Template:Did you know nominations/Mercados Libres Campesinos
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: withdrawn per author's request. North America1000 04:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mercados Libres Campesinos
[edit]- ... that Mercados Libres Campesinos were farmers markets in Cuba that operated from 1980 to 1986?
Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 10:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC).
New and long enough, all paragraphs have inline citations, QPQ review performed, checks for copyvio reveals no problems (e.g. [1]), content of the hook is backed with an inline citation to a reliable source in the article. North America1000 01:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The supplied QPQ was not adequate, checking only newness, length, and hook citation. Unlike this review, the QPQ fails to mention any of the policy requirements: neutrality, adequate source citations, and copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing, and also didn't mention checking the supplied quid pro quo review to see whether it had been done properly. If the QPQ is brought up to DYK standard, then this can be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Prhartcom has previously recommended we agree to a voluntary mutual IBAN, which I have followed meticulously. I'm sorry to see you've, once again, chosen not to do so. I stand-by my QPQ of StAnselm's excellent contribution and will not alter or change it. He does not deserve to have his contributions torpedoed because of a personal problem you have with me.
- All policy requirements were checked, even if they were not explicity mentioned for reasons of brevity and efficiency. As you apparently are unaware, there is no requirement dictating how a pass be worded, so unless you have noticed specific copyvio, placing a "bureaucratic hold" here because my QPQ was not worded the way you personally like to see QPQs worded serves no purpose except further disruption. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, not a driver license application.
- (In background for recent arrivals, BM very passionately disagreed with a GA review I did many months ago and - since then - has relentlessly attempted to get me TBAN'ed from GA; attempts which, thus far, have not produced the best results. Here's his last wall-of-text effort. Having been warned off from continuing at GA, it looks like he's now trying to see if he can get his one-man crusade to "stick" at DYK. I've so far been resigned to just accepting BM's tiresome hounding as the cost-of-editing, but I'm sad to see he's now tendentiously holding-up the contributions of other editors in pursuing this obsession.) LavaBaron (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, how exactly is the QPQ not adequate for DYK purposes? Prhartcom (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Prhartcom, I explained above exactly what was missing from LavaBaron's review here. I have pointed out to countless reviewers at DYK over the past several years when their QPQ reviews have come up short in similar fashion, and see no reason to except LavaBaron from this practice. As it says at T:TDYK#How to review a nomination,
Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed
. LavaBaron didn't "indicate all aspects", and now would be an excellent time to do so. It would take maybe a minute of extra typing, far less than he spent typing above, to do what he should have done in the first place. As for the so-called mutual IBAN, I certainly had not agreed to one—indeed, the suggestion was not made by Prhartcom (I see a request for a "truce"), and how could it have been a mutual IBAN when Prhartcom specifically recommended in that post that I undertake to review some of your then-unreviewed GANs and show by example how a GA review ought to be done? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)- All right, fair enough. LavaBaron, let's treat this as a learning experience. Please re-read the instructions at the link provided. Next, please go to the DYK you QPQ reviewed and include the missing aspects of it that you are supposed to include. Then I will double-check it myself and so will BlueMoonset, and I believe that will be the end of it. Please do not include any further words directed to each other. Both of you made good points in your statements above; you are both right in many ways. LavaBaron, the review of your own work above, and your work itself, looks fine; nice work. Prhartcom (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's unnecessary as I've already explained, above, that the items have been reviewed for copyvio, etc. For me to now edit my QPQ to include that is simply a demand by BM for me to undertake busy-work for the sake of busy-work; a demand I cannot take in GF given his itinerant use of demeaning adjectives ("incompetent", etc.) to describe me. Given the history of his fruitless attempts to have me TBAN'ed from GA reviews, it is very difficult for me to take this as a random, GF pop-in. As I said, within this thread an assurance that StAnselm's excellent contribution is plagiarism-free and NPOV has already been made. Where we're at now is here: if BM is here to encyclopedia-build, he will accept my assurance in GF to release his "hold;" If he's here carry-out a juvenile vendetta by insisting every line on the QPQ form is filled out in blue ink pen in triplicate before it's put into a filing cabinet where it will never again be viewed, he'll refuse to release his hold. But the ball's in his court. LavaBaron (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- LavaBaron, I do understand that you carried out your review, that you checked all policy requirements, and that all is above board, "even if they were not explicitly mentioned". I am asking you to please explicitly mention them. Trust me; that is the quickest way to put this behind us. Please do this for me.
- BlueMoonset, it is funny, isn't it, that the DYK criteria are slightly vague and contradictory. I can't believe I myself have not got into any trouble with my DYKs. LavaBaron is actually doing it correctly according to the link you provided. However, a better link is Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide, which has all the criteria you were speaking of. Ah well. Prhartcom (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I cannot do this. It would contribute to the ongoing disruption of the encyclopedia if I were to begin indulging BM's hounding. In the interest of WP and to avoid more potential disruption by BM, I withdraw this DYK. LavaBaron (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- LavaBaron, I am not the only person at DYK, and the review is not just for me, it's for the people who will come to promote the nomination to prep, and promote the prep to queue. They deserve a complete, fully written review so they know what has been checked, and what hasn't. It takes a minute, maybe two, to write up everything that has been checked. I am not the only person who asks for this, so if you plan to continue at DYK, you're going to run into this same situation again and again—if not with me, then with one of the other reviewers. It seems a shame to cut yourself off from DYK to prove a point of some kind—this is certainly not in Wikipedia's best interest—but you're clearly not going to listen to me or do anything that I suggest. (Have you ever?) Best of luck in your future endeavors; Prhartcom, thank you very much for trying to mediate the situation. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have completed nearly two-dozen QPQs and, on not one occasion, have "the people who will come to promote the nomination to prep, and promote the prep to queue" [sic] raised an issue with the composition or thoroughness of my QPQs. Again, and as always, you seem to be a lone voice in the wilderness loudly declaiming my competence and intelligence; declamations that are typically peppered with feverish assurances that you speak for a silent majority that never seems to materialize despite your repeated efforts to summon them.
- I also feel it's pertinent to note that you've, previously, attempted to chime-in to disrupt DYKs with your fundamentalist interpretation of DYK policies and have been overruled by consensus of editors who, generally, don't seem to appreciate your ultra-orthodox reading of policy. I don't understand why you're having such difficulty in "playing nice" with other editors.
- It's been months since our disagreement over a single GA review set you off on this destructive, and what I'm sure will ultimately be a self-destructive, path you've chosen for yourself. I sincerely wish you the best, BM, and hope that you are able to put things back together at some point. LavaBaron (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth shortened the hook significantly, but let it be 13 characters over, a far cry from 37, and a generous concession. I very much doubt Cwmhiraeth felt my original comment was an "ultra-orthodox reading of policy", but if so, I'm perfectly willing to hear it here and now. Cwmhiraeth? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- So was this your end game in starting this specious drama? To divert and hijack yet another routine nom with yet another disruptive attempt to pull in more editors to your relentless, poorly conceived, vendetta? If you want your DYK comments critiqued, WP:EAR or some other place may be a good resource for you, but the DYK nom for "Mercados Libres Campesinos" is most certainly NOT the correct venue to make that request. If you're not sure what a DYK Reviewers' template is appropriately used for, you should read WP:DYK, or ask for assistance from a seasoned editor, before continuing to post here. LavaBaron (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about. There is no vendetta except in your mind. I've been working at DYK for years, with far more edits at DYK than you have on all of Wikipedia, and you're suddenly making wild accusations of "fundamentalist interpretation" and the like. Since you have effectively claimed that Cwmhiraeth was upset with my pointing out the overlong hook, I thought it only fair to get Cwmhiraeth's point of view. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I congratulate you on "working at DYK for years," and I'm sorry you're upset, however, the DYK nom for "Mercados Libres Campesinos" is still not the place to solicit other editors for feedback on your DYK edits. Don't know how much clearer I can make that.
- I've already told you I'm withdrawing this DYK so as to avoid the continuance of the disruption to WP it seems to have created by attracting your attention. The conversation, therefore, is effectively over and has been for some time. The fact you're still looking for ways to score a pound of flesh kind-of betrays your reason for coming here in the first place, veiled though it was in ostensible concern of StAnselm's alleged copyvio. There's no reason for any post to follow this one; the nom is dead. LavaBaron (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- So was this your end game in starting this specious drama? To divert and hijack yet another routine nom with yet another disruptive attempt to pull in more editors to your relentless, poorly conceived, vendetta? If you want your DYK comments critiqued, WP:EAR or some other place may be a good resource for you, but the DYK nom for "Mercados Libres Campesinos" is most certainly NOT the correct venue to make that request. If you're not sure what a DYK Reviewers' template is appropriately used for, you should read WP:DYK, or ask for assistance from a seasoned editor, before continuing to post here. LavaBaron (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- LavaBaron, I am not the only person at DYK, and the review is not just for me, it's for the people who will come to promote the nomination to prep, and promote the prep to queue. They deserve a complete, fully written review so they know what has been checked, and what hasn't. It takes a minute, maybe two, to write up everything that has been checked. I am not the only person who asks for this, so if you plan to continue at DYK, you're going to run into this same situation again and again—if not with me, then with one of the other reviewers. It seems a shame to cut yourself off from DYK to prove a point of some kind—this is certainly not in Wikipedia's best interest—but you're clearly not going to listen to me or do anything that I suggest. (Have you ever?) Best of luck in your future endeavors; Prhartcom, thank you very much for trying to mediate the situation. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I cannot do this. It would contribute to the ongoing disruption of the encyclopedia if I were to begin indulging BM's hounding. In the interest of WP and to avoid more potential disruption by BM, I withdraw this DYK. LavaBaron (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's unnecessary as I've already explained, above, that the items have been reviewed for copyvio, etc. For me to now edit my QPQ to include that is simply a demand by BM for me to undertake busy-work for the sake of busy-work; a demand I cannot take in GF given his itinerant use of demeaning adjectives ("incompetent", etc.) to describe me. Given the history of his fruitless attempts to have me TBAN'ed from GA reviews, it is very difficult for me to take this as a random, GF pop-in. As I said, within this thread an assurance that StAnselm's excellent contribution is plagiarism-free and NPOV has already been made. Where we're at now is here: if BM is here to encyclopedia-build, he will accept my assurance in GF to release his "hold;" If he's here carry-out a juvenile vendetta by insisting every line on the QPQ form is filled out in blue ink pen in triplicate before it's put into a filing cabinet where it will never again be viewed, he'll refuse to release his hold. But the ball's in his court. LavaBaron (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- All right, fair enough. LavaBaron, let's treat this as a learning experience. Please re-read the instructions at the link provided. Next, please go to the DYK you QPQ reviewed and include the missing aspects of it that you are supposed to include. Then I will double-check it myself and so will BlueMoonset, and I believe that will be the end of it. Please do not include any further words directed to each other. Both of you made good points in your statements above; you are both right in many ways. LavaBaron, the review of your own work above, and your work itself, looks fine; nice work. Prhartcom (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Prhartcom, I explained above exactly what was missing from LavaBaron's review here. I have pointed out to countless reviewers at DYK over the past several years when their QPQ reviews have come up short in similar fashion, and see no reason to except LavaBaron from this practice. As it says at T:TDYK#How to review a nomination,
- BlueMoonset, how exactly is the QPQ not adequate for DYK purposes? Prhartcom (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
