User talk:Gatoclass/Archive 20

Is there a point on protecting Queue 6? If so, we are experience low activity nowadays, especially with 100 verified hooks left. --George Ho (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet thanked you for starting this AfD (I'm not bothered by the close). I'm actually glad to see someone following up on a DYK concern--I am hesitant to nominate articles for deletion that in my opinion qualify for it, and this (as you noted, and as the close also confirmed) was certainly no obvious candidate for deletion. It's still languishing at DYK, where I just opined (I have a big mouth, I know) that it needs two reviews still to pass. Anyway, thanks--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've mentioned you here. Prioryman (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your latest comments here -- Template:Did you know nominations/Disarmament of Libya. Please check out my response whenever you'll have some time. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already responded to you again in the same place. Futurist110 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already responded to you yet again. Futurist110 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made an additional comment there, if you're interested. I'm not sure if you've noticed (my guess is that you did), but I also proposed a hook earlier on, which I would consider to be accurate and backed by the source in the article.

By the way, I'm sorry if I've already given everyone the impression that I'm an incompetent DYK reviewer. That was my first shot at it and I tried to make sure everything was in order. Apparently I didn't do a very good job. Is it a typical occurrence for a DYK hook to be pulled from the queue if someone raises an objection? Kurtis ^(talk) 17:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the nomination page. Gatoclass (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I've responded there as well. =) Kurtis ^(talk) 18:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already responded to your proposed hook as well. Futurist110 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already responded to you yet again. Futurist110 (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you are doing to organize things with the nominations. I think you can help me, through your table, with a problem I haven't resolved. Right now the nominations go into a pending category, and they stay pending until they archive when they generally go into category:passed or :failed or an occasional :withdrawn. I'm trying to trigger a switch from category:pending, into category:under review, from when the nomination has received its first review comment. There are obvious benefits, in my opinion.—_{My76Strat • talk • email} 15:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not really up with every aspect of the current organization of DYK, because I only recently returned to editing in this area. You would probably have to canvas your idea at WT:DYK and explain clearly what you wanted to do and why. Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I've responded to your concerns at the DYK nomination page.

I hope my proposal satisfies your concerns. =) Kurtis ^(talk) 21:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_December_14. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Jon Santacana Maiztegui. Please review the proposed althook. --LauraHale (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another source. Please take another look. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm contacting you because you have recently contributed as a reviewing administrator to WP:AE. I've made a suggestion relating to the management of that page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Structural improvements to AE threads, and would appreciate your input. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:SMcCandlish's talk page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:SMcCandlish's talk page. The notice of the restriction you left on my talk page is missing the "With regard to pages or discussions related to WP:MOS..." scope that is in the original at AE. Also seems kinda gameable, but perhaps you can clarify why it won't be. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-replied at my talk page; short version: If restrictions from Sandstein are taken to apply even within DR forums like AE, why wouldn't yours? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 12:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further responses. I don't agree with your perception of such a unified voice at that AE request (the complaints and suggested remedies were in fact all over the map, and confused policy matters – many unproven – with personal peeves, plus meta-complaints about my responses at AE itself), but I guess that's not a big deal. Your remedies are certainly more sensible than Sandstein's, are ones I don't have any issue with, and weren't you parroting Sandstein, of course. My concern wasn't that you weren't exercising your own judgement but rather giving Sandstein too much of a back-pat for a job well done, when it wasn't.  :-/ I think there's also a bigger picture that you're not seeing (it becomes clearer the more you look at who Sandstein "warned" (falsely accused) on what basis, how they related to previous efforts to silence Noetica and others on related topics, who has acted on his "warnings" since then and in what ways against whom, with whose backing, etc.), but your or my talk page isn't the place to get into it in detail. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you take a look at User:Timotheus Canens/GS draft and leave comments on the talk page? Thanks a lot. T. Canens (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When a request for enforcement against a particular user is brought, what are the notification expectations? I notice that exclusively hostile editors seem to have found their way to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hgilbert discussion. I wonder how they, but not sympathetic editors, knew about it? (I have just placed a notice about it on the Waldorf education page; nobody had done this before.) Is this a usual part of the process? hgilbert (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably okay to leave a note on the article talk page, but I would strongly advise you not to canvass other editors, as it will likely be seen as an abuse of process. You should not make any bad faith assumptions about the fact that a number of your opponents happened to turn up to the AE request; they may simply have been more alert than other involved editors. Gatoclass (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your note at User_talk:SMcCandlish (I decided to check and see if I'd been blocked for a year or some other extremist nonsense simply for expressing frustration at Sandstein, and saw your note): I'd be willing to discuss your suggestion to drop it, in e-mail or otherwise off-wiki. I can be e-mailed from my user page. 24.23.163.55 (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC) (SMcCandlish)[reply]

Please refrain from maligning me in public again, as you clearly did here, unprovoked and without cause. Your claim that my "approach to discussion tends to alienate other users" has never been demonstrated in any AE, RFARB, AN, ANI, RFC/U or otherwise. You are simply parroting unproven, self-serving claims by SarekOfVulcan (which AE rejected) and Sandstein (for which there was no consensus, so he unrecused himself to declare himself dictatorialy correct). The only users on this system who have claimed that my behavior has "alienated" them (or something similar - "intimidated", "put them off", etc.) are:

1. a very small number of consistently good editors like Peter coxhead who have chosen to pit themselves against me (and, usually, various other editors), month after month, year after year, on some esoteric issue about which they are no less argumentative and certain than I am, just in the other direction ("It takes two to argue", and they have a vested interest, whether it consciously motivates them or not, of making me out to be the bad guy and their own approach seem to be more reasonable); and
2. a considerably larger number of consistently problematic editors who have repeatedly been sanctioned via one of the above-mentioned forums/processes and in most cases have long block logs for persistent patterns of blatantly disruptive editing. Like many editors, I "police" WP:CIVILPOV and other problem editors the way others police vandals and other disruptive editing; this is a perfectly legitimate activity here, and like being an active admin, it results in a lot of acrimony directed at one from those being reined in.

Your finger-pointing at me broadly for allegedly alienating other Wikipedians, in general, borders on a personal attack and is not just an assumption but an outright accusation of bad faith. I would think that after months of concerted, continual verbal abuse, harassment and attempted censorship of me, by one admin who has resigned under a cloud and another that is bound for RFARB (if not by me, then by someone else; I know of at least a dozen editors who want to see it happen), that you'd get off my back just for a little while, and find some other dog to kick. Sandstein's topic ban was a crock, from both a process and a rationale perspective, and you know it. After taking some time off, I was just going to let it slide in the interests of collegiality, but now that you're citing it as if actually evidentiary or exemplary of something supposedly disruptive or problematic (other than Sandstein's grossly inappropriate personal involvement and failure of judgement), I feel I have no choice now but to appeal his childish ban. Good job stirring up...<ahem> hornets for no reason. Maybe I'm not the only one who's needed a wikibreak. I was enjoying mine until someone e-mailed me about your rather character-assassinating post.

PS: I strongly resent, by the way, being compared to Doncram in particular. Did you even read WP:AE#Statement by Orlady, etc.? I show nothing even vaguely similar to those patterns of alleged paranoid conspiracy mongering, filibustering pretense to not understand simple propositions, megalomaniacal assertion of expertise that somehow requires others to seek dispute resolution in order to disagree, attempts at WP:OWNership of articles, or other weird nonsense. I'm gruff and opinionated, but I'm not any of that. I would not have a clean block log after seven years of almost non-stop editing, plenty of it in hotbeds of controversy, if I were. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, the above post maligns no fewer than four editors, while complaining about being maligned in public. I thoroughly agree with the poster that it is never appropriate to call attention to the actions of another editor by naming them. A diff or link would have been helpful though. Instead of "This request reminds me somewhat of the recent [deleted] case", how about "This request reminds me somewhat of the {{diff|recent case}}" or recent case Apteva (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to the unsupported description of my behaviour on Wikipedia which SMcCandlish has made above. It is a quite unwarranted attack on me. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ SmcCandlish: I'm sorry to hear you feel "maligned", but it is, after all, only a month ago that multiple users including at least five admins cited problems with your talk page conduct that resulted in you being specifically prohibited from making bad faith assumptions and also advised to avoid commenting on contributor etc. on MOS-related pages, so I saw my comment as nothing more than a reference to an established finding. Perhaps the comment could have been better expressed, but I was focussed on the issue at hand, which was how to deal with doncram. And I want to emphasize that the point I was trying to make, which you seem to have overlooked, was that both you and doncram appear to be users whose value to the project is generally acknowledged, and for whom I therefore believe sanctions should be a last resort. Moreover, there was no attempt to "compare" you with doncram - I simply noted a similarity in one particular respect. I am not in a position to make a comparative judgement about your respective contribution histories.

Having said that, it does bother me a tad that your attitude here indicates you are yet to acknowledge any issues with regard to your approach to talk pages, in spite of having been so recently advised with regard to it. I hope this doesn't mean you have no intention of modifying your approach, because that would be a mistake IMO. Perhaps I should add that I am not exactly pleased with your accusation of a "bad faith assumption" on my part either. Saying that someone "tends to alienate" other users with certain talk page habits may or may not be factually accurate, but it can hardly be termed a bad faith assumption since it makes no assertions with regard to your motives.

@Apteva - you are probably correct to suggest it would be more diplomatic to add a diff rather than a username, but I have my doubts that doing so would have made much difference. Gatoclass (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would make a huge difference. See above where someone has taken objection to the above malignment, one of the four named. Had the poster instead just stopped with the first sentence that would be ideal, but if they are going to include the sentence "a very small number of consistently good editors like [deleted] who have chosen to pit themselves against me", adding like someone adds absolutely nothing. The sentence would have been better simply as "a very small number of consistently good editors who have chosen to pit themselves against me", and if they wanted to include specifics, diffs should have been used, not names. We really need to clean up our act by eliminating these WP:FOC violations. Apteva (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are listed as an actively involved adminiatrator at Wikipedia:Did you know#Administrators. There are about four hours left to correct a DYK scheduling request that was messed up by manual updating. See Wikipedia_talk:Did you know#7 hours left to fix date request.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, now that this hook is back in review, do you think you could take over the reviewing? Chiswick Chap has just suggested an ALT1, and the affect seems much the same, though it is directly sourced. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Arctic (SP-1158), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington State and Eagle Harbor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this DYK. I've provided a new hook of the plainest kind, with link in the nomination. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass. This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the clarification request you submitted regarding procedural issues at WP:AE has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Request for clarification (March 2013): Procedural issues at WP:AE. The Arbitration Committee has indicated that they intend to review Arbitration Enforcement and Discretionary Sanctions during May 2013. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On April 18, you stated on Template:Did you know nominations/International Conference on Hollywoodism: "The article still contains a few statements that look to be a bit of a concern. I will take a closer look at this tomorrow to ensure that it conforms with the sources." We haven't heard from you since. Can you please return to the nomination and provide some more detailed suggestions? —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 06:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm wondering how your review of this article is coming along. I'm trying to get all the DYK's from March either passed or rejected before the first of May, in order to be able to claim a small victory in my war against the DYK backlog ;).—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 11:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh heck, sorry, completely forgot about it, I haven't had much time to work on Wikipedia at all over the last few days. I won't be able to do anything Monday, but I'll try to finish my tweaks by Wednesday. Gatoclass (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've mispelled the username twice now, so I thought I should tell you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I commented also in the ae, please notice it. Thanks, be well. --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, what's that about? I initially noticed their revert-warring at [1]+[2] - that's not a 3rr violation, and it's a reaction to a tendentious section heading by bobrayner, but the reference to Reuters is fine and should have been kept. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree the reverting of the Reuters source looks careless, but nobody brought this to my attention previously. The reason I rescinded the advisement for 23 editor is because I misread the diffs at, I think it was the Republika Srpska page, where I thought he had edit warred over incorrect content after FkpCascais, but after checking the diffs realized he hadn't. In that circumstance I thought it only fair to rescind the advisement. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had mentioned it, but I see now that I left it implicit. Did you check the links about 23 editor posted by bobrayner? Two more bland reverts because of that Serbian settlements map (still nothing on Talk there!), another one [3] at the Kosovo War massacres article, canvassing WhiteWriter to "help him stop" bobrayner's "POV pushing"? Sure, it can be said that it's just a few problematic bits here and there, but it's a developing pattern and it merits a warning. I'd certainly prefer warnings before things escalate, as opposed to bans after. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the content diffs posted by Bobrayner, but didn't bother with the "canvassing" diff (since one diff isn't much evidence of canvassing). Users are entitled to a revert here and there, that is not evidence of revert warring. Regarding the content edits, they might arguably be regarded as somewhat POV-ish but taken in isolation I didn't think them sufficient to justify action. Regardless, I think it's a bit belated to be making these arguments now, it would have been more useful to mention these concerns at the time. In any case, 23 editor has already received a warning, from RichWales on 22 February (and was probably fortunate on that occasion to get no more than a warning) so there didn't seem much point in giving him another, as he will already be facing potential sanctions for future misconduct. Gatoclass (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O, great, we has warned. Again. That will definitively stop such behaviour.... Lucky we. I will send each and every POv pushing in the future to your address then. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am up against the 500 word limit, so will reply here. As to "IMO they might at most merit a reminder", I would have agreed with this last year when I began reminding the editor in question, to no avail. They even asked me if I was still trying to drag that cow out of the ditch, whatever that was supposed to mean. Reminders have had absolutely zero effect. It is clearly a long term behavioral issue that has not been corrected when reminded ad nauseum. I just looked at some edits from 2008, and half of the talk page edits that I checked were problematic. Apteva (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at the editor's talk page I found this gem from the article Christmas[4]. I am not going to comment on our understanding of how collaborative editing is done or what WP:Talk looked like then,[5] but at some point along the way this pattern was developed, and never corrected. Apteva (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to Apteva, you should consider my statement and Johnuniq's statement as that can give you some idea of the problem with that editor's conduct.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filing a bogus RFC/U is not an excuse for improper behavior on talk pages. The RFC/U and AN, ANI occupied 134 pages and 500,000 bytes of wasted editors time that could have been accomplished with two words "back off", which I had already agreed to, and have adhered to as well. Apteva (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to sanctions against me, they are already totally bogus. Removing them would be the way to go, not increasing them. When you are right you are right. I only have to say it once. I have learned that and do not keep repeating myself as I once did. The sanctions against me have already severely impacted my ability to assist the project, and I am looking forward to the day that they will be removed so that I can get back to assisting the project in many ways that I currently, for absolutely no reason, can not. Apteva (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the comment "a degree of provocation in the past". It is the offending editor who had been provoking me, by constantly using article and project talk pages as a forum for discussing me and other editors. I have not been provoking them. Warning them on their talk page not to do that can not in any manner be construed as provocation. As to not advocating the MOS does not apply to titles, that is blatantly obvious, and any restriction of the sort is ludicrous. We have WP:Article titles policy to determine what titles are and we have a guideline to determine what article style should be. There is no such thing as "styling" a title, other than what your browser does. "Styling" a title changes the title, and breaks policy, making us look like idiots. Not one item in the MOS pertains in any way to article titles. That idea that the MOS is a set of hardfast rules that applies to everything is totally and completely bogus, and needs to be rejected, and topic banning editors from speaking the truth is not a good idea. We need an open discussion from everyone, and can simply not just arrive at consensus by topic banning everyone who does not agree with stupid ideas. Point to one diff in the last month that I have "advocated that the MOS does not apply to titles" or remove that restriction. It is something that editor wants, but is a truth that I have not been asserting. Apteva (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you commented about my participation at Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans[6], and suggested a sanction, I just want to explain to you that was the first time I participated extensively in a discussion about suicide article titles, and I wanted to understand what the opinions and arguments were. The outcome of that proposal was obvious fairly early, so I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind or the outcome. I was simply inquisitive, with those willing to explain, what the reasoning was favoring such titles. I feel my participation elicited some rather illuminating responses that may be useful in the future in related discussions. I don't believe my participation was disruptive of anything... not that article, its title, the outcome of that discussion, or the time of anyone who had no desire to participate.

If you have any questions of, or suggestions for, me, please let me know on my talk page.

Thanks! --B2C 23:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a relatively recent AN about my behavior it was closed with the following understanding: "Meaning: An uninvolved admin may ban [B2C] from a particular discussion he is involved in on a case by case basis after a warning that can be enforced with a block between 24 hours and the duration of the discussion he is disruptive in. This includes discussions about the close of a move or article titles discussion anywhere on Wikipedia".

I bring your attention to the following key points in that:

• may ban [B2C] from a particular discussion (not all RM discussions) he is involved in
• after a warning
• that can be enforced with a block between 24 hours and the duration of the discussion he is disruptive in

That seems like a fair and reasonable finding based on my history, and I have been behaving accordingly ever since.

You are now proposing to go far beyond the parameters of that. First, the discussion in question is closed, so there is no ongoing problem to rectify. Second, how I or anyone else could be "disruptive" in a discussion whose outcome was obvious long ago is beyond me. What exactly was being "disrupted"? I still had questions and points to make. They may have not been relevant to the outcome of that particular discussion, but they were about the larger issues involved. Last I heard, consensus still changes on WP, and it changes through discussion, does it not? That's what that was about for me; I'm sorry some others did not recognize that.

Third, as far as I know, no specific behavior guideline or policy was violated by my behavior. This isn't Wikilawyering. The point is that doling out consequences based on unwritten rules is inherently unfair.

The appropriate response, per my understanding, would have been for a warning to be issued to me while that discussion was ongoing, by an uninvolved admin. That did not happen, I can only presume because nobody thought my behavior deserved the attention of an administrator, or no uninvolved administrator saw a problem. But, had an uninvolved administrator been notified who did issue a warning, if I did not cease the behavior, then the block from that discussion would have been appropriate, per the parameters stated. None of that happened. Instead, weeks later, in a separate discussion about someone else's behavior, you're now proposing to punish me for behavior I was engaged in weeks ago, without any warning from an uninvolved admin, from engaging in any RM discussions to any degree?

How is that fair or appropriate? I don't understand. --B2C 21:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets start, as i told you, and promised you.

• Three reverts in a day, despite sources presented on talk. After several days of maybe a week, he will revert again, as always.
• Continuation of old pov revert war, in order to remove official map of Serbia, per fact that article in question does not have Kosovo settlements for some reasons (I would say questionable ones...)
• Continuation of pro-Albanian push and WP:AT ignoring, except when it is convenient for users POV. Then Bobrayner do follow WP:AT.
• Fact that user will ALWAYS just go and revert, without any concluded talk page agreement in ARBMAC area articles.

Lets face it. This area of wiki is completely destroyed with POV editing, on both sides. As you may see, some of those edits are already reverted, with or without good reasons. But only way to clean this is to react. User already received two ARBMAC warnings. I will NOT engage anymore in worthless same discussions with Bobrayner, so i will just inform you, based on your decision in AE.

All best. --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please? WP:AT? Removal of agreed article titles to push Albanian names with comment "the same old Balkan pov-pushing..." ???? --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then it was Yugoslavia, not Serbia Serbs of Yugoslavia, not country Serbia. Sixth revert on that article since November. Same as ever! Revert, abandon, revert... How many editors should revert him, without counting IP's? This is not ok, this is not the way Wiki should be edited, this is GAMING the system, and POV push in grand scale! What about other articles? I need your help in this, as i cannot even imagine what will happen next. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think someone warned twice in three months on an ARBMAC issue on top of being warned for breaching WP:3RR on a related topic inbetween ARBMAC cautions would know what he is doing when he edits. I have just found this[7]. The summary declares what sources say and yet it removes the article title from the inbox as well as the local language translation; in its place comes a duplicate of the alternate name. Perhaps somebody is editing whilst drunk, I don't know but it is worth questioning this editor to explain himself there. 188.29.19.129 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking for a reaction, or a comment, as this will not go on like this. [[8]] he removed agreed article names across several countries with Albanian language, with bad unsourced pov as "when Serbia conquered Kosovo", and with lame misleading edit summary " Post-Evlekis cleanup; toning down some rhetoric"!! I am asking for a reaction or a comment here. This will lead to the awful pov falling of this articles, as he will try to use this as ideal reason to remove everything he dislikes. This is unexceptable! --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is a response. Firstly, I am highly unlikely to take unilateral action, particularly for edit warring, so if you think you have a case you should take it to WP:AE. You should understand however that when you do so the actions of all editors engaging in an edit war are going to be scrutinized and that it is likely that more than one party will be sanctioned. Secondly, naming of towns in a disputed region like Kosovo is a very difficult one for Wikipedia to resolve as there are probably valid arguments on both sides. Rather than continuing to engage in edit warring, I would strongly urge you or some other involved party to solicit outside views, probably by a content RFC. You are not going to resolve anything by continuing an edit war. Gatoclass (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gatoclass. In the Dicklyon AE I see there's discussion related to the previous Born2cycle ANI that was closed by TParis. I'm not an admin myself, but I felt I wanted to share my thoughts with an admin (and I figured I should do it here rather than in the AE, to properly honor the 500-word limit).

Having been involved in the discussions at the ANI and having seen the results that followed, I've had to conclude that the previous remedy (though perfectly well-intentioned) was problematic and ineffective. I agree with your summary at AE, and favor the solutions you've proposed.

As I think you've noted, one of the key problems with the previous ANI closure (in addition to not suitably reflecting the majority of feedback received from the community) is that it doesn't prevent what many editors have identified as long-running disruptive behavior on the part of Born2cycle – something I think the recent continued behavior shows. The closure, by potentially requiring administrative attention to every individual discussion, and by limiting any sanction to at most just the remainder of one particular discussion, becomes ineffective and unwieldy. It's also purely reactive, not preventative: once a discussion is already overwhelmed to point of having to involve an administrator, the damage is done. It's not prevented, merely responded to, and nothing stops it from happening again elsewhere.

That said, if Born2cycle was receptive to concerns voiced by other editors involved in such discussions I'd be a little less worried, since it might allow us head off potential problems earlier. However, given his clear tendency not to hear such concerns when they're raised (as they have been repeatedly by various editors), and his apparent insistence that such warnings must come from administrators in order for him to heed them and desist, does worry me.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that, and express my hope that a potentially more effective remedy (like the one you propose or something similar) can be adopted. Thanks! ╠╣uw [talk] 13:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that one of the reasons the solution hasn't been shown to be effective is because it hasn't been utilized at all.--v/r - TP 13:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way TParis. As I see it, your remedy effectively permitted the user in question to run rampant over one discussion after another, avoiding sanctions altogether so long as he stopped after receiving a warning from an admin for each particular discussion - and even if he didn't, the proposed sanction was only for "a block between 24 hours and the duration of the discussion he is disruptive in". I'm sure you designed it with the very best of intentions for all concerned parties, but I do think on this occasion you erred on the side of caution. Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TParis: I understand; I merely question how the existing sanction acts as a deterrent even in principle. The strongest action it possibly allows is to bar B2C from further involvement in the remainder of a single discussion that he's already disrupted to the point of needing administrative intervention. Speaking for myself, I'm afraid I don't see the deterrent effect of this, particularly since it doesn't bar the same pattern from simply repeating again elsewhere.

Recent events also indicate that B2C doesn't hear concerns voiced by fellow editors, which I consider worrisome. Combined with the seemingly unaltered repetition of his long-standing behavior, what I've seen so far suggests to me that the behavior will simply continue to recur – and indeed lately has. Under such circumstances, revisiting the sanction seems (to me) appropriate. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just wanted to mention one other quick point that I think is relevant. The remedy proposed by the ANI has indeed been tested, unsuccessfully. The remedy calls for uninvolved admins to intervene in cases of B2C being disruptive (by issuing a warning or a block); however, no such intervention occurred during the most recent debate – one in which various editors expressed clear concern about B2C's behavior. It was a good test case that demonstrated (to me, at least) the problem of depending solely on administrative policing of a prolific contributor: it doesn't really work. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huw - it hasn't been tested because no one asked an uninvolved administrator to step in. Gatoclass - The deterrent is that B2C would be unable to participate in any RM discussions during his time away because of a single discussion. Meaning, he could miss opportunities that are important for him in other discussions to get his point across or challenge other points. The idea is to deal with a productive editor in a positive manner that enforces behavioral guidelines without seemingly a draconian approach. If actively used, instead of passively hoping it might be invoked by others, the community has a chance to make good use of a smart editor without having to suffer his undesired behavioral issues. The strongest action, if you read it again Huw, is a block from the 'pedia for the remainder of a discussion. It was designed as a practical matter that balanced preventing disruptive, if used appropriately, with taking advantage of a knowledgebase that even most of his opponents agree he has.--v/r - TP 21:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gatoclass. Thanks for handling the closure of this complicated discussion. Just one comment: I wondered if there might be an error in your closing statement, where you say that B2C can be sanctioned "for conduct deemed disruptive at MOS-related pages." As far as I know, B2C is not much involved in MOS issues; his problematic editing occurs in matters involving titling, such as RM discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "conduct deemed disruptive at WP:MOS- or WP:TITLE-related discussions or pages", will that do? Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I would like to call attention to the sentence "the proposed sanction is merely a reflection of the community's view that this particular user has been disruptive in discussions relating to that content issue". That is not supported in the discussion and is a reflection of what that editor had perceived last year, and is not applicable today. In fact I have completely toned down my comments, and should be commended for the improvement, not had further restrictions applied. As Sandstein pointed out, it is not content-neutral. Please remove the sanction. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appealed. See WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Apteva Apteva (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the "reminder" to User:Dicklyon has had no impact. Any suggestions? Apteva (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. I was hoping that I could have addressed the topic ban here, instead. As to the band naming issue, I was not concerned one way or the other about referencing MOS, I was concerned about having a separate section on capitalization for bands, as clearly there are no special rules, and it simply creates a content fork to have a separate section. The reference to MOS was added after the proposal to delete the section was made, and obviously adding is not an improvement. As to the faux pas of referring to a policy on living persons in a discussion of dead people, that is neither here nor there, as the same principles apply (it is no more allowed to defame the dead than it is the living), but yes, obviously BLP does not apply to dead people. I certainly could have referred to a more appropriate guideline, as was pointed out in that discussion. Apteva (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the issues that were present in the article. I would love see a review in accordance to the revision. Thank you :) Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently listed at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#DYK_participants as an actively involved administrator. Template:Did you know nominations/The Assembled Parties is a date request that needs to be reviewed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fish soup bee hoon, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fish soup bee hoon. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 11:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I am requesting your assistance with an ongoing situation involving User:Born2cycle. He was warned here back in May. Later that month, at Talk:Avatar#Requested_move_2013, I was on the point of requesting assistance for various reasons, including what I perceived as an assumption of bad faith; but then the RM was closed. Now, at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, there are once again difficulties. B2C has opened a sixth move request on that article, despite the fact that five previous ones have failed, and even though the most recent was closed just 7 months ago. B2C seems to be as dismissive of opposing arguments as ever, and as in the past I feel it is disruptive and counterproductive. In particular these edits have prompted me to ask for outside assistance. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it gets worse... Omnedon (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if Omnedon would ask me questions, then complain when I answered...The option was there to not engage me if that's what was really desired...

As to the larger issue, I have never been involved in the Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton discussions in the past. It had been more than 6 months, which is the unofficial normal period allowed between RMs, though that's when there is a clear decision. When a discussion ends in "no consensus", as has been the case here, further discussion is often encouraged, right away, as that's how we normally develop consensus on WP (last I checked). And, of course, WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. --B2C 22:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the cusp of asking for an administrative opinion too, but I see this is already opened. B2C: You must understand that any continuation of the behaviors you've been so repeatedly warned about is going to be troubling. I'm afraid I share the concern that (among other things) dismissiveness and a tendency not to hear valid opposing arguments is again becoming unfortunately evident, both broadly but also very pointedly in particulars, like most recently the diff above. Such things make me worry that we may wind up back where we were... ╠╣uw [talk] 11:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have instructed B2C to disengage from the Hillary Rodham Clinton page move discussion, and cautioned him regarding some other conduct, as outlined here. Gatoclass (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, he has commented (just once twice, so far) in the MRV discussion about that case. Not sure if you meant to include MRV discussion in your ban, or not. --MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO that is a different discussion, because it's discussing the appropriateness of the closure by a non-admin rather than discussing the page move itself, and given that other users involved in the original discussion have !voted in the MRV it would be prejudicial to disallow B2C the same privilege. Gatoclass (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any insight and advice about this Mfd I would very much appreciate it. Thanks. --B2C 17:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I have posted in the DYK discussion which you started. I am considering adding links to each nomination discussion and identifying the editors who have approved / promoted to queues these articles, as I think the of issue of inadequate reviews and checks is raised here. However, I don't want to upset those editors or be provocative as it is the issue and not the personalities that I see as important. Please advise, would this be a poor idea and / or divert too much attention from the issue you are raising about handling those specific nominations? Also, I added comments to the Yemen nomination pointing out specific issues with that nom, but many of them apply to the other articles as well. Should I just add a pointer in the other nominations to those comments? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a related thread, I shall just post here. Too adverse to post on every single "Crime in ..." nom. Personally, I don't think there is any problem except for the Indonesia crime one, which I acknowledge has some internal paraphrasing issues which I have already addressed. We can have film articles with no reception section. We can have food articles with no nutrition section. Most articles on Wikipedia are not "complete", in the sense that there's always more info to be added – the point of the project. Of course, these crime articles CAN be expanded; but I don't see that as an issue to stop it from appearing on the Main Page. I appreciate your concerns, Gatoclass, but are they too extreme? Please reconsider. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shall formulate more thoughts and return to this later when I'm done with my sushi. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, if you're still around, can you please put in a replacement hook for the one you removed from Queue 6? You can take it from Prep 3 if you'd like (not the prep 4 one, since it's date/time specific), or from one of the later queues. But it's a bad idea to leave the next queue up for promotion with a hole in it like that; another admin may not be available prior to its promotion.

Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already did that :) Gatoclass (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds... ;-) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass! At the nomination page of Mirza Adeeb, you said that the hook had nothing recherché in it... O.K., but do you have an idea as to what hook be there, which is interesting enough?—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 17:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gato. We are confused over the new hook, any proposal please? Faizan 07:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have replies there at the nomination page. Faizan 13:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi Gatoclass, but what about the nomination now? Can it be promoted again?—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 18:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is support for the ALT2 Hook there. Faizan 08:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, it's been over a week since you said you'd be coming back to review this nomination in a day or two. Are you intending to return to it soon, or should I give it a "review again" icon? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which section of Main page error mentions this? --Tito☸Dutta 15:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the thread at Mainpage/Errors according to standard procedure, you can find the thread in the history of the page. But the gist of the thread was that the cite for the hook statement didn't support the statement - I went and checked the source myself and was also unable to find the cited information, so I removed the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a page issue. I have fixed using rp template. --Tito☸Dutta 16:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, but there isn't much else to be done now that the update is off the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you reassess this one now, cheers.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on article talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ice Boat No. 3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lightship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised Template:Did you know nominations/Ignite (game engine), if you can take a look when you have a chance czar · · 22:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Did you know nominations/Lyon Armenian Genocide Memorial
• Template:Did you know nominations/Armenian soap operas

--Երևանցի ^talk 00:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here we were, busy discussing a better hook, when we completely forgot to notice that Pangemanann and Tjonat had already run! Quirky hook, midnight UTC on June 24, lede hook, midnight UTC on June 27. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deserve that trout! I can't be expected to check every hook to see whether or not it's already been featured. I'm not sure how you failed to notice though, since you should have got a credit for it - I guess you have written so many DYKs lately, you haven't been paying much attention to the credits? But no, I think somebody else has screwed up here - probably by failing to close the discussion thread after the first promotion. Gatoclass (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed the notifications, but as the nom was reopened I thought either it had been pulled really quickly or pulled and the notification bits mistakenly left in (I didn't actually get to see the front page; I was out of the house most of Monday) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait... that reopening is two days after it ran. ********** Yeah, you can trout or whale me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it. Hawkeye7 promoted the hook as a quirky, which led to it being added to Queue 6 by Allen3 and ultimately running on the main page and me getting the notifications. However, Hawkeye neglected to close the nomination after promoting Tjonat. Ultimately, Allen3 promoted it to Prep 2, where it was tweaked by yourself (but not removed) after the discussion was reopened (diff above). The hook was then copied by yourself to Queue 3, which was then copied by the bot to the main page.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well Hawkeye is the troutable party then. I'm not going to trout him myself, but somebody should probably send him a reminder. Gatoclass (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ice Boat No. 3, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the second USS Arctic (pictured) received her commission in spite of being described as slow, unwieldy and vulnerable to shellfire? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ice Boat No. 3. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to keep bothering you about this user, but I request you to keep an eye on a current situation. B2C proposed a move at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Move request; you eventually advised him to disengage from that discussion. The discussion was closed as moved to his preferred title, Hillary Clinton. That closure was taken to WP:MRV, where the closure was overturned and the name was reverted to Hillary Rodham Clinton. B2C objected VERY strongly to that result, both at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Move Review and at User talk:Amatulic#Hillary Clinton, where he is explicitly accusing the closing administrator of an improper move decision. I'm not recommending any action on your part, just calling the situation to your attention. Thanks for your patience in monitoring this. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that discussion. B2C appears to have disengaged now so the point would seem to be moot. Gatoclass (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago you said here there were a few exceptions with the article, could you let me know what these are please? I think the issues which were raised on the talk page have been dealt with also. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is going to require a fair amount of time to fully assess and I don't want to take that on right now. However, one thing that will have to be looked into is whether the article duplicates content at the "Religious violence in India" page and also whether the article represents a POV fork. I also noted some questionable statements in the article, such as the opening sentence which describes violence against Muslims in India as "endemic" without attribution. Gatoclass (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence was changed after RP pointed out I was being a tad sensationalist It is not a POV fork, the subject matter passes the GNG for s standalone article, several uninvolved editors have already said this. I have expanded the article a bit over the last few days, the time to assess it will probably increase, sorry about that. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Could you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Current lead hook: Angelina Jolie Trapdoor Spider and/or Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in the current or next Did you know.... I would appreciate your opinion because you gave me the credit for the article. Thanks, Surtsicna (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, I was wondering whether you were planning to come back to this nomination, or if I should put out a call for a new reviewer. Please reply here if the latter, or post something new to the nomination template otherwise. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm planning to come back to it, but it might be a day or two before I can do so. I lost my internet access yesterday and I am going to be rather busy over the next couple of days, but perhaps I will find time to leave a note there later this evening. Gatoclass (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the DYK post there.--Launchballer 09:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that. But I just don't have time right now to go back through all the references and assess them. I will try to find time over the weekend. Gatoclass (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine if you want to disagree, but disagreeing, approving and moving to prep yourself all in one edit is rather poor form and against the guidance at WP:DYKNN. Please don't do that again. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I wouldn't do that Nikki, but an extreme shortage of approved hooks such as we had yesterday requires a quick response. In any case, the article was in fact over 1500 bytes by the time it went to the queue, because I expanded it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am willing to remove ALT1 if it is grammatically incorrect. I don't see a problem with the first hook.
2. The POV statements such as "brutally" and "inch by inch" are directly from the sources themselves. It is exactly how Lambert described them. It is for this reason that I have placed them into quotations. (P.S. I've added some sources and URL's to what may seem like POV statements) Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to review the DYK nomination? Or should I look for another reviewer? Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am going to review it, I read through some of the source your provided last night and I intend to make a few tweaks to the article but I'm very busy right now and it might have to wait until the weekend. Gatoclass (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to review or not? It has been 4 weeks already. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering where July 9 came from?[9] Is it a typo? I am showing 11:43 on Jan 6, making six months July 6.[10] Thanks. Apteva (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That must have been a typo, I did say 6 July in the actual case. So yes, you can appeal any time after 11:40 6 July and at six monthly or longer intervals thereafter. Gatoclass (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, there are three "Crime in" nominations needing review in WT:DYK#Older nominations needing DYK reviewers. The Template:Did you know nominations/Crime in Sri Lanka one you had earlier put on hold, but it has been revised and expanded by other authors; I wasn't sure whether you wanted to go over it again now that it has been changed significantly. The other two appear to be ones that were not covered in your initial check of this series, and it would be helpful to get your take on them. Thanks. And thanks for chiming in on my talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can check them, but I can't do it now as I'm about to log off. I'll try to find time to take a look at them tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks; that's fine. They've waited this long; another day won't hurt them. Have a great evening. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still to be checked:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Crime in North Korea and South Korea
• Template:Did you know nominations/Crime in Laos (could use a more experienced reviewer, at request of the reviewer who tried)

Thanks for getting to these when you can. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you readdress this, cheers!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry for the delay, not much time for wikipedia ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested two new hooks here. Can you please reply as soon as possible as I am going in 4 hours? My love is love (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gato, can you let me know where we stand on the DYK for Anti-Muslim violence in India please. 20:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat|What I've done22:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say I've seen your post, and shall be responding, although I have the WikiProject Christianity newsletter to write first.Also, although you are not the only one, it's Gilderien --Gilderien Talk|List of good deeds 17:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As a listed DYK participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions00:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comments.--Gilderien Talk|List of good deeds 15:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass:

This may or may not be a problem of the future. I don't know.

I have noticed at Talk:Cromwell's Soldiers' Pocket Bible that it shows the word "nomination" as red. I'm pretty sure when I made the nomination it was a blue link. Perhaps at this edit something went wrong. It says Please do not edit above this line unless you are a DYK volunteer who is closing the discussion. Can you check this out, so that when this article becomes a DYK I get the correct credit. Thanks! --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for approving DYK nomination. I would fix what Maile is talking about, however I don't see any red errors and don't understand what he is talking about. Can you help me on this. Thanks!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either, but I think he's talking about a piece of code he has installed that finds broken links to references. I myself noticed the other day that when I click on the citations on that article, I'm not taken to the associated reference the way it's supposed to happen, so he may be talking about that. Gatoclass (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. I'll double check this out after lunch.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out, I noticed just as I went to lunch, that it is the second author that messes with his software. If I removed the second author, then everything is alright. I'll fix after my nap.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(BCC) Maile66 - I took out all the second authors in the references and all seems to be working correctly. Let me know if there is a problem, otherwise IF I don't hear from you, I'll assume it is working correctly now.--Doug Coldwell (talk)

--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you suggest closing the DYK talk page discussion about the warehouse article? Rjanag is continuing a discussion which should already be over because the nomination page was closed as withdrawn. He is being very confrontational, over something that he doesn't care about enough to look at the relevant things. I said that I don't care if he understands, but it is more so because of how confrontational he is being, and not just in the discussion. When he has recent edit summaries like "mv more junk", "unsourced, over-simplified poppycock", "Go back to editing articles on cats and memes; leave the serious editing to editors who know what they're talking about". Not only is the last edit summary insulting to the involved editors, but it also manages to insult people who edit content about cats and notable memes. SL93 (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the nom had been withdrawn, if you'd like it reinstated I will consider it, but I can't do it now as I'm about to log off. I usually find that the best way to close a discussion is simply to stop responding. Gatoclass (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew it and I still want it withdrawn. I will stop responding, since I never intended there to be a confrontation. SL93 (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, I was preparing one of my lists of older DYKs that need reviewing, and ran across a couple that you had been going to work on, but haven't been back to in a while. I was wondering whether you'd be getting to them soon, or if I should put out the "new reviewer needed" icon. These are:

1. Template:Did you know nominations/Rose Lambert: last post from you on July 31
2. Template:Did you know nominations/Chechen-Russian conflict: last post from you on July 17

Also, the nominator of Template:Did you know nominations/James E. Dull is wondering if the edits he made last week have taken care of the problems you pointed out. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I haven't forgotten about those noms. Basically what happened is that over the last week or so I got stuck on the "Rose Lambert" nom, because I think it needs a substantial rewrite, which I've been planning to do myself, but the problem is I need to do a fair bit of research to do the job properly and I've gotten bogged down with it haven't been able to move on to the other noms either as a result. "Chechen-Russian conflict" also needs some additional content but not as much. The James Dull nom needs a thorough recheck for PARAPHRASE, I will probably do that in the next day or two. Gatoclass (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University has affiliations with more than 60 engineering colleges and 30 polytechnic colleges in Chhattisgarh, India? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 12:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you remember, the article Caucasian Albania was placed on a sanction, according to which "All editors with Armenia/Azerbaijan-related sanctions are banned from editing this page and its talk page". Later this sanction was amended, and was replaced with 1RR, as logged here by you: [11] The notice about this new sanction is displayed at the talk of the article, but the old sanction is still being displayed when you hit the edit button. Could you please update the notice of the sanctions in the edit window? Thank you. Grandmaster 07:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. Btw, while we at it, the new account of Хаченци (talk · contribs) violated 1RR removing the tag twice without any discussion at talk. The reason why there was a POV tag was explained in much detail at talk, to which he never contributed. The 1RR restriction notice was both at talk and edit window, so he could not have missed it. It is this kind of editing that resulted in this article being placed on editing restrictions. 21:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Your comment was phenomenally informative. I have an idea that might help DYK a lot, and also in passing solve these problems without workload.

I created an almost identical solution which is used in another very similar (but far more nuanced) enwp process, where it's been working for several years, so this is solid belief grounded in past experience on the project. Reading your post, I think I can propose an almost identical approach to the DYK process that will cut patrol work a lot, be much easier to manage, catch far more issues, and which is also all but identical to a process that already exists (and therefore can be easily re-purposed at DYK).

I'm not a DYK regular, so I'd like to run this by you by email first, to see if it looks ok or I've missed anything, before taking up multiple people's time on-wiki over it. Presumably you'll be able to quickly see what you reckon and what others might think, and say "looks good, post it", or "what about omitted point X", or "not going to work, leave it".

Would you be ok with this? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Don't expect a response right away though, as I will be logging off for the day shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gatoclass, I see you're still working on the article, and no doubt you'll make it much better than it was, but I'm hoping that we can send this on its way shortly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, would you be kind enough to take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/One Dangerous Night? I have raised a point there about the fourth rule which is being disputed. You may wish to correct me if I am wrong. Moonraker (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at some links provided by Bonkers the Clown, and clearly, quite a number of DYK contributors have stated that plots don't need summaries. You say this is a "general convention", and I think you mean it is an unwritten rule. However, DYK has written rules which so far as I can make out do not include this one. Would you please take over reviewing this nomination, One Dangerous Night? I just do not agree with giving so much weight to unwritten rules. It would help all of us if you could also draft an amendment to the Eligibility criteria. Moonraker (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rose Lambert, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the memoirs of American missionary Rose Lambert (pictured) document her experiences in Ottoman Turkey during the 1909 massacre of Armenians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rose Lambert. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gatoclass, I found your name on a list of active DYK reviewers. Some time ago I submitted the Charles R. Chickering (artist) page for DYK review. At first it was approved by two other reviewers and was approved and promoted (closed for discussion) by a third, but shortly thereafter another reviewer was concerned about a couple of "near" paraphrasing issues, which I have since dealt with last week. Now it seems the nomination has been forgotten about, even after reminders, so I'm hoping you (or someone) will finalize the matter for better or worse. If you have the time could you give the nomination a peek? -- Gwillhickers 17:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aye Gato', just wanted to say thanks for tending to the Charles R. Chickering (artist) nomination. I was lucky enough to wake up in time to see it on the main page before it disappeared a half hour later. Eight hours of glory. :-) Once again, thanks for your time and effort. -- Gwillhickers 06:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I just promoted it - thanks should really go to the reviewer or reviewers who passed it, as they are the ones who do most of the work. Gatoclass (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So whats so pov about it? Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ATM it just looks like some minor tweaks will be required - attribution, that sort of thing. I would like to take a look a Ussher's original book though, do you have a link to it? Gatoclass (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If minor tweaks are required by all means do them. This article does not represent the POV of Armenians nor Turks, only the POV of Ussher's as highlighted by his eyewitness account. Here's the book. I hope I'm not going to waiting another 3 months like you did last time and other articles. More importantly, I hope I won't lose the photograph slot in the DYK section. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I will ask you...what POV issues? Can you please be specific? Did you just look at my username and removed the hook outright? Because that's what it seems like. In the past, you've sent my articles to deletion and failed, you've tried hard to find POV's with other articles but in reality, you've done nothing more than expand them. And now it looks as though you didn't even go over this article before making such an assumption. Because if you did you would have noticed the external link to the book provided in the first couple of sentences of the article, let alone providing evidence towards your claims. This is getting ridiculous. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, actually what I've done in the past is spend a tremendous amount of my time fixing and improving one of your noms that I could have failed outright, when I would have much preferred to be getting on with my own content creation. And I'm afraid I don't recall ever sending one of your articles to AFD. But thank you for the link to the book - I didn't have time to search every reference in the article yesterday and since you opened this discussion it was easier to just ask you. As I said, I am not anticipating anything like the problems I found in the Rose Lambert article, unless of course I find major discrepancies between it and the book source, but I have no reason to expect that and hopefully it won't be long before it is returned to the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two days for you is three-four months in the least. This is what worries me above anythig else. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Rose Lambert article was an exception, that required a great deal of research and planning to fix, had I realized what a big job it would be at the outset I probably wouldn't have attempted it in the first place, but having made the commitment I felt obliged to go through with it. But if you don't like your articles being held up at T:TDYK, the solution is to be sure you get them right in the first place. You should also be aware that writing about highly sensitive, contentious topics is always likely to generate more attention than run-of-the-mill topics, especially when English is obviously a second language and you have difficulty with the idiom. But I hope that at least you are taking note of the reasons some of your articles are getting pulled so that you can self-correct in future rather than relying on reviewers to do the corrections for you, because it is likely that at some point in future I will no longer be willing to make the effort on your behalf. Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to excuse yourself for falsely assuming that English is my second language. In fact, you are in no position to talk about my linguistic capabilities as a human being. This is actually almost insulting. My articles are fine enough. I've created hundreds of articles and at least 50 DYKs and I plan to make many more. What you did with Rose Lambert was nothing but an expansion that anyone else in the Wikipedia community can do, including myself. When it comes to articles pertaining the Armenian Genocide, I take into special consideration when it comes to POV issues with such contentious material. To reiterate: this article puts the Armenian Genocide not in the context of how Armenians or Turks view the event, but as Clarence Ussher himself views it. I make no attempt to conceal that fact. Anyhow, I shall see you in a "few days"...at least I hope. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if my assumption that English was not your native language was incorrect; in my defence I only came to that conclusion because of the numerous grammatical errors I have encountered in your articles, and I can only hope that you will apply yourself a little better in future. Getting back to the point - in relation to this particular nom, having read some of the book in question, I can inform you that there is good news and bad news. The good news is that fixing the article is not going to be nearly as difficult as the Rose Lambert nom; the bad news is that it's going to be a bit more complicated than I at first anticipated, so I may not be able to get it done in the next few days after all. On the other hand, you might get lucky - but whatever the case, please try to remember that we are chronically short of manpower at DYK and that many nominations wait weeks for approval. Gatoclass (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Thanks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just going keep pulling out each and every one of my DYK's? Balance issues? Really? What issues? What DYK regulation have I violated? Unbelievable. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your first question, I certainly hope not, as the last thing I want to do now is fix more of somebody else's DYK noms. But if it's any consolation, I did decide to take a look through your other submissions last night after seeing the Ernest Yarrow article, and first impressions were that most of them are probably acceptable as they are. Gatoclass (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know when you're going to finish them...I sincerely hope it's not going to take several months. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a busy week. I'm hoping to find some time over the weekend to get moving on these noms. Gatoclass (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gatoclass, any updates on this? Can we get this going already? Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten these articles, unfortunately I've had a very stressful last couple of weeks off-wiki, completion of work on these two articles of yours is my current content-editing priority and I will try to get them done next weekend. Gatoclass (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not complete by this weekend, I will seek intervention or a new reviewer. It's been two months and you have not made ONE edit to both Clarence Ussher and Ernest Yarrow. As predicted above, I knew was going to happen. What is even more concerning is that other users who voluntarily reviewed the article do not see the POV "concerns" that you raised. Above all, you haven't even attempted to say what these POV concerns (if any) actually are so that I could have fixed them awhile ago and not wait months after months. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it's taken so long to get around to this, but it's for a number of reasons, firstly that the edits I'm planning are not simple and require a substantial amount of research (as I also had to do for the Chechen-Russian conflict article), secondly that the only time I currently have available for substantial research of this type is weekends, thirdly because the weekend I set aside for this a couple of weeks ago was taken by the Cavann AE request instead, and finally because the last two weeks off-wiki have been unexpectedly very busy and stressful. In fact, I am really struggling to find the time to finish these edits even this weekend, I really need another week to get this job done, but I'm going to try and get it finished over the next 24-48 hours. Gatoclass (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget Ernest Yarrow. Thanks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Yarrow...please don't forget. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gato, I saw this had been languishing at T:TDYK for a very long time, with neutrality issues simmering. I had a look at a couple of books and made these changes. I was tempted just to clear it at DYK, but I see you are still saying you will get on to it. In my view, while far from perfect, with the revisions I have made the content is probably OK for mainpage. I have not however examined the sources that were already cited - only the new books i was able to get hold of. The allegedly scholarly literature in this area has neutrality issues of its own - the WP policy of 'verifiability, not truth' is hard to readily implement when even books published by reliable publishing houses appear to have some clear POVs amongst some of their authors. Anyway, good luck with it... hamiltonstone (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw your changes, and I thought they were a substantial improvement. I still have some issues with the article however, and I'm not far from completing my own additions, so the article should be ready for review shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass, I'm hoping you're still online! I think it looks like there is a DAB link in the Ritz Carlton hook presently in the queue - for Seven Mile Beach? For some reason I have it in my head that there shouldn't be DAB links but if I've just made this up, please ignore me. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chechen-Russian conflict, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Chechen-Russian conflict (Chechen rebel pictured) dates back as far as 1785? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chechen-Russian conflict. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Gatoclass, new hooks have been devised for this nomination, as you requested. (I just proposed minor variants of the two hooks.) Did you want to continue with this review, or should I give it the red "review again" icon and add it to my latest list of older nominations? Please let me know here if it's the latter; otherwise, I'll assume you'll take a look as soon as you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am not allowed to respond on Montanabw's talk, I too am wondering why similar statements from User:Chedzilla on the same AE request did not result in a warning to him, just as to her? I don't know any of the players in that TM drama (Wolfie, etc), or who's who in general in the TM mess, but I am concerned that Montanabw has shown increasingly shrill language across many pages and forums on Wikipedia, and doesn't seem to recognize that community norms apply to her as well as to anyone. And yet, ANI wouldn't deal with her latest two because I was supposed to have previously discussed with her-- which I have now attempted. In fact, her response to me (and you) on her talk page was another unwarranted attack on both of us, impugning our motives-- something she doesn't seem to be aware of.

By the way, in spite of our past differences at DYK, I've noticed of late that you are working effectively at trying to turn things around at DYK. The history is that I (temporarily) quit reviewing at DYK or TFAR because of Montanabw's tone, where it appears that even correct, neutral, impartial review of things like non-reliable sources, BLP vios, faulty image captions and so on would result in shrill retorts. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page stalker) For what it's worth, I always think language use is telling. Montanabw is referred to as "her" and then repeatedly called "shrill". This seems to be a term used particularly for women. I don't think I've ever seen a man called "shrill". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I probably could have done better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your endorsement of my recent activities at DYK SandyGeorgia - but I think if you were better acquainted with my DYK contributions you would know that I have a long record of supporting improved standards at DYK, when I think the proposals are practical. Much of the time, however, I have been on the losing side of that debate, as it appears that the majority of DYKers are more or less content with the status quo. My differences with you and some others at DYK have never been with regard to your advocacy for higher standards, which you are entitled to pursue, but rather with the tone and manner of some of those interventions. As I'm sure I've said to you before, constructive criticism of DYK is from my POV always welcome, but when I feel criticisms are only being made for an ulterior purpose, namely the delegitimizing of DYK as a concept, or when DYK managers are unfairly attacked, that's another story. But yes, I too would like to see better quality control at DYK, however there is only so much one can achieve under a consensus paradigm.

With regard to Ched - his comments simply didn't catch my eye in the same way that Montanabw's did. I am prepared to tolerate a certain amount of venting at AE as I recognize that disputes generally only arrive there after the frustration level has reached breaking point, but there are limits. I note also that IRWolfie's objections to Ched's remarks were less forceful, indicating that he too was less concerned about them. Gatoclass (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now regret asking the Ched question here, as I'm seeing the nastiness you have to deal with in arb endorcement, and it can't be fun. Having someone question you when you are attempting to enforce the norms can't make it easier. I should go figure out who's who in the TM situation (since a lot of it involves MEDRS I suspect), but I prefer to remain blissfully ignorant.

On the DYK past, my memories were related more to different views on copyvio, but that seems to be a thing of the past now, thanks in good part to Nikkimaria and Bluemoonset, and I noticed, from you as well ... so good. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, you want to engage with me, let's chat, but my understanding is that I am also banned from your talk page, so where shall we hold a tete-a-tete? (Shall we make a sandbox somewhere?) You interpreted my comments as attacking you and impugning your motives, when, once again, it seems you are doing that very thing to me. I am very troubled by your unwarranted attacks on me and what seem to me to be wholly "unfounded" (seeing as how we are throwing that word around a lot these days) statements about how I am somehow a problem at DYK (gee, I have over 30 of them now, what's the problem here?) or GAN (gee another 30+ there) and wherever else? Disagreeing with you or disagreement with some of the people you work with is not, as far as I know, an attack, a disruption, or anything else. I just disagree with you - and others - but someone then you go ballistic at me for it and claim I am the source of all that is wrong and evil. Frankly, I'd prefer not to deal with you at all, because you appear to refuse to AGF when it comes to me, and Émisinterpret most everything I say, but if you insist on discussing me by name, well, let's find a way to discuss face to face. Montanabw^(talk) 07:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gato, sorry to pop over here and hijack your page, but given that Sandy is talking about me here, and she banned me from her talk page in January, I suppose I have little choice. Montanabw^(talk) 07:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A big chunk of hidden text was recently removed from the DYK prep areas per talk page consensus (it's the message that begins "Stop! Before you add a new item..."). You re-added the text to Preps 1 and 4 with these edits – unintentionally, I'm sure, but I'm just letting you know so you can avoid it happening again. Thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:USS Calvert APA-32.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing that absolutely horrible hook for Bródno Jewish Cemetery. It looked like something which could very easily be interpreted as antisemitic. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Gatoclass (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gatoclass! I've noticed that you have listed as the active participants for WP:DYK, so can I request for my hook to get reviewed? If you're busy just let me know and I will find another reviewer. Thanks! FairyTailRocks (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my DYK nomination. I am happy to find you as a reviewer. Thank you. EhthicallyYours! 17:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clarence Ussher, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Ottoman Turkey customs officials removed maps from the Bible belonging to American physician Clarence Ussher because they contained the word "Armenia"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Clarence Ussher. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there! I have made a heavy re-editing of "Rituals" in Blowing from a gun, focusing on a) clarity of technical procedure, b) variant methods, and have done away with many of the quotes, retaining a couple grotesque ones hidden away in references instad. I know you don't want to be involved as a reviewer, but I would be grateful if you could give it a brief look to see if it is more in tune with what you had in mind. Thanks in advance, not the least for constructive criticism.Arildnordby (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass, I just noticed you move a set of hooks into Queue 3 - could you double check the fourth hook as the piped link for Minneapolis City Council member looks as if it might be missing a space between Council and member? Sorry to bother you if it's just my screen! SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

--

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

No worries, these things happen. The article and hook were both more or less okay other than the minor fact that he was voted out of office! Harrias ^talk 16:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gatoclass, this was a terrible review and I left a note for the reviewer. I'm disappointed; this just confirms the bad rep we have among some editors. Check out my edits--the reviewer should have taken care of it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass,

Thanks for posting the DYK notice for Bridget Chaworth on my Talk page, and for all the work you do on DYK. For some reason the notice doesn't show up properly this time, and I thought you might like to know that in case you're trying out a new format for posting the notices. NinaGreen (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I got the same. The problem is that User:Ameliorate!/DYKmake was deleted (U1) today. There must be another version of the template somewhere more official. Maybe. And yes, thanks for all the good work. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gatoclass, thanks for the DYK thanks on my talk page--but do you know what's wrong with it? It's not showing up correctly. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merry Christmas/Kwanzaa/et cetera! Drmies (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

		Holiday Cheer
		Victuallers talkback is wishing Gato' Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger inspired by this - you could do the same

Thanks Vic, same to you :) Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass,

Sorry to bother you, but I just got a notice from a Bot on my Talk page regarding an erroneous DYK template I created, Anthony Carelton, in which I misspelled the surname, which should have been Carleton. Is there some way that erroneous template can be deleted? I afterwards created a new template using the correct spelling, Anthony Carleton. Thanks for your help. NinaGreen (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass. Are you still short of DYKs for Christmas? I could write one on a opera called Les cadeaux de Noël (The Christmas Gifts) by Xavier Leroux. It premiered in Paris on Christmas Day in 1915 and was very popular in its day. I've had quite a few DYKs in the past, e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/La Flora, Template:Did you know nominations/Das Christ-Elflein, etc. and know what's expected. However, I haven't the time to review one quid pro quo so someone else would have to nominate it. Is it worth me writing it? Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) Go ahead, I could nominate, could even supply a QPQ if needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead Voceditenore, we can waive the QPQ requirement since you are making a contribution on request :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey. I'll work on it later today and let you know when it's finished. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As you can see, the red link has turned blue: Les cadeaux de Noël. I'll leave it to you and Gerda to start the formalities. It's currently at 2600 characters of text. I'm about to add illustrations and a brief synopsis, but wanted to give you as much notice as possible. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Will nominate. My Christmas card "to the world" is on top of my talk, with best wishes! (I will not "mail" it.) Singing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Les cadeaux de Noël, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

learned ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot pings don't work in template space. Matty.007 20:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, Matty.007 has done some edits after your review of the nominated Christmas album found issues with the article. Can you please revisit it and see if the problems have been adequately dealt with? I'm happy to promote it if it's approved.

At the moment, Prep 2 has two open slots—it covers the last hours of Christmas Day in the US, though Europe and Asia will already be celebrating Boxing Day by then. We have one hook ready for promotion, though I've been holding back since there's no rush and I see from this page that another hook may be coming in soon.

The lead hook in P2 can be moved to Prep 3 to make room for another Christmas Day hook if necessary—while the Wenceslaus Church is a December 26 hook and would be posted from 0200 to 1400 local time in P2, it could be up starting at 1400 on the 26th in P3 with no harm. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Voceditenore finishes his contribution, we only need one more hook to fill the set, I notice that Template:Did you know nominations/Dorle Soria has been approved now, which would work fine as a filler. Gatoclass (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the strong objections to using Dorle Soria, I think you should find a different non-Christmas hook. I wish I could have approved of "Joy", but it was problematic. Come to think of it, if you need a hook, bring forward Gerda's Die Singphoniker from prep 3, since it will run 0100 to 1300 in Germany on December 26, which is fine under the circumstances, and it's about Christmas carols to boot, so it fits for the remaining hours of US Christmas. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we can do that. But we may still need an additional hook if Voceditenore doesn't finish theirs, and I don't think there were "strong objections" to Dorle Soria, just some comments that it wasn't related to Christmas, so it's still an option to hand if we need a filler, unless somebody can find a better alternative. Gatoclass (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since one of the objections was mine, I can say without hesitation that it was strong, and kosboot's seemed also unequivocal. I'll see what I can find. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know 'Joy' is a bit light, but it is festive. Is it good enough at present to scrape through? Thanks, Matty.007 17:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Matty.007, but it is not. As I mentioned in my review, the changeover from quotes to paraphrases took problematic liberties: one telling example is that Worship Leader didn't say anything approaching what's been paraphrased as "another classic", and words such as "evoked" and "affirmed" are being used in ways that don't really work. The Indie Visions Music sentence doesn't hold together... and nice as it would be to feature this now, the article simply isn't ready for prime time. It isn't just that it's light, which is a problem, it's not sufficiently accurate or written with adequate prose. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on it, so tell me what you think of it now, and go and look at the new tag in the DYK.HotHat (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, I was hoping you could stop by this nomination very quickly to see whether your concerns were addressed by Mentoz's edits to the article (and whether you prefer the new ALT to the original hook, which also used "most-winning". Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, did you ever search for those additional sources for Template:Did you know nominations/1981 Iraqi embassy bombing, or should we just leave the issue to the new reviewer Isjelia is calling for? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to the Arne Pederson nom, I was expecting a response on the other nom but it hasn't been forthcoming, so I might want to think about that one a little longer. Gatoclass (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's yeoman's work. Good catch--Tznkai (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed section heading for clarity. It's good working with you again.--Tznkai (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]