Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Lansing (actor)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Robert Lansing (actor)

(

)

... Robert Lansing (actor) starred in an episode of the Star Trek television series that was a backdoor pilot for a possible spin-off to be called "Assignment: Earth"?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/He Xiangning

5x expanded by N0TABENE (talk). Self-nominated at 21:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

There is no way on god's green earth was this five times expanded. Most of the citation problems that were previously on the article have been fixed, but it also needs to have ton more content prose-wise as well, and its had somewhat close to the same amount as revisions of the article from October 2015. Speaking of the prose, while the writing of this article is good for the most part, there is one of the part of the article that bothers me: "Lansing had craggy good looks, a stentorian voice, commanding presence, and characteristic bushy eyebrows" These mostly sound like opinions from sources and not actual... well, facts. But either way, not significantly expended enough for DYK by any stretch of the imagination. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 22:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to be downright ... rude, even though you only spent a few seconds on this review in order to get your QPQ done. The remarks were quotes from the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times, per the article citations, and these are factual descriptions. There's "no way in god's green earth" that you should be commenting on prose with statements like "it needs to have a ton more content prose-wise". Digital content is virtually without mass, so it cannot be measured by the weight of a "ton". What kind of cockamamie adverbial phrase is “prose-wise” anyway? Also, the word is "expanded", not "expended". Lastly, I suggest you check the spelling of your own username in your sig, since you misspelled it (you spelled it correctly last month, then edited it and spelled it incorrectly). You only serve to prove that any marginally literate person is allowed to edit on WP and call himself an “editor” or in your case, an “edtior”. Nonetheless, I'm withdrawing this DYK submission. 鹰百利 NotaBene ^Talk 01:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

As for having more content "prose-wise", I was explaining a rule of DYK in that 5x more prose is needed than previous revisions of the article, not that I said any content was missing from the article. I'll forgive you're misunderstanding. editorEهեইдအ😎 10:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It was your criticism of referenced content, which was indeed factual. And it's "your", not "you're". Thanks for correcting the spelling your username. 鹰百利 NotaBene ^Talk 18:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I very much apologize if my response was a little harsh. I'll try to be more WP:CIVIL next time. However, I would like to remind you that there are plenty of well-literate people, or at least Wikipedia editors, that, when talking in a discussion on Wikipedia or write a message, can misspell at least one word one time or another because they're writing they're messages fast, and I actually wasn't aware of the misspelling of my username because the mistake was so small. But regardless, I hope you're doing OK. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)