Template talk:Did you know nominations/Washington Initiative 1639

Hi I would like to point out that the number quoted on the Main page is not up-to-date. Saying "more than a dozen" would be better than saying "14" because depending on sources, the number may be as high as 24 out of 39. See here and here. I would propose it be changed to "more than a dozen". Thanks! Also ping, , and. Terrorist96 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is why I had added the update tag that was subsequently removed.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * When I promoted the hook it stated "more than a dozen", and it seems to have still said that when the prep was moved into the queue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The hook I proposed said "more than a dozen". What happens to the hook after it's approved is completely out of my hands. As to the separate issue of why the update tag was removed, it's most likely because it was not a GF tag; namely, you had demanded the map in the article be updated with a combination of completely unsourced information and information you found on something called gunrightswatch.com which, as you were told, is not a WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I "demanded"? I asked nicely if it could be updated, but ok, let's go with "demanded"... The Guardian link says 21 counties, which is still much more than the "14" we've got right now notwithstanding your concerns with gunrightswatch.com. But it's been fixed on the front page now. Terrorist96 (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "I asked nicely if it could be updated" And, after you were told that it would not be updated with WP:OR or non-WP:RS sources you slapped a "needs updating" tag on the page which achieved nothing other than create clerical work for C of E who had to remove it. That doesn't seem "nice." In any case, as I said "The hook I proposed said "more than a dozen". What happens to the hook after it's approved is completely out of my hands." Insofar as "The Guardian link says 21 counties, which is still much more than the "14" we've got right now", as a registered editor you are free to update content on WP as you see fit and sources support. I believe this has also been explained to you. I guess I'm unclear where the confusion is originating. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Chetsford (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow. What a dishonest characterization. I "slapped" the update tag first then went to the talk page to nicely request an update/explain the update tag. And the Guardian link was there at the time, but you chose to fixate on the other cited source. Your characterization that I "slapped" the tag after you raised a concern an hour and a half later shows bad faith on your part. Are you always this difficult to work with or am I just catching you on a bad day? But this conversation has gone on long enough and the underlying point is now moot.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can dial it back just a bit that'd be great. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)