User talk:Lib2know/Vallnord UCI MTB Trials World Championships in La Massana, Andorra

Review of revision 3797916 [Not ready]

 * three days where not over when reviewed as "stale". Another example of ignoring guide lines.--Lib2know (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You apparently assume that an experienced, dedicated Wikinewsie is not doing what they should, in preference over the possibility you might be misunderstanding. This, even though you sometimes yourself emphasize the imperfection of your English.  I don't understand the attitude that would lead you to behave so.  This was how you treated BRS that caused the problem in the first place, how you continued to treat them and also treated me that made it even worse, and here you do it again.  This whole process makes me incredibly sad, both for Wikinews and for you; but I've enough reviewing experience to know that only disaster waits for a reviewer who tries to review-toward-publication the work of a writer who truly doesn't respect the reviewer.  --Pi zero (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Blood Red Sandman whom you call BRS is not involved in this article. But if you think it is helpful to go offtopic again i will answer on this and that.
 * I respected reviews since my first article (Talk:Francesc Solé wins the Andorra Ultra Trail again) which you reviewed yourself. Then I learned from that clicking through all changes step by step (which were plenty). Not easy to find out about all the mistakes i made. Last weak i made things different according to my learning notes at my user page and wrote the second article. When i faced certain issues about a review on my second article i asked my questions (Talk:Vuelta_a_España:_Mikel_Landa_wins_demanding_mountain_stage) like encouraged by the review box. Maybe a little lose questions but no harsh words and fitting to the wording of the review itself which was not impolite but not very charming, as well. It was in respect of the reviewer and his corrections but in doubt of some points of the review.
 * I'll never know why it was you who appeared at the same day on my personal page. But since we met each other when you reviewed my first article i told you as a colleague openly the review was not helpful to me. It's a fact. There was no word of disrespect at all. I just answered you on my own talk page and nothing but facts. The only personal feeling i said, was not about the person but his username (User:Blood Red Sandman) which felt "hostile" to me. And it still does. Not to be fond of a username neither pointing out a mistake is not disrespect.
 * The answers you gave then on Talk:Vuelta_a_España:_Mikel_Landa_wins_demanding_mountain_stage shouldn't be repeated here. But there was no perfection, as well, missing some guide lines (that doesn't touch me too much). But it was hard to find a word heading for a solution there and ever since, bad. The other bad thing were some predictions about what will happen here and it happened.
 * Now you carry again all reasoning to a level of personal feelings, personal attitudes, your sadness about whatsoever, stressing differences of reviewers and writers. All this feeling things are good to a community when the sun is shining. But when things went wrong, like they did, it might be better to return to the guide lines and a functional behaviour (and wait for the days when good feelings return).
 * Inside that tiny country rarely happens something interesting to the world. So these rare moments are to be used. I tried to find support by native english speakers here around. They should have helped by proof reading or doing an interview, and, maybe to acquire them later for writing on other subjects. Besides easier translation to Catalan that was the main reason to choose english again as prior language of writing. Even I tried to make some cycling fans interested in Wikinews as media. All those goals weren't reached finally. No sense to imagine if there was more success if ... But compared to this a loss of just four articles is a minor issue.
 * Even i am hurt. But the plan was made and writing the articles was not about me. So I did them cause I had to do. --Lib2know (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I should know better than to try to engage with you at all. However, since I've already done so here, I'll see it through a bit further, by pointing out three things about the way you treated BRS.  First, you did not merely claim BRS made a mistake, you claimed BRS made a mistake of an egregious sort that would be fairly unlikely for an experienced reviewer who takes review seriously.  Second, you asserted this claim as definite fact in a situation where frankly it should have seemed more likely that you had misunderstood something.  Third, you expressed this definite claim in a manner that went out of its way to suggest incompetence.  Those three things, put together, suggest a genuine lack of respect.  Not some superficial lack of the forms of respect, but actual lack of respect.  Your "polite" rewriting of the remark was, if anything, even ruder than the first.  Notice, I have just described your behavior; not you, but your behavior.  And I've been very conservative in drawing conclusions from that behavior; I'm not speculating on possible causes for a lack of respect, the only thing I said about your attitude is that that I don't know what it is.  I didn't even say you don't respect BRS, even though that's a pretty obvious conclusion: I said the behavior indicates a lack of respect.  When you followed up your accusations against BRS with accusations that I was making personal assumptions and statements about you, that was treating me similarly, preferring to believe I was violating site principles in order to be unfair to you rather than that you might have overlooked or misunderstood something.  You're still exhibiting such behavior; you assert that I'm violating guidelines when I say the article is stale, assert that I'm "carry[ing] all reasoning to a level of personal feelings", assert that I'm changing the subject.  If I tried to point out all the things you've said that aren't true, and why they aren't true, I'd be spending a lot more time and a lot more space on this discussion than you; which is another reason I've mostly given up on engaging you at all.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What you described is a mix of things i have written and things you assume on me. I don't agree. The assumptions are widely wrong. I wonder about your motivation when you appeared on several articles and use the "collaboration" page to describe a writer in a negative manner. What is your goal?--Lib2know (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What I describe is your behavior, with no assumptions about you. An article collaboration page is an appropriate place to discuss something that prevents an article from being reviewed; your behavior prevents your articles from being reviewed, hence it's appropriate for discussion on an article collaboration page.  My goal, futile though it seems, is to help you.  It seems futile because you show no signs of wanting to be helped; de facto, you externalize your problems, blaming them on others.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again not agreed. Then I did nothing in this article and comments page when you came in and reviewed it as stale within only two days. You wrote nothing about this article, no word. Just about me. Why did you come in here?--Lib2know (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The linked discussion of staleness/freshness explains why my review was correct. Why have I explained your mistakes?  So you can self-improve if you wish to.  I can't make you wish to, though.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously untrue. The review of this article contains no comment but "Not ready: This is now stale.". Be honest. And it was long before three days where over. Why couldn't you wait?--Lib2know (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The sole comment on the review of this article is not "This is now stale", but rather, "This is now stale", with the word stale linked to our extensive discussion of freshness. I'd say you own me an apology, but you already owe me several so it's kind of redundant (and the first apology you owe is to Blood Red Sandman).  --Pi zero (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)