Talk:Stacey Abrams becomes first black woman to gain major U.S. party nomination for governor of Georgia

Review of revision 4408496 [Not ready]

 * 1. Changing the title is not a big deal.
 * 2. There are no issues with WN:FUTURE. "If..." is the conditional tense, not the future tense. "Plans" is in the present tense, not the future tense.
 * 3. I have added to the explanation of red and blue states. Please look at the dictionary definition for context.  I am American so I'm not the one to say whether the definition speaks to people who aren't, but I must confess that I'm not sure where you think people would get confused.
 * 4. The New York Times is not paywalled. Anyone may access up to ten free articles per month.  The last time this came up, I seem to remember you saying something like there's some reason why you specifically couldn't access the New York Times.  Maybe it was something to do with international borders or someone else at your university using up all your free spots.  In any case, whenever it is something that most of our reviewers can do but just not you specifically, then the thing to do is not to reject the article but to leave it for someone else to review.  That being said, I like to add the source information first and then work the article.  I checked NYT while looking for a good quote, which I didn't find.  I think I decided not to use it, and just forgot to remove the source tag. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If changing the title is no big deal, then you should have done it before submitting. WN:Future condition isn't met just by adding "if" -- the tone, the way it is said in the article is just not right. The real problem of red/blue state is not what it means, but why say it in the first place? That paragraph (even with the update) seems totally out of place. And NYT is paywalled. I tried to bypass it with the tricks, but could not. If a source is not used for the article, don't list it. Does not matter how you write an article, one is not supposed to list the sources which do not play any role in the article. •–• 02:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comment about "someone at my university using up..." bullshit, cut it out. There is no need to bring that crap in this discussion when we have a strict policy against paywalled sources. •–• 02:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Not a big deal" does not mean "should have magically known that it would not be to your taste." It can also mean you could have changed it.
 * I already don't use paywalled sources. The New York Times is not paywalled. (Though it does look like they cut it to five from tem.) I don't know what you mean by "bringing up crap." I'm trying to remember what you said and pay attention to your situation as it relates to your role on the team here. Say "thank you" or say nothing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How many times have you been told to minimise the information in parenthesis? How many times have you been told to write better headlines? Despite all our effort, if you are not going to make a real attempt, maybe magic is what we need. If "someone else at your university using up all your free spots" is not another bullshit assumption, I don't know what it is; but I would rather follow DFTT. But if you still want to persuade me to believe the source is not paywalled, you will have to try harder. •–• 03:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely not your place to speak to me this way. You're acting as if I'm some underling who's disregarding all the scoldings and orders that they got from the boss, and that is not how Project Wiki works.  No one here is required to take orders from other participants.  It looks like you had a rotten day again and are looking for things to complain about.  Do what you want but don't do it here. Get your aggression out of your system some other way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But it is totally okay to add paywalled source and then argue with the reviewer, and say crap like "someone else at your university using up all your free spots", or despite repeated notices about improving the headline, you show no signs of improvement. You have been told by at least three different reviewers on multiple occasions about these issues, but you still decide to make the talk page discussion about my "rotten day".
 * Acagastya, whenever you act like this, I no longer have the option of acting on any merited issue that might have been buried in your post. This is because I cannot afford to encourage you to treat me this way.  In the future, if you cannot speak to me like what I am, your colleague and your equal, then do not speak to me at all.  If that means you can't review articles that I draft, or can't review them at certain times, then so be it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Darkfrog24, acagastya's review was not out of line. It's not up to a reporter to decide they don't want some reviewer to review their submissions; that would be very contrary to the principle of independent review.  And, to point out, the reporter-reviewer relationship is asymmetric, both always in function (they perform different roles in the production process) and here in expertise (acagastya understands Wikinews better than you do, which I quite see you don't want to believe).  --Pi zero (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please remove your post (and this response of mine too). YOU ARE ENCOURAGING HIM. Speaking to me the way he has spoken to me in this thread is absolutely out of line.  He came here to pick a fight.   Notice how he's continued to argue "You think paywalled sources are okay!" when it's established that that is not an issue (the issue is rather the fact of whether NYT is really paywalled).  He has accused me of messing with him, using curse words, when he ought to say "you have misremembered what I said; it was really this." He's inventing some conversation about parentheses that didn't happen.  He's complaining about changes (the title) that I've already made as if I haven't made them.  He's generally getting in my face and acting like I have some obligation to obey him.  Please do not encourage this.  Please do not undermine my efforts to not reward it.
 * In the long run, this level of hostility is going to damage the project. We can't force Acagastya to stop (well we can, by blocking or banning), but we can refuse to escalate the situation.  Stop encouraging him. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I said, quite precisely, that the review was not out of line. That is a statement about the comments that appear within the review template at the top of this section, and I stand by my statement.  I do (for the record) think acagastya needs further practice at keeping his temper in extended discussions, but I see no fundamental problem with the review itself.  (If I were critiquing the passages referenced in the first [second] point, I would likely frame it differently, but this is a small point I don't see as terribly central to discussion here.) You seem to think xe's inventing criticisms for the sake of plaguing you with them; this doesn't seem plausible to me, as the concerns raised are pretty standard.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Btw, an analysis of the discussion in this section, which clearly went badly awry and also clearly started out reasonable on all sides, suggests the first moment where things started to go wrong was when the word "bullshit" appeared. --Pi zero (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Close, it was "If changing the title is no big deal, then you should have done it before submitting." Do I need to get into what's wrong with it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that wasn't disrespectful. The basic point was about proactively eliminating concerns before submission.  There was a subsequent squabble about whether the parentheses concern was one that had had come up in discussion with you in the past, but even a discussion of that point could have been conducted respectfully by all parties.  It wasn't, things had already started going sideways by then, but it could have been.  And at the point of the passage you quote, things were still on an even keel.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like yes I do have to explain what was wrong with it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What Acagastya is doing here is qualitatively different from being disrespectful (the term we use when children do not show enough deference to their elders). I looked and I can't find the article I want right now.  It's a psychology source giving examples, with their official names, of things people do when they're trying to pick a fight.  This post focuses on "If changing the title is no big deal ...submitting" but I can go on to the rest of what Acagastya said if need be.
 * Look at my first response to the review statement. I agree with Acagastya in some places (by changing the title of the article) and disagree in others.  Acagastya responds combatively on all four points.  When you take a swing at someone regardless of whether they were agreeing or disagreeing with you, it means you showed up to take a swing at them.
 * When I did something that can be construed as obeying Acagastya, changing the title, instead of saying either "thanks, that's better" or nothing, he upped the ante: he said that I had done something wrong by using the first title. ("more more MOOOOORE!! You obeyed me a little and that proves you know you have to obey me ALWAYS!!") That punishes me for acting on reviewer statements. You must have been in arguments in which you said, "Well I guess you could be right about C" and the person responded, "So you admit you're wrong about A, B, and C!!" I don't remember what it's called but that's what this is.
 * It doesn't matter whether writers should "proactively address concerns before submission" because that's not what's going on here: There was no concern before submission. Presupposing that I should have known not the first title was unusable is problematic in a few ways.
 * It's entirely fictitious. The first title wasn't unusable.  I chose it because it's so similar to many other titles that got approved.
 * It's physically impossible. Let's say Acagastya sincerely thinks it's unusable.  I could not reasonably have known that ahead of time.  That demands that I pay so much attention to Acagastya as an individual that I may as well read his mind, a herculean effort for infinitesimal results.  It is so much less work for Acagastya to just state his opinion when it comes up.  That amounts to a mountain of your time and effort is worth less than a cup of mine.  Which is extra messed up because I chose it specifically with Acagastya in mind: We all care about catering to international audiences, but Acagastya is the most vocal about this.  I thought about Acagastya when I made sure the title established that the article was about Georgia the state and not the country.  Again, "no, you owe me MOOOOOOOOOOOORE!!"
 * Now let's look at the literal side. "If changing the title is no big deal, then you should have done it before submitting" doesn't make logical sense because whether or not something is a big deal has nothing to do with whether it needs to be done before hitting review. Big or small, tasks that are necessary need to be done before review and those that are optional or unnecessary don't. Acagastya is repeating my words back to me.  I don't remember what psychological trick that is, but I think it's something like "Well if you KNEW it was raining, why didn't you make me breakfast?" trying to start with one thing that has been accepted by both parties (here, "its' raining") and trying to use it to prove an unrelated point ("you are obligated to make me breakfast") while skipping over the connection between the two&mdash;because there really isn't one.
 * Summary, Acagastya, consciously or otherwise, is doing a bunch of things that you do when you want to pick a fight. There are things we have to accept to participate in Wikinews, like articles timing out, other people editing our work, and all the site's rules, but abuse from other editors is not one of them.
 * So what does all of the above have to do with you, ? There's a reason I'm addressing this post to you specifically.  You have to stop encouraging him.  It's not your responsibility to resolve issues between other Wikinewsies, but you have to not make it worse.  Whether that means staying out of it entirely or not is up to you.
 * When you say "There is nothing wrong with X part of what Acagastya said" he is likely to read that as "Acagastya is 100% right and should continue acting the way he's acting." It's just how people work, like reading horoscopes.
 * Similarly, Acagastya is likely to read any compliance with his posts as validation. So when I walk away/decline to take the bait/refuse to reward, don't undermine my efforts.  Don't say, "Yes, [Acagastya or anyone] was abusive/inappropriate/etc. when he said to do X, but won't you do it anyway?" The answer is no.  No emotional blackmail for the not-really-abandoned article.  In the long run, preventing or dispelling a toxic environment is more important than any one article.
 * Accept that sharing your opinion, as you did here, constitutes getting involved. Acknowledge that no one made you do that.  Decide ahead of time whether you really see fit to get involved, and then don't blame anyone else for your decision. (Notice you don't seem to have done that here.)
 * One thing I do ask&mdash;and this goes out to the floor&mdash;I'm using "disengage" because that's the conflict resolution technique that I know. Technique singular.  If anyone knows another one that they think would work, here defined as shutting down the creepy power trips, "email this user" is at left.  Open invitation.  Not a promise to do it, just to listen with an open mind.
 * You don't just have the option of staying out of it, you have the right to. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that Acagastya has not posted here again is a good sign. That could be for any of several reasons.  I'm going to try to take it to a good place. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC) EDIT: This whole part of the conversation is about it being all right to walk away, and credit where credit's due, it looks like Acagastya walked away too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment
Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Appears to be fixed.
 * 2) A. "If she wins the election in November" is not problematic, because Abrams would be the first. B. In this one, I would eliminate the "if" and the interpretation of "focus" and just introduce the quote. "Abrams has stated on her campaign website, 'As governor ...'". Or something like that.
 * 3) It seems pointless to introduce American political colloquialisms such as Red and Blue states, if they are not referenced in any other paragraph. Reps and Dems is enough. I could understand explaining it if there was a quote from someone who used the color reference, but there's not.
 * 4) NYT and WP both allow a few article views per month. But I can tell you, I use those up in a day or two. And it is views, not articles. Look at the same article twice and it counts. At the moment, I can't view either of those sources, which I suspect would hamper my ability to review this article.
 * You sure about the Washington Post? I know the Wall Street Journal creates problems, but I've never had one with the Washington Post. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Make whatever changes you see fit. I'm afraid that at this point I can't do it myself without tacitly consenting to what Acagastya's doing, and I'm not okay with that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite sure: "We're glad you're enjoying The Washington Post. Get access to this story, and every story, on the web and in our apps with our Basic Digital subscription. Keep reading for $10 $1. View features" --SVTCobra 13:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weird. That does not show up when I view the Post, and I definitely don't have a subscription. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The only thing I used the Post for was a transcript of the speech, so it was simple enough to switch it out. "11alive" looked sketchy at first but it's an NBC subsidiary with a quirky name. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I remain conflicted about the fifth paragraph or "red/blue" paragraph. There is definitely value in introducing the international reader to the de-facto of the US, but I fail to see why the colors need to be introduced. But it is not really in the sources, even as it may be common knowledge to any American. Nor was the other historical note about Georgia's voting patterns. I'd be in favor of scrapping the paragraph, if it were not for the two-party thing. --SVTCobra 15:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The information on voting patterns in Georgia is in the Newsweek source, way down near the bottom (suggested string search: "red state"). I don't think the political  in the US matters much here, and I agree the colors serve no useful purpose.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do or don't do, but don't wait for me. I need to disengage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's your article. Basically, everyone here would rather write than review, and the act of review is, at its heart, an act of helping others to achieve publication; sometimes publication of the particular article, always too publication of future articles.  If you distance yourself from the fate of the article, and don't expect to use it to improve your future articles either, that cuts out key motives for reviewers to address it either.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You should not try to emotionally blackmail me into putting up with abuse. I am not a punching bag.
 * If anyone gets in my face, tries to pick a fight, casts me without my permission as their bitch in some personal power trip scenario, or otherwise degrades me in any way, not only do I have the right to step away, but I am being an extra extra team player by doing that and no more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's sadder, your hypocritical use of me as your punching bag, or your mistaking of the unvarnished truth for some sort of emotional ploy. --Pi zero (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not using you as a punching bag, Pi zero. I am telling you which of your actions is damaging our shared environment: When I walk away from a fight, don't try to pull me back in.  Which of my actions makes you feel punched?  That is not a rhetorical question.  Within reason, I'm willing to change the way I talk to you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"Election" vs. "primary"
So I looked at the page history and saw this change. Yeah... The strategies in question are for winning the election, not the primary itself (which is why I used that word). The statement is still true, but maybe an "in November" could clear it up some more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look at that paragraph, it talks about the results of the primary election. It's a total non-sequitur to have it close with a planned strategy for the general election, especially for Evans who lost. Note, they are both elections. I trust you can see how that didn't make sense to me. --SVTCobra 00:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean the sources say "Abrams won the primary election because the primary voters thought she had a better strategy for the November election than Evans did." I made a change to the text. Is it clearer now? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)