User:Robertinventor/wikinews

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Style_guide/Archive_1#Disputes_about_use_of_present_tense_could_be_avoided_by_updating_this_guide

Reviewing policy
Hello Darkfrog24,

Regarding this diff I ask you to understand that
 * 1) I was not involved in the lengthy discussion, and
 * 2) the edits that I had made to the article were minor and did not disqualify me from reviewing.

If you continue to submit articles for review without addressing the concerns indicated by a reviewer, we may have to stop reviewing your submissions. I hope this does not occur, however as I am seeing that you are continuing to engage in the "your understanding of verb tenses is wrong so I will not address your concern" activity repeatedly, I feel obligated to remind you of this consequence.

--Gryllida (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For the verb tenses I have an easy fix for you, it is mentioned at the talk page of the article at the last section here. I hope it works for you.
 * If "It was raining yesterday" still reads to you as "it was raining yesterday and it is not raining today", please let me know. This would be very bizarre to me personally, and in that case I am not sure how to address this. I would suggest you to speak with your dad and mum about it, or with your school teacher, or whoever has taught you this principle, and ask them to suggest a workaround that works and fits the wish to report in past tense. Gryllida (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Gryllida, English is bizarre. It's well known for being bizarre.
 * EDIT CONFLICT: 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:
 * 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.
 * 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&mdash;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.[
 * 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)
 * 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&mdash;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.[
 * 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)