| Revision as of 10:16, 29 October 2019 editThe Rambling Man (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors286,429 edits →DYK: tw← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:14, 15 January 2020 edit undoThe Rambling Man (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors286,429 edits addTag: Replaced | ||
| (33 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| {{break}} | {{break}} | ||
| === |
===Latest=== | ||
| *"that the 12-year license fight that led to the establishment of Washington, D.C., radio station WYCB also drained its principals' finances?" yup, so it cost him money, and........? | |||
| *] | |||
| ==DYK== | |||
| NOTE TO SELF: DO NOT MOVE THESE TO ERRORS... | |||
| ===30=== | |||
| '''Queue 2''' | |||
| ==OTD== | |||
| ==How to check a DYK candidate== | |||
| Basic instructions that many of our admins fail to follow when promoting a DYK queue on its way to the main page. | |||
| #Check the hook is written in grammatically correct English and matches words and ENGVAR used in the article. | |||
| #Check the article is okay, that's a multi-step process: | |||
| ##Check that there are no unreferenced claims ''in general'', i.e. look for paras or sentences without refs. | |||
| ##Check that the article is written in grammatically correct English (spot check, but especially around the hook region). | |||
| ##Check that the hook is real. | |||
| ##Check that the reference verifying the hook is live. | |||
| ##(Check for MOS – I do this because I can, I'm good at it and I want the stuff on the main page to be decent, which it often isn't – this is optional...!) | |||
| ##Check for basic DYK fails (bare URLs, stub templates, maintenance tags by the way]). | |||
| ==Bygone== | |||
| {{collapse top|Don't come to my user space and make personal attacks and expect me to take it lying down. ] <small>(])</small> 13:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)}} | |||
| ===16 (pm)=== | |||
| *] - underplaying the hand: she could "smell an unknown mixture and identify many of the chemicals in it just from the smell." I would add "unknown" to the hook so it's more interesting, less of a "smell test" more of a "Sherlock Holmes of sniffing". ] <small>(])</small> 17:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'']'' - I think our audience would be better off having "trans women" linked than "documentary". Seriously, the former is relatively new speak really, the latter is just a dicdef. ] <small>(])</small> 18:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *] - "helped to virtually eradicate rickets in Glasgow?" virtually? this is an encyclopedia, right? Just because it's DYK, it doesn't mean we accept tabloid writing.... ] <small>(])</small> 18:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *:And surprise surprise, when reading the article, we see "He contributed to the near-eradication of rickets", so let's keep it accurate? Or focus on the wonderful lead sentence: {{xt| he established the first specialised unit in Britain for children with kidney disease}} which is truly life-changing for many. ] <small>(])</small> 18:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop}} | |||
| ::: The source says "virtually". ] (]) 11:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So? If your mother told you to jump off a cliff, would you? We write encyclopedically here, even at DYK. ] <small>(])</small> 11:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: What's unencyclopedic about "virtually"? ] (]) 12:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's incorrectly used here. There's nothing "virtual" about it. Besides, avoid close paraphrasing, especially when it's poorly written. ] <small>(])</small> 12:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I don't see how it's been "incorrectly used" (particularly since it's used by the source), but on the paraphrase objection, I've given it a tweak. ] (]) 12:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The usage of "virtually" to mean "almost entirely" is not a formal enough usage for an encyclopedia. --] (]) 13:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Nonsense, it's not an informal term, take a look at a dictionary. ] (]) 13:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Not nonsense at all. And don't use that tone on my ERRORS page, how RUDE. ] <small>(])</small> 13:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: Sorry, but I'm not responsible for your interpretation of my "tone". I'm simply making a factual statement - it's nonsense to say this term, or its usage in this context, is informal - at least according to every dictionary I've looked at. If you think that isn't the case, by all means provide some evidence, but I certainly can't find any. ] (]) 13:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::TONE! ] <small>(])</small> 13:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::FWIW I think the term here is misused. "Almost eradicate" would be much better, but even then, it's still a case of how close to being completely removed is fair? Best Wishes, '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: I guess that means you don't actually ''have'' any evidence to support your claim. That's what it usually means when people resort to personal attacks. And BTW, THUNDERING at people in ALL CAPS as if they were ten-year-olds is hardly a good example to set with regard to TONE - not that you've ever been one to emulate in that respect. ] (]) 13:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Why are you here slagging me off Gatoclass? Piss off. Sorry, I meant PISS off. ] <small>(])</small> 14:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::: I came here in good faith to try to help improve a DYK set. I ''acted'' on three of your requests as I commonly do. But then, in looking at another - because I liked the existing wording of the hook and thought "near-eradicating" would not be an improvement - I made the mistake of noting that the source itself used the same wording. Unfortunately, you interpreted my comment, as usual, as some sort of tacit criticism. You never respond this way with others who try to help here, but in my case even the slightest murmur of demurral is considered an affront. Well, as I said - my mistake. I'd allowed myself to momentarily imagine that my support for easing your restrictions at DYK might have increased the goodwill here, but I see that is not the case. It seems that my input here is just as unwelcome as it always was - unless of course it's in complete agreement with yours. So I guess it's back to square one. ] (]) 14:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::You blew it. Coming to my own user space and flinging shit like {{xt|not that you've ever been one to emulate in that respect}} and {{xt|by doing so I seem to have inadvertently collided with your ego again}}? Get LOST. ] <small>(])</small> 14:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::: You started it by thundering about my TONE. But why let the facts get in the way? You don't want my input here, so you created a confrontation and then tried to blame me for it. Well I guess that will be enough to convince some folks. I don't see any benefit in continuing this discussion at this point, but I will say as I've said before that I have just as much right to have input about DYK sets as anybody else, and if that means having to oppose changes proposed by you or anybody else from time to time that I disagree with, I will continue to do so. ] (]) 14:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::I'm confused here. Which parts of "piss off" and "get lost" didn't you get? Argue to your heart's content about whatever turns you on, but don't you '''dare''' come to my userspace and denigrate me time and again. ] <small>(])</small> 16:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{abottom}} | |||
| *] had more than one competitor in that election. He beat his ''nearest'' competitor by 120K votes. ] <small>(])</small> 18:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *] - "has" the first eternal flame reads odd to me. The article has it better, "contains". And better is the fact that ''other'' eternal flames have been ignited from it, pity to exclude that uber-fact. Also, article has a ref error which should be addressed before main page. ] <small>(])</small> 18:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *] - first para of awards is unreferenced. Naughty for a BLP. ] <small>(])</small> 18:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *: It is now - was yesterday but I didn't see this before. --] (]) 12:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *] - I would suggest that the vast majority of our readers know what a "prostitute" is, don't link common terms. And when did this become a gossip column? The ''very next sentence'' states that he was acquitted of the charges. Deary me. What scurrilous unencylopedic tittle tattle. ] <small>(])</small> 18:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| **The nomination was reopened for discussion of a new hook. ] (]) 17:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| {{collapse top|Don't come here and call me a jerk, trying to game NPA, especially when all I've done is TELL THE TRUTH. ] <small>(])</small> 18:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)}} | |||
| === Personal attack from admin === | |||
| <s>a jerk</s> this is counterproductive to basically everything I can think of. --] (]) 13:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :That was a statement of actual fact. The queue had been promoted, then Gatoclass reviewed it and found three problematic hooks, one of which still remains unresolved on the main page. Then I found three issues in 20 minutes. Resorting to personal attacks is highly unbecoming of an admin and I suggest you remove it with an apology. ] <small>(])</small> 14:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, that was not intended to be a personal attack. I intentionally worded it to say you were ''behaving like'' a jerk rather than actually calling you a jerk, but I've revised to replace "behaving like a jerk" with "behaving like this". It's the scare quotes. It's just ''this''y to say another person "reviewed" it. You don't have to actually act ''this''y to point out the issues you find. It's counterproductive. It makes FEWER people want to work at DYK and it makes NO ONE want to work harder. --] (]) 14:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't follow you '''at all'''. When moving from prep to queue, it ''had'' to be reviewed by someone, I don't know who, I haven't even looked. Then three further issues were discovered by Gatoclass, one of which wasn't resolved until about ten minutes ago. In the meantime, I found three further issues. That's all I said. A pure statement of fact and you're here now to attack me for that. And you're an admin? I'm genuinely disappointed and harassed. ] <small>(])</small> 14:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm sorry this makes you feel harrassed, and I'm sorry you're disappointed. I find your article and hook checking extremely useful. When I agree an issue is an error, I try to address it. I also think your primary motivation is to improve the encyclopedia; often I see you making multiple helpful edits to articles for hooks nearing the main page while I’m doing the same. But if I'm actively participating at your page and see you making comments I think are not cool, I don't feel like I have a choice but to comment. If you'd prefer me to stop participating, I'll respect that, but I'd rather keep working together. --] (]) 16:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There was nothing "not cool" about what I said. It was PURE FACT. A set was promoted somehow with no fewer than six issues. My comments were also in the context of the discussion that was already taking place on that page relating to how long it takes to perform cursory reviews and note issues. Coming to my talk page to try to circumvent NPA but still to basically call me a jerk is plain harassment and is incredibly disappointing. If you don't like the statements of facts that I make, I'll avoid notifying you of the issues I find time and again. ] <small>(])</small> 16:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::TRM, I can respect that you find "behaving like a jerk" as gaming of NPA, and I apologize for it; I won't use that language again. I'd like to keep working together. This is the place we can work together, and this is the place I can make a comment that you can safely respond to. Will that work? --] (]) 10:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| ==Rollback abuse== | |||
| The issues continue unaddressed.... | |||
| * | |||
Latest revision as of 20:14, 15 January 2020
English Misplaced Pages picture of the day
Links
- today's or tomorrow's Main page
- today's or tomorrow's Featured article
- In the news
- today's or tomorrow's On this day
- current or next Did you know...
- today's or tomorrow's Featured picture
- last or next Featured list
- Glory glory...!
Latest
- "that the 12-year license fight that led to the establishment of Washington, D.C., radio station WYCB also drained its principals' finances?" yup, so it cost him money, and........?