User talk:Darkfrog24

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikinews

A nice cup of coffee for you while you get started

Getting started as a contributor
How to write an article
  1. Pick something current?
  2. Use two independent sources?
  3. Read your sources before writing the story in your own words?. Do choose a unique title? before you start.
  4. Follow Wikinews' structure? for articles, answering as many of who what when where why and how? as you can; summarised in a short, two- or three-sentence opening paragraph. Once complete, your article must be three or more paragraphs.
  5. If you need help, you can add {{helpme}} to your talkpage, along with a question, or alternatively, just ask?

  • Use this tab to enter your title and get a basic article template.
    [RECOMMENDED. Starts your article through the semi-automated {{develop}}—>{{review}}—>{{publish}} collaboration process.]

 Welcome! Thank you for joining Wikinews; we'd love for you to stick around and get more involved. To help you get started we have an essay that will guide you through the process of writing your first full article. There are many other things you can do on the project, but its lifeblood is new, current, stories written neutrally.
As you get more involved, you will need to look into key project policies and other discussions you can participate in; so, keep this message on this page and refer to the other links in it when you want to learn more, or have any problems.

Wikipedia's puzzle-globe logo, © Wikimedia Foundation
  Used to contributing to Wikipedia? See here.
All Wikimedia projects have rules. Here are ours.

Listed here are the official policies of the project, you may be referred to some of them if your early attempts at writing articles don't follow them. Don't let this discourage you, we all had to start somewhere.

The rules and guides laid out here are intended to keep content to high standards and meet certain rules the Wikimedia Foundation applies to all projects. It may seem like a lot to read, but you do not have to go through it all in one sitting, or know them all before you can start contributing.

Remember, you should enjoy contributing to the project. If you're really stuck come chat with the regulars. There's usually someone in chat who will be happy to help, but they may not respond instantly.

The core policies
Places to go, people to meet

Wiki projects work because a sense of community forms around the project. Although writing news is far more individualistic than contributing to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, people often need minor help with things like spelling and copyediting. If a story isn't too old you might be able to expand it, or if it is disputed you may be able to find some more sources and rescue it before it is listed for deletion.

There are always discussions going on about how the site could be improved, and your input is of value. Check the links here to see where you can give input to the running of the Wikinews project.

Find help and get involved
Write your first article for Wikinews!

Use the following box to help you create your first article. Simply type in a title to your story and press "Create page". Then start typing text to your story into the new box that will come up. When you're done, press "save page". That's all there is to it!



It is recommended you read the article guide before starting. Also make sure to check the list of recently created articles to see if your story hasn't already been reported upon.


-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Contents

Re: help template[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

Qapla'[edit]

@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!

Klingon trekkie.jpg

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)

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

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)

Re: reviewers (from Special:PermaLink/4442301)[edit]

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):
September:
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.)[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Attribution by examples[edit]

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: Talk:U.S. pipe bombing suspect makes first court appearance[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Civilty[edit]

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).
[1] and [2] 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 [3] ... 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.[edit]

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[edit]

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)

My possible explanation for IP editing by Acagastya[edit]

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)

Re: US: Missouri police announce they are investigating Danye Jones's death as suicide[edit]

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."[4] By the same standard, the police officer would be just "white." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Continued discussion[edit]

(@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 [5]; 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Restored comment[edit]

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:[6] 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."[7]
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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]
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[edit]

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 Wikinewslike 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[edit]

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)

Evidence regarding present tense[edit]

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: [17] 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)

Time saving[edit]

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[18]. 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)

Necessity for publication[edit]

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)

Guardian attributes this so we probably should too[edit]

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[edit]

Seeing [19], 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[edit]

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:

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:

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Re [20], 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

Re [21] 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)

Scientists coin Stormtropis genus for smooth-legged spiders[edit]

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)

About direct editing[edit]

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)

Temporary undeletes[edit]

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[edit]

.....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[edit]

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)

Happy Easter, Darkfrog24[edit]

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:

Image: Divya Kudua (flickr).

See you around,

--Gryllida (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Aw, thanks G! Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Troll feeding[edit]

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![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Hi Darkfrog24,

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[edit]

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)