to receive here on Wikinews are not written down. The obvious answer would be to fix that by writing it all down. However, this would require work not only on my part but by the community. Even if I were to write the entire draft myself, the community would have to weigh in and there would be an approval process. I see this as in conflict with your stated belief that we have to stop paying attention to my needs and get back to writing the news. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Working it all out

As I've explained above, I believe the answer is to work out a code of conduct that's open and written down for all parties to see. I"m just thinking out loud here for the moment...

By being elected as a reviewer or admin, the individual is not only authorized to review articles and perform technical duties but is also given the following social privileges over other Wikinewsies:

• Drafters and other non-admins must address reviewers as Boss, admins as Teacher and Pi zero as Enlightened Master. (This is crossed out because it is a counterexample, something I think you probably don't want.)
• Drafters are not allowed to give their opinions of admin actions except when filing a formal complaint, backed up by evidence. For example "it's overkill" is not allowed.
• Admins and reviewers are allowed to give opinions, criticism, and personal attacks against others. For example "you are ignorant" is allowed.
• It is forbidden to tell a reviewer that they are wrong under any circumstances. (see below)
• Drafters are only allowed to tell reviewers they are wrong if they can present sources, previous Wikinews articles or guidelines or policy proving or at least strongly suggesting it. (see above)
• No drafter is allowed to answer a new user's questions.
• Drafters are only allowed to answer new users' questions under the following criteria: 1... 2...
• Admins may, at will, tell non-admins "you are not allowed to participate in this conversation."
• Admins may expect non-admins to behave as their personal inferiors, fully aware of their own lack of worth. For example, they may say, "You should have known that you are not knowledgeable enough to answer this new user's question," even if they have been on Wikinews for years and drafted many published articles.

Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

'Paradise Papers' reveal tax shelters for companies, politicians, royalty

I am not sure Pi zero will publish your 'Paradise Papers' reveal tax shelters for companies, politicians, royalty story, so I will pretend your talkpage is the public comments section:

I don’t believe these 387 reporters are serving the public good by whipping up hysteria about rich people gaming the system. This is not a calm, rational discussion meant to inform. It is more of a lynch mob attacking the rich.

Why am I saying this?

Well, first, there is the implication that the reason people invest globally is that they are thereby cheating on paying taxes. Take the Queen of England, who admitted publicly to investing overseas, but she also says she pays the taxes due.

Second, in the United States and in Canada (possibly in other countries too, don’t know?) Corporate income tax is different than personal income tax. The lumping of those two groups together, is again whipping up hysteria of massive tax evasion.

As far as personal income tax is concerned, I really don’t understand this hysteria. If individuals, rich or less rich, do not pay their taxes, their income tax should be audited, and if they didn't pay they should be punished. Why attack all rich people with the assumption that because they invest in other countries, they are automatically corrupt?

As an aside, the United States has a almost-unique (other than Eritrea) personal tax system that tries to collect taxes from people who do not reside in the United States. For example Canadians (and other nationalities) who happened to be born in the United States, but have had no other connection to America, are expected by the IRS to file an American tax return every year. That means those unlucky Canadians must file and pay taxes to both Canada and the United States (I won’t bore you with the details of foreign tax credits). This affects every Canadian US-person , rich, not so rich and those in abject poverty.

On top of this these ordinary citizens are lumbered with much more complex filing requirements due to FATCA legislation introduced during the Obama years, not to talk about the fact that the US arm-wrestled other countries to pick up the tab for implementing this legislation.

Am I making sense? If so I will continue when I get a chance. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

Hi Darkfrog24/Archive 1 I believe you are still blocked here, not sure. I hope though, that you can still access your talkpage? Just wanted to share a new development I have come across:

https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2020/10/13/canadian-businessman-toronto-real-estate-firm-implicated-in-multi-million-dollar-offshore-tax-scheme-in-channel-islands.html

Just trying to revive this old thread that seems to have disappeared from your talk page about a topic I believe we are both interested in. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Re: help template

Hey, thanks for your offer of help on my talk page, but I think I may have done it wrong. I put it there as a kind of "I am a noob, beware my mistakes"(not that I've made any contribs so far, shame on me), so sorry if it's not right, I'll take it down. And sorry again if this isn't how to reply to a message :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steelthumbs (talk • contribs) 14:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Re-blocked

You have been blocked from Wikinews for continued disruption per WN:BP#Disruption. If you believe this block is unjustified or wish to contest it, you may add {{unblock|your reason}} to this page, go to Wikinews IRC to request to be unblocked, or send a message to wikinews-l wikimedia ● org.

In particular, that last subsection shows that you are clearly unwilling to consider anything that different people have written. You and others asked me to give an uninvolved view, which I did at WN:AAA. You can disagree with it but if you were expecting vindication, you’ve asked the wrong person. @Pi zero, Gryllida, Acagastya: were blamed by you for being too involved. In order to ensure clarity and transparency I, an uninvolved administrator, have re-blocked your account for six months because of your disruptive comments after User:Pi zero blocked you. From this point on, you only have talk page access for one purpose:

1. requesting an unblock in which you constructively address the reason for the block.

Despite what it says on the block notice, you may not request unblock on IRC or by email (which I’ve also revoked), because I prefer these things to be open and transparent (and the latter also because of the way you publicised confidential emails on your Meta Userpage). If you make any other edit on this talk page (e.g. like the ones in the above section), I will change the block to an indefinite one with talk page access revoked and we can continue on the same basis as your block on English Wikipedia. -Green Giant (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

An uninvolved view is exactly what I asked for Green Giant, and I recognize you as uninvolved. I will take some time to think about what kind of unblock request I would like to make and under what terms I would want to continue volunteering here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

See, Froggy.....? You just have a HORSEY way about you. Even your response here is: 'Let me work on my rebuttal and then we'll see if I intend to grace you all with my presence down the road.' I don't know you peronally.....I don't. But: I do know enough to say that you come across as a person with a personality disorder. When someone dares to correct you or even NUDGE YOU, your immediate response is to take on the reductionistic, hostile stance. You've written a few decent articles....you have and that is good. But: you are the kind of person around here who breaks more than they fix. Your presence here (mostly) just isn't worth the trouble you bring. I honestly think you like fighting. I hope you can look inward and maybe take a more positive stance in the future. --Bddpaux (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I have re-blocked your account indefinitely. This is due to two actions on your part:

• Firstly, I asked you to not make any edit other than an unblock request on this page but you did make such an edit. I let it go as a goodwill gesture at the time.
• Secondly, you have contacted me by email today, even though I specifically said I will not engage in any discussions by email or IRC.
• I have not revoked talk page access yet.
• I have also globally locked four disruptive accounts, which appeared in the days after your last block.
• Additionally I have globally blocked the IP range they operated in.

I am not going to insinuate that these were your accounts but suffice to say that such disruption needs to stop. Please bear in mind that your account is now within the criteria to be globally locked. Once that happens, it is a very, very long and difficult route to get back to being unlocked. --Green Giant (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is a working link to the AAA post to which I refer above. It seems the template doesn't work if there's a diff link in it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

An incidental technical note: the following notation provides a suitable link:

{{plainlinks|{{fullurl:WN:AAA|diff=4557683&oldid=4557675}}|the AAA post}}

output of which looks like this:

the AAA post

@Green Giant: Since you have the email access, this request appears to be in your bailiwick. --Pi zero (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pi zero: thank you for the ping. I re-blocked indefinitely because I refuse to have email discussions about anything to do with your block. This is because full transparency is needed as a result of the factors outlined in the original block message by me. You are in acrimonious dispute with three other administrators and you have had opinions from two uninvolved administrators. Your action in publicly advertising the email communication you had with a Wikipedia administrator is a clear example that you do not respect the confidentiality of emails. I am completely unwilling to discuss the contents of your emails to me.

If you require steward assistance, you can do so by making a request at Meta or if secrecy is necessary, emailing stewards at wikimedia dot org. Your block on this wiki is not a steward issue. Your two current blocks (here and Wikipedia) together make you eligible for a global lock but this will not happen unless you create further disruption.

I repeat what I typed earlier. If you want to return to this wiki, you will need to write a proper appeal addressing the issues you were blocked for and give us a cast-iron guarantee that you will not disrupt the wiki. Appealing for a change back to six months does not address the core issues. If at the end of six months you had not addressed the issues, what would stop this cycle repeating?

I understand your declaration about sockpuppet accounts but they are just a diversion from the core issues but they do not impinge on your route to unblocking. I urge you to stop all peripheral actions around this block and consider carefully the reasons for the block. --Green Giant (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

@Green Giant: I am brainstorming an unblock request and I have some questions to ask you. Ordinarily, I'd ask you privately, but you don't seem to like that. Are you available to talk this week? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
It is not that I do not like private messages. It is that you do not seem to respect the privacy of such messages. There is no need for a brainstorming session on the issue. You just need to promise that you will not repeat the disruptive behaviour AND stick to your promise. -- Green Giant (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Green Giant: I have concerns and I request permission to talk to you about them. Otherwise, no matter what promise I make or how perfectly I keep it, all this will just happen again. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

What are the concerns? --Green Giant (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

There are a few. Here's the first one: In my experience, whenever there's a conflict and only one person is punished, the other parties read it as "I did absolutely nothing wrong. My actions have been endorsed as good. I can and should repeat them"—and then they do. Especially if it is possible to interpret events as "the person who was punished was punished for telling me to stop/pointing it out/reporting me." Directly telling the person, "X wasn't good. Don't do X again" usually prevents this.

To head off any confusion, no I'm not calling for sanctions. For one thing, it's months after the fact. For another, I've known all these people for years and I think being told "Don't do that again" might be enough to put a stop to it. I can name exactly who and exactly what if needed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Green Giant: See above. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

New year, new Wikinews

{{unblock}}I request unblock for two reasons: I have made changes to this talk page that will make the trigger problem--the argument in March 2019--less likely to recur. I have also been reading conflict resolution books and have a plan for getting along with everyone here. The public needs access to uninfluenced news coverage more than ever, and I look forward to contributing again. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

[₂₄Cr][talk] 01:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct and consistent punctuation

I personally agree with you there. It was the way I was taught in school, too. Pi zero insisted to me, that unless the period was in the original quote, one cannot assume the speaker was finished so the period should be after the quotation mark. He and I debated these things until he wore me down. --SVTCobra 03:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

In fairness that's generally the policy taken by news agencies and standard for quoting sources: if the full text is "Tax relief will come in several forms, the first of which will be launched today.", we would have the first section be ("Tax relief will come in several forms".) and the second be ("the first of which will be launched today."). JJLiu112 (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This is actually a British English/American English difference. In American English, the period goes inside the adjacent closing quotation mark every time. A British news agency would do it the way JJ describes but an American one wouldn't. For example, here's the Associated Press' take [31]. Since the draft is about an American subject and written in American English, I used American rules. You'll see I quite cheerfully use British rules where appropriate.

Pi zero may have sincerely believed that the reader can't assume the speaker was finished, but the truth is that no such assumption is being made. In American English, the closing period or comma is understood to be part of the quotation process. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Pi zero was heavily influenced by BRS who is British as far as I know, so that may be an explanation. --SVTCobra 23:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It might also be his time in computer science. Over the years, I've heard many different rationales from people who think this system or that is better than the other, including Pi zero's. People with any background in computer programming tend to prefer British style and/or be driven nuts by American style. I've heard that this sort of character-by-character issue can affect at least some computer programs, even though it does not affect human readers. It's all about writing for your audience. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Visually, it still bothers me to no end to see punctuation marks outside of the quotation marks. But I guess I can learn to live with both styles. Cheers, SVTCobra 02:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)