User talk:MJL/Archive 17/

Sweet friendship
Hello, my friend, how are you, thank you fopr your assistance an d kindness, good news our article (yes, i could not have done it with out you) was excepted), thank you also on the research, i have just completed another article,. that had been reverted early , that ids okay the person thought they are just doing the right thing, i have completed a filmography, because i had to add not only actor and presenter credits, but also directo credits , being for Alister Smart, now can restore citations and categories section, regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'm glad to hear your happy about our article being accepted! :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

appreciation
Thanks for your work in getting things more rational with the draft article about the notable dancer.  DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's nothing! I didn't actually know that you had originally moved it to draftspace until I your pings a few minutes ago. I appreciate those pings btw. If I people did that more often, my time on this site would be so much smoother! I've gotten to be a pagemover out of it, so I should really be the one thanking you!! It was certainly an experience.. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've learned that when someone protests too vigorously, the only practical thing is to let someone else handle it. Don't give up on becoming an admin. The only people who don't make mistakes are those who don't try to do anything difficult. BTW, you might want to take another look at Zinsland  DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly review it in a bit; though, I must admit it's not the best article I reviewed. It certainly wasn't too too bad though, either. One sec. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the language a bit, and the user in question has already committed to improving the article. Feel free to add the tag back if you still see some issues, though. Also, I don't know if I would want to be an admin tbh. I'm too impulsive and prone to drama for certain things. If I grow out of it, sure; but for now I think I more likely than not would bring the project into disrepute. It's a pleasant thought, though! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

CSD C1
Hey MJL, saw your revert on Category:Wikipedians interested in the Caribbean Netherlands; how those nominations work is that the cat can be nominated as soon as it is empty (since there is no easy way to tell how long a cat has been empty), and then the cat goes into a holding pen (Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion) for the seven day period before it can be deleted (and if a page is added to the cat in that time, the CSD tag is removed and the deletion of course does not proceed). Any questions, let me know. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh gotcha. I've self-reverted. I wasn't aware this had special procedures (kind of should be explained clearer in the talk notice?). Ignore my reply here then lol. but I am actually rather interested in the Caribbean Netherlands.  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 14:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK Prep Area 6
Just a few pointers for promoting to help you out. -
 * 1) There should only be one set of three dots
 * 2) The picture should be from the first hook (for example, not the third hook in a set)
 * 3) It's probably best to add at least 3 biographies in a set since so many of them are nominated, but not more than half of the set can be biographies. SL93 (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I spoke too soon, except for point 3. Great job. SL93 (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Point 1 is (now rather painfully) noted. Point 2 happened in my quest to provide a decent amount space in between the bolded links. I finally accomplished that with this. As for point 3, it couldn't be helped. I wanted to achieve near perfect geographic and tonal balance. No biography thus far felt perfectly right, so I made the decision that gender balance would have to suffice. Idk... I'm really weird. I hope this wasn't that bad for a first prep, though? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly fine. I just use that biography rule as a rule of thumb when I can. SL93 (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll be certain to promote 3 or 4 bios if I ever do this again. Until then, thank you for your help and advice! :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6
Hi, thanks so much for helping build a prep set at DYK! Your choice of the lead image was perfect, as we try to alternate the hook images among people-places-nature-paintings, etc. and it was high time for a building/nature image.

I'm a bit perplexed by your edit remark that "the rule is it goes from most serious to most absurd". Actually, the "rule" is that the hooks are mixed up throughout the set. The first one should have a good image and a good hook, and the last one should be "quirky" (see WP:DYKSG). Unfortunately, the hook you chose for the last hook is not quirky. Neither is the one right before; death hooks are not considered suitable.

Another "rule" is that we alternate bio/non-bio hooks in a set. You have 4 non-bio hooks in a row to start off the set. As soon as another prep set opens, we can start swapping out non-bios and replacing them with bios. Thanks again, Yoninah (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC) However, I think I totally disagree with you. The second to last hook is wickedly ironic, and I started' with pine one because I liked it so much. You can't possibly tell me that an award winning systems control engineer dying from a traffic accident is not serendipitous. I consider that to be real quirky (even if dark). It contrasts with the pine hook well, too, which is played straight. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Internal rule I had as I was prepping it at the height of my madness (which has since faded). I just wanted it to be aesthetically pleasing, and I finally got to that point with Special:Diff/908201789.
 * Why did you just do that?! There is no such rule that non-bios should be treated as the same type (Reference: WP:DYKSG). I spent hour and a half ensuring it was perfectly balanced, and you just.. said it was fine!! Seriously, every single thing was so balanced and fit neatly. The only potential rule it violated was that it lacked an additional bio, but that isn't a hard and fast thing! Please, self-revert. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I never said that. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/908202565? &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there is a misunderstanding, but Yoninah is more experienced with DYK than me. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Misunderstanding? (1) I asked you if there were any problems, and you said it looked fine. Now you are walking back that comment as if you didn't say it. (2) If the rule that Yoniah cites exists, then why not link to it? Because it doesn't! The rules specifically protect preps like mine. The only thing I could understand would be removing the pine hook. While I believe otherwise, that is the only rule Yoninah has a compelling case for. (3) Yoniah's rule completely contradicts your own, too. It'd be utterly impossible mathematically to rotate bio/nonbio in anyway that wasn't half-and-half (ie always four if 8 hooks are needed). &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's so absurd to say that we must always have four bios. The rule (WP:DYKSG) says Up to 50% not always 50%. >.< &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm afraid I'm having trouble following this discussion. As I said, I appreciate your helping out at DYK. I admire you for reading all the rules, and I would expect you to look at the preps and queues already loaded to get an idea of how it goes in practice. We currently have 167 approved hooks to choose from. There is no reason why there should not be 4 bios and 4 non-bios, alternating, in every set. Look at all the loaded prep sets – we promoters always try to have 4 and 4. If I hadn't come along and moved things around, someone else would have. If you really feel so strongly, after building one prep set, that the rule should be changed, please bring it up for consensus at WT:DYK.
 * I honestly have no idea why you think the pine tree hook was quirky. Regarding the dark humor, I've had my hand slapped several times over the years when I put a dark humor hook in the quirky slot; I thought a certain necrophilia hook was funny, but I was quickly apprised that it wasn't. I'm sorry you felt you assembled the "perfect" set and that I didn't get it. Probably others wouldn't get it either. It's a learning curve, and I hope you'll take it in that spirit. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not that I felt I had the "perfect" set, it's that I thought I did everything right. I made sure to closely review each of the other preps at the time (minus the mistake with the dots which was kind of dumb tbh). I had worked so hard on it, and it's so frustrating to hear one night that it was fine, but another user to just swap out half of the prep a day later. None of the rules reflect what you are saying with this 4 and 4 thing. Why did I even bother reading ever single supplementary guideline and rule used if some rule that I don't even know about can just be used to veto the entire compilation? It's so pointless and frustrating. } &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * MJL, I totally hear you, and I sympathize with your frustration. Editors who don't build prep sets but call out hooks with problems at WT:DYK and WP:ERRORS have no idea how hard it is to do this. It usually takes me a full hour to build an 8-hook set. But you are the first editor to even mention the lack of a 4 and 4 rule; everyone else takes it for granted. Thanks for posting it at WT:DYK; it'll be interesting to see what other editors respond. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, can you we put a hold on the 8 hooks I promoted? I really don't want to be used in another fashion if I end up being right. The fact that they ended up in separate places, there's generally a time constraint involved, and this is all going to the main page is really increasing my anxiety here. If I turn out to be wrong, I'd like the chance to redo the prep, but I'll need the time to decide which non-bio needs to be the one to go rather than it getting decided by someone else because I blew the one chance at a clean prep area I had. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but these are just hooks. We run through 56 of them every week. The prep sets move to the queue and hooks are pulled and swapped out along the way. You might see your finished prep set ready to go on the main page, and then an administrator comes along and upsets the cart. I also take pride in my work, but at DYK one has to expect that his work will be overturned. If you like, you can start plugging in bio hooks to Prep 1; I'm finished for tonight. Yoninah (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I don't think I feel like I can work in that environment. Please don't feel like it is because I didn't get my here, though! It's just that, if what you are saying is true, then it is the exact opposite of a collaborative editing environment. This isn't on you, though. You're strong for being able to put up with that, but I just am conditioned to operate with a certain way of doing things elsewhere on the site. Sorry if I was being a hassle, though. / &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to answer. I don't think this project is as collaborative as, say, WP:Women in Red, where new editors are greatly encouraged and assisted, and even their articles that go to AFD are defended with a good spirit. DYK is more for people getting their articles on the main page so thousands of readers will read them. And once they've had that experience, they want to write another article, and another. Most of our contributors are, in fact, repeat customers (see List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs). The actual mechanics of getting the articles to the main page – reviewing according to the criteria and promoting the hooks – is more of a technical job. The only times I've seen collaborative efforts is when two editors get together to produce new articles to be nominated here. Yoninah (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What I mean to say is that prep-building is akin to a series of WP:BOLD edits that all get made with discussion I'm not used to. I'm bad with words. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I think you expressed yourself very well at WT:DYK just now. I should also mention that aside from the technical stuff, I enjoy writing good hooks that will draw lots of readers. I don't edit the hooks wholesale; I discuss it with the nominator before promoting. (That adds even more time to prep building.) But I do find it gratifying when a hook direction that I suggest scores big on the DYK stats. True, it's completely ephemeral. I really should spend more time on my paying work :) Yoninah (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I walked back because I don't like debating with people more experienced in a subject. It made me regret posting here. I will say this - I don't think there needs to be four biographies per every set and I see no rule that says such a thing. If that was the case, I don't know what would happen in some rare case we had so few biography hooks to promote. If I'm wrong, maybe Yoninah is just correct, but it was a good idea to bring this up on the DYK talk page. SL93 (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , there have been times when we have a glut of bios, or a glut of non-bios, on the approved page. In that case, we have done a 5 and 3 ratio out of necessity. But lately we've had enough hooks to choose from that we can maintain the 4 and 4. The rule of thumb in every case – hook subject, country of origin, even hook length – is balance. Yoninah (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I find DYK very collaborative; that's one of the reasons I like it. When I put together a prep I sort of expect that at minimum one of the hooks will get swapped out, sometimes for reasons of balancing a different set. And when I first started out, it took me a couple hours to put together what felt like a balanced set, and it took me a while to learn the stated and unstated rules. Once I did, it felt like a fun puzzle I was doing with other people. I do agree that we need to update our rules to reflect the ones that aren't stated and the ones that are overly detailed. I hope MJL will give it another try. We can use more help from people who are willing to work hard to learn how it's done and who are willing to challenge how it's currently done to improve it. --valereee (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Restorations from WV
Hello, to restore categories, references etc. Jimmy Hannan singer and host — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.219.97 (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, to restore references, external links, categories etc. for singer, actress Lorrae Desmond MBE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.219.97 (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)