Template:Did you know nominations/Mile Run (White Deer Creek)
< Template:Did you know nominations
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Revision as of 00:18, 22 January 2016 by imported>Georgejdorner (Congratulations. You have wikilawyered your way to DYK.)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mile Run (White Deer Creek)
- ... that Mile Run is really almost two miles long?
Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self-nominated at 18:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
- Lua error: expandTemplate: template "y" does not exist.
- That is irrelevant for DYK purposes. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- To quote WP:LEAD: "...significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I made the above suggestion to help you improve your article. Why not bang out a sentence or two to improve it?Georgejdorner (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- The question is, why would I. This is not FAC. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, it's been approved already, so I assume that was only a suggestion, not a demand. Nvm. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- I do not demand anything during reviews. I do try to suggest improvements, in an effort to aid my fellow editors, as I assume they have pride in their work. And no, I have not yet approved this nomination. Thank you for pointing out my erroneous tick.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Is this approved or not? Because I am not going to do what you say, as it won't be an improvement. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- "Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express."
- "Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions"
- The above quotes come from WP:WL. They describe the viewpoint you have expressed in the above nomination. Are you sure you want to present yourself this way to your fellow editors?
- Lastly, you are correct that you are allowed to disregard the Manual of Style if you wish and still have an article run as a DYK. Here is your approval.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Is this approved or not? Because I am not going to do what you say, as it won't be an improvement. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- I do not demand anything during reviews. I do try to suggest improvements, in an effort to aid my fellow editors, as I assume they have pride in their work. And no, I have not yet approved this nomination. Thank you for pointing out my erroneous tick.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, it's been approved already, so I assume that was only a suggestion, not a demand. Nvm. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- The question is, why would I. This is not FAC. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- To quote WP:LEAD: "...significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I made the above suggestion to help you improve your article. Why not bang out a sentence or two to improve it?Georgejdorner (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)