User talk:Gatoclass/Archive 25 (2018)

Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So my Did You Know? nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Palazzo Corpi has been reviewed and accepted. What is the next step I have to take in the process. The queue system seems daunting.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to do anything SamHolt6, now that the nomination has been verified, it's just a matter of time until it gets promoted to the queue (unless the verification gets rescinded, in which case the nomination will be reopened for further discussion). Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's great to have you back on the project. Regarding the last two pulls you made, the nomination template also has to be returned to the Approved page, or else it's floating out there in cyberspace. I re-listed Template:Did you know nominations/James Hood Wright and Template:Did you know nominations/Angel Recording Studios. I don't mind doing it for you in future, if you drop me a note on my talk page. Best, Yoninah (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, thanks for the tip Yoninah. Gatoclass (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a brand-new alternate hook to the CPRR DYK page here: Template:Did you know nominations/Carolwood Pacific Railroad, if that makes things easier. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 19:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jackdude101, but I don't think we will need it, we just need Fram to give his approval of the original hook and we can return it to the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. When it does get added back, it will need to be marked as promoted again on its DYK page, as I reverted your related edit in order to add the alternate hook. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 20:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, while I appreciate the Dead South finally showing up on the Main Page, the hook that was used was not the one I had nominated. What up widdat? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I noticed who did the uploading after posting to you. My apologies. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that I will be away from home and my internet access for the next couple of days and will be unable to promote any hooks to prep. I have filled a couple of extra prep sets in preparation, and will be happily unaware of any faults that are found with them! I don't think there is an increase in errors since we changed the schedule. The number of errors found really depends on the diligence of those who search for them and those keen to point them out rather than the actual number of errors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all know you and GatoClass think there's no problem. That's clear from your posts. The statistics and comments beg to differ. As I noted elsewhere, I've been reviewing every single DYK hook now for years (as you well know Cwmhiraeth) and apply the same diligence to each and every review. So why so many issues all of a sudden? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a bit of a concern Yoninah, because I didn't receive it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I found it, it was in a different folder, I will reply shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, your statements in that discussion in general, but especially this one:

"I would consider a move to delay your error checking until sets reach the main page as deliberately disruptive, and would take action accordingly." (at WT:DYK, 18:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC))

are not acceptable. You are threatening some undefined "action" (you indicated an ArbCom case about this, seriously?) against an editor because they don't perform some checks at the time you want them to be had? Editors are free to check DYK whenever they like in the process, be it at nomination or after it has had its stay on the main page. In this particular case, TRM was making sure for a long time already (long before the move to a 12-hour cycle) to check every set when it was added to prep (or to queue if it was moved to queue rather quickly). If they decide, on their own or prompted by your statements, to only check when the hooks hit the main page, then that is completely within their rights as an editor. They are not nominating, reviewing, promoting... hooks and errors to the main page. On the contrary, they have tried to prevent this, both by hook checking and by suggesting slowing down the throughput.

You are obviously free to start an ArbCom case, but it would be wiser if you would just leave DYK alone instead of making completely baseless threats towards other editors, which if you had any objectivity left you would know that you had no grounds to make a case (but where you seem to indicate that you hope that the bad blood between TRM and ArbCom will increase your chances anyway, which is another dirty tactic).

Pleases, either make it clear that you retract your threat and that TRM (or anyone) is free to check hooks and report problems whenever they like, or leave DYK alone. Fram (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that both Fram and I are waiting for your response here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I'm busy at the moment. Gatoclass (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we all? Just some of us aren't running around threatening others with Arbcom are we? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to this. Firstly, I did not initiate any "threats". I simply responded to a threat made by you, namely, to withhold your error checking at DYK until the 11th hour - or perhaps, even, the 13th - in order to embarrass DYK into submitting to your demand that we return to a 24-hour cycle. What I said in response to that is that I would regard any such move on your part as a totally unacceptable attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT, and that if you carried through with your threat, I would reserve the right to take the matter up at ARBCOM.

So you are in fact in no danger of another trip to Arbcom, unless you meet the condition I outlined above, namely, leaving your error checking to the last minute in order to try and embarrass the DYK project. In short, the ball is entirely in your court, I am not about to take you to Arbcom for something you haven't actually done.

Secondly, it's absolute nonsense to suggest that I am trying to "drive you away" from DYK, given that I have urged you to continue posting the errors you find at DYK as you have previously rather than posting them belatedly at WP:ERRORS. So I must reject the charges you have made in the above linked post, they simply aren't an accurate interpretation of my position, at all. This post crossposted from User talk:The Rambling Man for context. Gatoclass (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As your post failed to retract your baseless threats (in fact, it went on to reinforce them), I'd like to know if you're open to recall please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not, I don't believe in it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well we'll be seeing each other again shortly! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the issue at WP:ANI#Chilling (though ridiculous) ArbCom threat by admin. Fram (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, I agree here. Not editing is never grounds for Arbcom. This is a volunteer project. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan, I suggest you go back and read my posts at that closed ANI, and the diffs I provided, because this is clearly not about simply "not editing", but rather, editing at a strategic moment in order to cause maximum disruption. Gatoclass (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I did not read Gatoclass's comment to be about not doing voluntary tasks, but rather, it's about intentionally doing tasks for a specific purpose. But it wasn't phrased well and opens the door for speculations. Alex Shih (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I composed a comment for the thread at ANI but find that the discussion is closed already. As it is supportive of your efforts, I'll post it here so that you still get to see it. Andrew D. (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [re] This issue of having to do things in advance. There are valid points on both sides as the main page sections of DYK, OTD and TFA operate on a daily schedule and so someone has to do the related tasks in a timely way. Naturally it is vexing to them if wise guys point out errors after they have laboured hard to get things done. But it seems helpful to point out an issue, even at the last minute, because then something can be done about it. My view is that we should avoid making this a blame game and just take pleasure in the process of polishing and presenting the material. I'm not sure exactly what Gatoclass does because I haven't done myself but I can well believe that it is a relentless chore. Kudos are due to him for his efforts and so we should allow for some exasperation as a reward. Andrew D. (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also composed a comment for the ANI thread, but since it got closed, I thought I'd bring it over here because at this point, it's still relevant to you: I agree that the argument that TRM can do whatever he wants with his time is missing the point. He clearly stated his intention to change his behavior in a way that he views as damaging to the project in order to make a point. That's a problem. I don't know enough about ArbCom, but why would threatening to take him to ArbCom be an appropriate response to that? -- irn (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I stated that I'd re-prioritise my time so that the drastic shortcomings which are being overlooked daily are exposed. That's different altogether, but thanks for your interpretation Irn. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you disagree with me. The drastic shortcomings you wish to expose would mean letting errors get through to the main page, correct? You don't think that letting errors get through to the main page would be damaging to the project? -- irn (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but I've been chased away and have no appetite to serve a project whose masters believe all is well. If I have time in the future, I may dip into DYK, but no longer will I spend hours a week ensuring the integrity of the main page. I'll simply report whatever I may find at ERRORS. If you think that's deliberately disruptive or making a point, then that's 100% your own problem. You and Gatoclass seem to think I have some innate requirement to notify the DYK project of issues, well no, that's not going to happen any more, let's just imagine I'm a regular editor and I see errors in the "next DYK queue" or on the main page. That's where I'm going to look, and that's why I'm going to notify the ERRORS page of issues. I'm tired of spending the hours I do fixing all the shit that is accepted for the main page, and I'm tired of explaining that the process is dead. So instead I'll just walk away entirely and notify Wikipedia and our readers that there are problems as and when they occur, assuming I can be bothered. You and Gatoclass couldn't get this situation more wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair. Our only difference here is understanding your motivation. You obviously know your own motivation better than anyone else, but everyone who is not inside your head only knows what you wrote. And you wrote that waiting for errors to get posted on the main page should underline the point you're missing[1]. That makes it sound like you're trying to make a point by re-prioritizing your time. Maybe we're misinterpreting that phrase. Or maybe you were just frustrated and typed something you didn't mean. In any case, if that's not what you meant, it's not a big deal; it's just some miscommunication that needs to be cleared up. -- irn (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Finally somebody gets the point. Thank you Irn. This is not the type of issue that is ever going to get well handled at AN/I, partly because it's the kind of distinction that is easily missed, and partly, I guess, because TRM probably still has plenty of supporters on this project who are going to take his side regardless. But all one really has to do is imagine what the main page would look like if all error checking was left until after the content was on the main page. With regard to your question though, I'm not sure I understand it - I'm an administrator, and it's part of the job description to prevent disruption. Where you have a user like TRM who still enjoys substantial support in the community, standard dispute resolution procedures don't work, which is why cases involving such users usually end up at Arbcom. Gatoclass (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"enjoy substantial support"? I wonder why that is. Plus, you're talking about someone who has been blocked by Arbcom numerous times. So I don't find your position credible. But to the point: do you retract your threat or not? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You enjoy substantial support presumably because you are a prolific editor who makes a very fine contribution to mainspace, I don't think anyone would dispute that. Indeed, at DYK, your standard of quality control is second to none, and in that respect, DYK is fortunate to have your participation. The issue with you has never been about your mainspace contributions, but about your behaviour toward other contributors. Which is why, I guess, opinion about you is so heavily divided, largely I suppose between those who love your mainspace contribution and those who have been the target of your ire. With regard to your question, see my response to Reyk below. Gatoclass (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm not that big a fan of TRM after what he did to User:KWW and his subsequent gravedancing about it. But the reality is that you can't make someone edit at a time convenient to you, you can't make a single person your only safeguard against errors getting onto the main page, and you most definitely cannot blame them if they withdraw from the process. Unless you're accusing TRM of finding errors in the DYK queue and deliberately withholding that information until it revealing it becomes most embarassing, but it does not seems as though you're claiming that. Like it or not, taking your bat and ball and going home is a legitimate way to let people know you're unhappy. Instead of blaming TRM for showing up DYK for the error-riddled hole that it is, why not fix it? Reyk _YO! 18:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the nth time Reyk, this was never about somebody just deciding to "withdraw from the process", it's about somebody who threatened to start only now looking at DYK once it's updated on the main page[2] in order to exert pressure on other DYK participants to agree to his demands. That still plainly constitutes an intent to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point in my book, and if I see a pattern of editing that I consider to be deliberately disruptive, I am, quite simply, duty bound as an administrator to try and prevent that through dispute resolution procedures, whether anybody happens to agree with my take on the evidence or not. Gatoclass (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the nth time Gatoclass, if you don't like when TRM points out errors, tough. I suspect Arbcom will see it much the same way. And I would suggest refraining from threatening to take editors to Arbcom for not volunteering the way you want them to volunteer unless you want to wind up there yourself. See WP:ADMINCOND and "egregious poor judgment". To best thing for you to do now is to let this go and accept TRM can volunteer his services where and when he sees fit. If that's an inconvenience for you, look for other volunteers or do the work yourself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, I will probably have to log off shortly, my apologies if I am unable to respond further here until tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I post a DYK error to ERRORS say Friday morning (I'm on a flight tomorrow and at a conference for two days), which has been sat in a prep for two days, will that invoke your Arbcom threat? If I post a DYK error to ERRORS which relates to a hook which you tuck into a prep set which you then promote to a queue which is bound for the main page within 12 or 24 hours, will that invoke your Arbcom threat? I need to understand the threshold at which you consider me to be making such a disruptive point that you will invoke your Arbcom threat. Otherwise you're freezing me out of making any kind of error reports, especially now I've de-prioritised DYK to the bottom of my daily list as a result of your hostile posts. Please let me know what you would consider constitutes the necessity to bring this to Arbcom. P.S. My "demands" were never "demands" just a common sense request to slow down. You ignored everything I said about the error rate, making some claim that DYK had never been more attended to. By whom, I wonder? You need to start addressing the problem, not its symptoms, and what you've just done here by threatening me with Arbcom is not the way to handle that. You and Irn (surprise, surprise, see Talk:2018!) are the only two that believe there's any kind of substance to this POINT threat you have accused me of. Once again, let me reiterate, I have now de-prioritised DYK reviews until I have time. That may well be only when they're on the main page or just before. If I raise an error at ERRORS, will you take me to Arbcom? If I raise two? Four? After all, I was finding about two errors per set.... Finally, you are duty bound to act reasonably as an admin. Threatening me with Arbcom doesn't see like you're doing your duty, so if we do find ourselves at Arbcom, I expect the outcome to be very different from what you expected going into it. I'm more than happy to ensure you don't threaten other editors in this way, especially in your current capacity as an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, my apologies for getting back to this so late. I was up half the night last night with muscle cramps - the second night in a row I have had major disruptions to my sleep pattern - and as a consequence am in no fit state today for dealing with a nuanced policy discussion, let alone wikidrama. So while I think this entire question is deserving of more attention, and I may eventually have more to say about it, the short answer to your question, given the lack of support for my position expressed at AN/I yesterday, is that I no longer intend at this point to take you to Arbcom should you change your editing pattern in line with your stated intention to "expose" DYK. In short, although I still think your proposal was inappropriate and wrong for a number of reasons, I withdraw my caution in that regard. I think I should probably add, however, that if in future I should see you (or anyone else) engaging in patterns of editing that I consider to be disruptive or unjustified, I naturally reserve the right to issue a new caution. Again, my apologies for being unable to address this issue in more depth today, I just don't have the wherewithal to do so right now. Gatoclass (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're better off leaving it to someone else now you're so heavily involved. but I'll happily ensure it happens if you continue to abuse your position. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to see you desysopped... yeah, the premature gravedancing on your own talk page suggests otherwise. Lepricavark (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what you buy or don't? And you can't premature grave-dance, that's silly. And as I said above, if the abuse continues, but I'll happily ensure it happens. The conversation has moved on a bit... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the diff speak for itself. And you've been dropping that same threat at intervals for the past couple of days, so I'm not so sure the conversation has moved on. Lepricavark (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you do that if that's what you want to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I can piggy-back here for a bit, I have a slightly different question: Why are you still an admin, Gatoclass? Your successful RfA was almost ten years ago and your last admin action was over a year ago in December of 2016. The public logs show only a small handful of admin actions since the end of 2013, so it is not obvious that you've been actively using the tools for quite some time now. If you have no need for the tools, why retain them? Just to be clear: I have no intention of accusing or implying bad faith in this retention. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass uses admin privilege to edit protected templates at DYK. That's why he currently has the tools. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm what TRM has stated, editing through fully protected pages does not show up in admin actions logs, but the admin toolset is required to do that. --Jayron32 20:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, and please consider my question withdrawn. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comment on the DYK nomination for Listing of historic ships of Sweden. I'll add a reference in the picture text. I was however wondering about your edit on the article itself. Are you sure that's considered "original research"? I mean, "historical" is simply using the wrong word? Clearly it should be "historic"? I'm curious to know your way of reasoning here. Yakikaki (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yakikaki, the point is that if the organization itself names its list a "List of historical ships", then whether or not that is grammatical, that is the name of the list. And if you change it to something else based on the fact that you think maybe that is ungrammatical, that is WP:OR. Hope that helps. Gatoclass (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not that I think it's ungrammatical, it is ungrammatical. What they want to say is "historic", not "historical". I find it unreasonable to consider what I did there "original research", in what way is it research? I corrected their mistake while including a note for clarity's sake stating the words they use. I think that's a pretty neat solution to the problem; I think sticking to an obvious mistake is a pretty bad solution. Yakikaki (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are interested, I think I came up with a workable compromise. I'll use the word "historical" instead of "historic" and explain in a note that these are the words used by the museum, even though they are not correct. That way it should be perfectly transparent that these are the terms actually used even though it's wrong. Yakikaki (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds much better Yakikaki. I certainly prefer "historic" in this context but I'm still not quite sure that "historical" is actually grammatically incorrect. Do you by any chance have a source for that? Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having checked the definition of "historical", I agree that it is probably ungrammatical. I don't think you need a source for that, your outlined solution will probably suffice I think. Gatoclass (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for taking the time to discuss it and improve the article. I'm glad we found a solution. All the best, Yakikaki (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain "In short, disruption to make a WP:POINT - your specialty at DYK". In other words, you are making an accusation that I have deliberately disrupted DYK to prove a point, and then you go on to make a personal attack which suggest that it's my "specialty". Considering you have threatened to start a case at Arbcom based on my error reports, please clarify this statement with diffs and please let me know your criteria for Arbcom notification. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TRM, let it go. Community consensus very clearly is against Gatoclass here, and if they were to take any action (blocking, starting an ArbCom case, ...) based on you reporting issues at WP:ERRORS, they would lose the bit and/or face a block quite rapidly probably. Just do what you planned to do, and let Gatoclass continue to make powerless threats and baseless insults as much as they like, it only reflects badly on them, not on you. Fram (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the license of this image as "no copyright restrictions": author can't be found, older than 70 years. What do you read? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have a policy on this, you know? Just leave it to someone else instead of misusing this DYK to continue your abuse[3]. Fram (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: If you want someone besides Gatoclass to review this DYK, can you ping someone you know that's also involved with DYKs to do so? I reached out to several people myself over the past few days, but no one responded. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 12:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While we allow some leeway on the length of statements, yours is nearly three times the notional limit. Could you please trim it down to something that contains the nub of the matter? GoldenRing (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, when I composed that, I thought the limit for evidence was 1000 words, not 500. But according to my word counter, my post is only 913 words long excluding words after bullet points. I guess I can try and trim it down a bit, but honestly, I think these arcane rules can be totally counterproductive at times. Gatoclass (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could always trim out the digs at me, and start another Arbcom case for me alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not hard-welded to the word limit, but over-long statements don't help make your case, either. GoldenRing (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I think my evidence was well structured, not rambling and piecemeal as one often sees. Anyhow, for better or worse, it's trimmed now. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your latest additions to your statement. In my view, they did not meet the standard of decorum expected at arbitration. Arbitration is not the place to post diatribes against editors who you have not even named as parties to the case. If you wish to add TRM and produce evidence against him, then by all means do so. If you need extra words to do so, request it at the talk page and it will very likely be granted. But for what you posted, for my money, your first instinct was right and you should not have posted it while tired (and, I'm guessing, a bit stressed). GoldenRing (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, all my "friends" at Arbcom (as you put it) can't wait to see yet another case levelled at me where in actuality all I've ever done at DYK is seek for quality. If I've asked for too much quality, then you can sue me (wait, is that a reverse-legal threat?), but I don't think even Arbcom could concoct a way of dismissing me from the project for continually asking questions about the quality of DYK, particularly when most of the questions resulted in actual issues being fixed. In fact, it's a little bizarre that we'd even expect Arbcom to get involved with how DYK works at all, after all we've hardly scraped the surface of asking the community. Cart before horse perhaps. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The committee have declined the request for arbitration to which you were a party. Many of the arbitrators appear to think that the dispute is not ripe for arbitration and that other avenues of dispute resolution ought to be tried further.

For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Template:Did you know nominations/Christ the Lord Is Risen Today. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. A ping added later doesn't actually work unless you re-sign your post (~~~~). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, I noticed that you self-reverted, but I thought I'd raise this here nonetheless to clear the air. If we're to disagree I'd rather we disagreed about actual process than about meta-process. So, to be clear; I started the "admin role" RFC only after you commented that you could "I could hardly object to that". And I began this poll (which is a straw poll! completely non-binding! we can ignore its "outcome" completely if we wish) not because I thought there had been sufficient discussion, but in order to jump-start discussion on these issues, which had (rather disappointingly) died a slow death in the thread TRM started. I don't mean for this to replace an RFC, but for it to provide the foundation for a well-worked RFC. That's all. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, you were going to review this with a view to getting it finally settled one way or the other. We're now at four months and counting, so if you could take a good look soon it would be appreciated. David Eppstein has since made a comment, and just today he moved the "review again" icon from above your comment to the bottom, probably hoping to get a new reviewer in. I hadn't been adding this one to my list of old nominations needing a reviewer, since you'd said you would be reviewing it (and I think someone with your level of experience is far better than a random someone), but if you won't be coming back to it soon, perhaps I ought to include it. Please let me know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, I am still planning to do some work on this article, but as you probably know there have been a number of distractions lately, such as the recent straw polls opened at WT:DYK and also a number of other problematic nominations I've been trying to move along. I was also a bit nonplussed by David's belated post regarding notability just when I thought I had a clear field to work on the article, and that's caused me to stop and have a rethink. I haven't been able to find time over the last few days to even work on my own content and am getting a bit frustrated with all the time spent on other people's nominations and other issues, so I may not be returning to the Brady nomination immediately but I should get back to it in the next few days, one way or the other. Gatoclass (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help you gave me on the Template:Did you know nominations/Yampa (ship 1887). It received 21,995 views on the day of DYK. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Doug, I'm pleased to see it did well :) Gatoclass (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was sloppy, in the nom which you just used to replace a pulled one, ALT1 was aproved, - I failed to strike the original. Please repair. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the nomination Gerda, but I prefer the original hook. Gatoclass (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for curiosity: why? - I - a reader - thinks it's about a job, and stumble over "feel". I think we can take quirky misleading up to a point. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Begins to feel" is pretty standard usage in the given context, so I don't think it's a phrase people are likely to have a problem with. Also, it's simply a more accurate representation of what the reviewer actually said, ie, not that it's actually like a "bizarre, Brechtian joke" but that it begins to feel like one after a while. They are a couple of reasons why I prefer the original, but there is also a "seat of the pants" response and I guess I just found the original hook more hooky. Gatoclass (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to learn more about English, which I probably still often take too literally. I - the reader - don't yet know it's a film. The beginning of feeling like whatever seems unrelated to the title. - Hooky it is, I agree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you chose an image of asteroid Toutatis for tomorrow's DYK. But you misspelt "asteroid" as "asteriod". Rontombontom (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all surprised Rontombontom, it took so long to repair that set that I am getting very bleary-eyed as I should have taken a break long ago, but you can't just leave a set half-done. Anyhow I fixed the error, hopefully there are no more, thanks for the tip. Gatoclass (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wish you a good night's sleep! Rontombontom (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've replied to your comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've got about 40 hours. Are you willing to be the admin who promotes from prep to Q? If so then what we need is someone to build the prep set -- can't be me because I was a nominator. While waiting for a volunteer, may I suggest we start building a proto-prep set on the April 1 talk page, like I started to do a few days ago? EEng 06:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) This sounds exciting. Alex Shih (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well good evening, Your Arbship! How pleasant to run into you here. While you're here, perhaps you could take a look at the current discussion at Wikipedia_talk:April_Fool's_Main_Page/Did_You_Know#Quick_straw_poll_on_faux_politician_trio, and at this one critical point [4] made in the earlier discussion. I ask for this investment of your time because it may be useful for at least one arb to be familiar with the background. As I've said elsewhere today, there will be trouble over this exactly if someone wants there to be trouble. EEng 07:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, so far everything's going like a fine-tuned machine. EEng 14:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your work on this. I suggest we keep using the April 1 talk page, and the proto-sets you're building there, the venue of discussion for the next 24 hours i.e. until about 1500 UTC Saturday March 31; I think this is a way easier venue for discussion than with the hooks in formal prep sets. At about 1500, if everything's settled down, someone can be recruited to move them to formal prep sets, and then a few hours after that an admin can move to Q. That gives a few hours at each stage for our usual eagle-eyes to look things over. EEng 15:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gatoclass. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, these DYK's I tried to write are incomplete, I don't know what to do. Can you help?

• Template:Did you know nominations/Manshuk Mametova
• Template:Did you know nominations/Mariya Tsukanova
• Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Duncan (pilot)

Thanks.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed that you uploaded a new image hook and sent the other one off into virtual never-never land. Hmm. This leads to a few problems:

1. It kind of violates the rule of approving a hook and then promoting it yourself. And now that it's in a queue, no one can touch it. (I daresay no one even noticed that it's now there.) What you should have done is promoted a different image hook from the prep sets, which has already been seen by a few eyes (the reviewer and the promoter). Then we prep builders would replace the image slot.
2. When you pulled the other hook, you reopened the nomination, but you didn't relist it on the noms page or inform the nominator so that fixes could be made. Okay, I did the grunt work for you: I relisted it at WP:DYKN and also informed the nominator.

I do appreciate your efforts keeping the DYK wheels moving, but I'd also appreciate your keeping the pulled hooks in userspace so we can keep track of them. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously trying to lecture me on how DYK works? You do realize I've been doing this for over ten years, right? Do you have any idea how much time I have spent verifying hooks over the last few days to ensure DYK continues running smoothly through the 12-hour cycle? FYI, I have fully verified the last SEVEN sets in a row, that's a total of 56 hooks and probably close to an hour per set. I probably spent well over two hours just this evening verifying sets, fixing issues and searching for a replacement hook that shouldn't have been promoted in the first place - as I have to do far too often. I don't expect any thanks for my work behind the scenes, but I sure don't expect to come back here and find a lecture about my alleged oversights.

With regard to the pulled nomination, yes of course I am aware that I didn't return it to the nomination page yet, after spending most of my evening trying to fix problems in the queue I decided to do it later. There is no hurry to do these things after all, indeed probably no necessity to do it at all in many cases since the nominator is the one who must fix the problem and will undoubtedly have the nomination on their watchlist. I'm sorry if you felt obliged to spend two minutes cleaning up after me but it really wasn't necessary, because I monitor the hooks I pull until they are resolved one way or the other. Thank you for your hard work at DYK but please don't imagine you are the only one working hard to ensure quality control because I can assure you that is not the case. Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. You have mentioned before that you spend many hours each evening checking and fixing up the queues. I should have assumed that you were aware of this. Yoninah (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. And some of us are continually berated for picking up the mass of errors passing to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass, thank you for your note on the DYK nomination of Radiologically Isolated Syndrome. I have made clarifications on the article [5] and wrote a reply on the nomination page [6], and I hope this clarifies things. I have also informed WhatamIdoing to take a look as well to ensure it is all clarified. This is a good lesson for me to not use so much jargon when talking to the public (as I hope to be doing in the future at the completion of my studies). Kind regards Calaka (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your note. I have addressed your concerns in DYK nomination. I hope it is satisfactory now. Calaka (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m ready for you to check my DYK of WASP-104b LovelyGirl7 talk 15:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LovelyGirl7, I am well aware that I haven't finished the review for that nomination yet. I have a very heavy workload at the moment verifying sets to maintain the current 12-hour cycle at DYK, which has also given me a stack of nominations I am having to follow up. I did find time to take a look at your nomination a couple of days ago, and thought the new content you added could use a copyedit as it contains a bunch of short and disjointed sentences. I was going to fix that myself but simply haven't found time, but if you want to give it a bit of copyediting, I might be able to find time to complete the review as it is. Otherwise, it might be another day or two before I can get back to it. My apologies for the delay, but there is a stack of people waiting for me to respond to their nominations and I can't do everything at once. Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: oops. It isn't clear, but the approved hook is:

• ALT1: ... that Belfast pro-life group Both Lives Matter won the Northern Ireland Public Affairs Campaign of the Year for the "100,000" billboard campaign in its first year of operations?"

– Lionel^(talk) 12:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lionelt, but the hook was in fact approved by others and only has a few minutes to run on the main page anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good. And thanks for everything you do.– Lionel^(talk) 12:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for information :) Birtig (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I am not so certain that this edit was warranted. Not only can I not find any publication that disagrees with this, high altitude lakes are really uncommon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: tell that to The Rambling Man.[7][8] Gatoclass (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, none of these edits are about Paniri. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's just Gatoclass trying to give you the impression that I'm being overly picky because the quality of DYK has plummeted lately. Funny that most of my errors are actioned, isn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo, if you look at the first diff you will see that TRM challenged the statement in a hook that a bridge was "the world's largest trestle" partly on the basis that the source dates to 2004. I've seen hooks pulled for similar issues. Now if you want to take the risk that your hook won't be yanked from the main page after ten minutes because the source may be outdated, I can revert the changes I made to the hook and article, but I wouldn't recommend doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's false. I challenged the hook because it contained the completely unnecessary "curved" qualifier. I also noted that the source used to make the claim dated to 2004. I said It's worth a minor note (just here) to say that the source backing up the claim dates to 2004, so are we certain nothing has surpassed this in the intervening 14 years? I'm sure it's covered in the nomination... . Which is a perfectly valid query, or is it not Gatoclass? And it's perfectly reasonable to expect the source to be checked, including whether it's still valid, in the nomination, or is it not? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gato. Just wanted the ask if you could amend the Quiz (play) hook in Q6 please as it should have "Coughing Major" capitalised as that is how the person in question was referred to in the press. Many thanks. The Royal C (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The C of E, the reason I decapitalized that was because I thought it looked awkward when juxtaposed with the game show title. I did check the sources and there seems to be no standard way of formatting the term "coughing major". Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I knew someone would not be able to resist the temptation to put a scatological Trump hook on the main page. (Oh, what larks.) But I had not expect it to be you.

For the record, there are plenty of sources for the contention that it is Hogarth's own dog Trump wearing a wig in Captain Lord George Graham in his Cabin. You could start with this - "On the right a pug sits unnaturally upright on a chair, wearing Graham's wig ... This is Hogarth's dog, placing the artist himself symbolically in the picture" - and continue with a selection from the following works.[The Dog: the breeds, the care and the training, Page 236][Paintings of the British social scene: from Hogarth to Sickert, Page 55][Art reviews and commentaries by Robert L. Pincus, art critic, snipped from the San Diego Union: a scrapbook, Volume 3, Page 1026] Or indeed any of the other works easily available from a cursory flick through Google Books.

I understand that DYK reviewers need to be led by the nose from a blue superscript to a footnote to a weblink to something repeating verbatim whatever the DYK hook says. Fortunately I have no intention of prostrating myself before this pointless exercise ever again.

What is the opposite of joy? Someone's dog pissing all over your epistles. Theramin (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe scatalogy refers specifically to feces, not urine, so let's not get all excited. Gclass, I'm not sure what your involvement was in getting this particular hook through (I'm traveling these days) but whatever it was, I thank you. EEng 02:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theramin, I'm sorry you didn't like the fact that I substituted the hook and I didn't realize you were so opposed to ALT5 or I might have thought twice about it. However, I was faced with the fact that the source only referred to "Hogarth's dog" and not the dog Trump specifically. Had I allowed that hook to stand, it may have been pulled from the main page prematurely, depriving your article of exposure to the widest possible audience and leaving the set one hook short. Again, I regret the fact you weren't pleased with my choice of hook substitute, but it did appear to have the support of several users on the nomination page. On the plus side, your well written and profusely illustrated article should get plenty of page views so that as many people as possible get to appreciate your fine work. And I do hope you continue contributing to DYK as we need quality contributors who write interesting articles. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the hook a tweak to de-emphasize the micturition angle - which I agree looked a bit crude - in a way which maintains, and hopefully enhances, the hook deception. Gatoclass (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am not sure if I did this correctly? It got over 5,000 views on the DYK day.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators have requested feedback on their changes since your last review. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, are you satisfied with the work that was done on clarifying the sourcing here? If so, please reinstitute the tick; if not, then please post what is still needed. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in getting back to that one BlueMoonset. I have been unwell for the last few weeks and just didn't feel up to tackling any of the more problematic nominations. I have now proposed an alt for it. Gatoclass (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in the article Long Reef (New South Wales). The fossil reference has been added to the article, as per your request. Filikovalo (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass:

I hope you don't mind that I entered your talk page over the transom. I nominated Charles Morgan (businessman) for GA, an article for which I wrote much of the copy and uploaded many of its images. I checked out the list of linking pages, which included two links to sub-user pages: one for the Steamboat David Brown and the other for Novelty Iron Works.

First, it seems that both of these articles should be in main space. Second, I have a request, if you have the time and interest. I have been fortunate that a few other Wikipedians have helped the Charles Morgan article by copy editing. However, my contributions to the article have relied heavily on James P. Baughman's Charles Morgan and the Development of Southern Transportation most people familiar with this book are academics or else serious steamship nerds. (I don't qualify by these criteria.) As a result, there are probably not a great percentage of Wikipedians who can critique the article substantively. The David Brown article also cites Baughman's work. Do you have any interest in evaluating the Charles Morgan article based on your reading of Baughman? Thank you for your consideration, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, you'd like me to do the GA review? Okay, I'll do that, but you may have to wait a few days as I'm a bit busy right now. Gatoclass (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that I needed someone who had read Baughman to keep me honest, but if you are able to do the review, that's even better. Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass hope you're great! How do I get my [9] Template:The 25 DYK Nomination Medal? Does a bot paste it on my talk? Someone on the DYK staff? Is there an awards ceremony on cable? (Kidding.) Thanks! – Lionel^(talk) 09:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gatoclass. Very much appreciated. – Lionel^(talk) 06:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(watching:) Shouldn't it be for Creation, not Nomination? And shouldn't it be in the list first - which, yes, you do yourself, Lionel? And how will I get my 200 nom medal? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only created 23 of the 25. 2 were created by other editors. If I create 2 more DYKs maybe I'll "exchange" my medal lol. Thanks you, Gerda. – Lionel^(talk) 07:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gerda is right that it should have been a creation medal, it's so long since I handed one out I forgot about the difference. Lionelt, what were the two articles you mention that were created by others? Gatoclass (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, whenever you can get back to this one, it would be helpful. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, this has been sitting for over a month since the last set of comments, one of which had a ping for you. I realize you can't review your own hook (which was the latest one proposed), but something to get this moving again would be useful. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Tactical fighter" is not a redundancy. See, for example, Advanced Tactical Fighter. The distinction is between fighters intended for CAS and attack missions, and those for interception and escort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going by what the sources say - they just call her one of the first female fighter pilots. Gatoclass (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you for your masterful resolution of that DYK about, well, the loveliest girl in Vienna. It was delightful to see on the front page of Wikipedia. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Javert, it took a while but we got there in the end :) Gatoclass (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why but I have not received DYK credit [10] for Mafat Oza (nomination:Template:Did you know nominations/Mafat Oza). Can you check and do needful?--Nizil (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was a manual update I did Nizil as the bot had broken down. Somebody else did the credits for that set and I guess they missed yours. Gatoclass (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"apparatus" vs. "machinery" in Minna Lammert: it had apparatus for the longest time, - until I saw Rhinemaidens#On stage (a featured article). "apparatus" seems like no English term (to me, I may be wrong), + a singular word, while - as the illustration shows - it was a complex thing of three devices, manouvered by even more people. Just to be considered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Apparatus" is the more appropriate word in this context. Gatoclass (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, always learning. There's a question on the article talk, - can you help with that also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your critical work at Template:Did you know nominations/Witch of Agnesi.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think the nominator was terribly pleased with my input, but I do think the article was improved as a result, so it's nice to get a little appreciation for that, thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass, I'm not sure what "posted error" you were referring to, but I don't think this edit is necessary. The UNESCO listing simply mentions Fanjingshan, and not the nature reserve. Its definition of Fanjingshan may coincide with the nature reserve, but we don't really know for sure. -Zanhe (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zanhe, I was responding to an error report at TRM's user page, User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS. I don't know what the best course of action is here, I suggest you post your comment at WP:ERRORS and see if you can get consensus for a revert to the original hook. Gatoclass (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply complying with the rules of DYK which need the stated hook to be inline cited. That's not the case here because the national park containing the mountain is the WHS, not just the mountain itself. That's all I have to say on the matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man and Gatoclass: Please read the UNESCO link above, which lists the mountain as a WHS, not the nature reserve. I've edited the article to clarify the distinction. Either hook is fine, but I prefer the original, shorter one, which is also more correct. I'm travelling right now and probably won't be able to respond further. -Zanhe (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zanhe, I have restored the original hook based on your explanation, the change you made in the article and the provided source. Gatoclass (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

I know you've been suffering off- and on-wiki, and I really really really do know you've got the best for Wikipedia at heart. So a time for a mini-gesture of goodwill on my behalf. I hope you'll accept it in the manner in which I intend. Keep on, keeping on. And treat me like a jousting opponent. It's all fair, in love and Wiki. No groin shots, and keep away from my face, it's pretty much perfect. Stay safe. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was unexpected to say the least. Not that it could be said to compensate for the many grey hairs you've given me at DYK over the years. Also, I don't recall "jousting" as part of the job description. However, if this was intended to indicate a more collegiate approach in future, why wouldn't I welcome it? Thank you for this thoughtful gesture - appreciated. Gatoclass (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I moved this hook into Prep 4. The Madonna song hook will be moved into the image slot as soon as we have an image. Should I leave John/Eleanor in the second slot, or put it in the quirky? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's hard to say when the set is not yet complete Yoninah, these things really depend on the mix of hooks IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. I didn't think it was suitable for the quirky slot, but I wanted to ask you. I'll leave it in the second position. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that having sex with friars and nuns would be quite quirky Yoninah (aren't they supposed to be celibate?) but I do think it depends on the set - maybe there will be a quirkier one, or the set would just look better another way. IMO it really does depend on the mix, unless of course you have a hook that is so quirky it just begs to go in the last slot. Gatoclass (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a dearth of quirky hooks lately. Since two of the hooks in this set honor Madonna, and it looks kind of strange to put John/Eleanor right next to "Madonna", I'll move John/Eleanor to the quirky for now. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In this edit you forgot an "s" [see Apostrophe#Basic rule (plural nouns)]. Also please note that {{'}} or {{'s}} should only be used with italics (the documentation says to use with bold too, but that's wrong). They add extra space before the apostrophe because of the preceding slanted letter, but without italics, the extra space should not be there. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, typo - I'm prone to dropping letters occasionally when I'm typing. Having said that, I'm not actually sure where the apostrophe goes in "children's" - before or after the s? I've added it before as it seems to endorse that in the guideline. Gatoclass (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of it. Yes, "children's" is correct. With the apostrophe after, it would mean the possessive of "childrens". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had to make this edit to the unprotected version for you. Here's how I explained that gotcha the last time it happened. Art LaPella (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

Glad to see you back at DYK :) Yoninah (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Gatoclass (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My net connection went down Monday night (the 19th) and is yet to be restored. Apologies for being unable to respond further at this time. Gatoclass (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, just a reminder that you still have this GA review open, which was last posted to in September. Do you think you'll be able to return to it soon? If not, and you'd like me to try to find a new reviewer to take over, please let me know. Many thanks. It was good to see you back at DYK over the last little bit. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BlueMoonset, and yes I haven't forgotten about that review, in fact it's very much on my conscience, but I need to rewrite a section before I can continue and I just can't seem to find the time or the creative energy at the moment. If the nominator wants to ask for a different reviewer, he has every right at this stage, I will probably be able to get back to make my edits eventually anyway, it's just that I'd like to see it at a standard I am happy with before promotion. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of three of them that were promoted recently and all of them were from L293D. It just seemed like you were using a double standard at first. SL93 (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, I can see two such hooks that L293D nominated. The first was:

• ... that the French submarine Fulton (pictured) was named after Robert Fulton, the American inventor of the first commercially successful steamboat?

- that one works fine IMO as it's unusual for a naval ship of one country to be named after a national of another. The other hook was:

• ... that the French submarine Amazone was named after a mythological tribe of women warriors?

- which was challenged for interest, correctly in my view, and probably should have been pulled as the connection is not unexpected or surprising.

Lots of things get named after other things, it's not an intrinsically interesting fact to highlight unless there is some additional interest involved, for example in the first hook given above. Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last hook is ... that the French submarine Regnault, built to fight in the First World War, was named after an 19th-century chemist? I don't really understand the ping, and I assume there's another discussion going on about my hooks, but let me say I have only one hook about ship namesakes left. All other hooks I have at DYKN and DYKNA are about other things now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't really another discussion about your hooks going on L293D, this topic just came up in a discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Leptoconops kerteszi. I really just gave you a ping here as a courtesy since hooks of yours were under discussion, but I thought you might like to take note of the comments here regardless. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what table? Thanks, Qwerty number1 (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qwerty number1: the subspecies table. Gatoclass (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Gatoclass, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to rush you or anything, there's certainly no pressure for you to reply anytime soon, but I just wanted to make sure that you got my ping. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have two bios side by side at the end. (It just went to the main page) Yoninah (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having a couple of bios together happens quite a lot Yoninah and is one of the least noticeable issues IMO. I tried multiple shuffles with that set and all of them had worse issues, so in the end I settled for the least problematic option. Gatoclass (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the set again, I see there was another possible option that I missed, so I've reshuffled. Gatoclass (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yoninah (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]