User talk:Gatoclass/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Template:Did you know/Queue/6

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]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil's Tower Road

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
]

DYK? Nomination

I responded to your latest comments here --

talk) 08:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I already responded to you again in the same place.
talk) 20:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I have already responded to you yet again.
talk) 08:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:Did you know nominations/Disarmament of Libya

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.
talk) 00:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I have already responded to you yet again.
talk) 08:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

DYK tracking

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]

Re. Capital punishment in Yemen DYK

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]

Left a 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]

Template:Did you know nominations/Jon Santacana Maiztegui

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]

Requesting your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

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
]

Talkback

You have new message/s 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]

Clarification/correction needed

You have new message/s 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]

General sanctions clean up

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]

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

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]

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]

Borderline personal attack

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

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 {{
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
]

Admin needed within 4 hours

You are listed as an actively involved adminiatrator at

WP:FOUR) 18:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:Did you know nominations/A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush

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]

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

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]

Template:Did you know nominations/A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush

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]

Arbitration clarification request

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
]

DYK nomination International Conference on Hollywoodism

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]

Bobrayner AE

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. --WhiteWriterspeaks 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. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AE

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]

Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans 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]

Bobrayner

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. --WhiteWriterspeaks 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..." ???? --WhiteWriterspeaks 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. --WhiteWriterspeaks 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! --WhiteWriterspeaks 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
]

AE feedback

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]

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the
SarahStierch (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Talkback

Hello, Gatoclass. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Fish soup bee hoon.
Message added 15:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

☯ 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]

Vahe Danielyan DYK

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]

DYK date request hook needing approval

You are currently listed at

WP:FOUR) 05:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

DYK for fish soup bee hoon

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

]

B2C

Greetings. I am requesting your assistance with an ongoing situation involving

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

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]

Advice please...

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]

Replacement hook for Queue 6

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]

DYK nomination of Mirza Adeeb

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?—

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?—

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]

Template:Did you know nominations/Melvin Bliss/Synthetic Substitution

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]

Fishing in Denmark

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]

Template:Did you know nominations/Crime in Sri Lanka

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]

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

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]

Ignite DYK review

I've revised

czar · · 22:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Please finish the reviews

--

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

I think we both need this

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]

DYK for Ice Boat No. 3

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

]

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

B2C again

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

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]

Question

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]

Current lead hook: Angelina Jolie Trapdoor Spider

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]

Template:Did you know nominations/Melvin Bliss/Synthetic Substitution

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]

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Melvin Bliss

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]

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ivan_Borgman

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]

Rose Lambert DYK

  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]

Clarification

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]

Can you check these DYKs?

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:

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Adèle Dumilâtre

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]

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Template:Did you know nominations/Part II (On the Run)

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]

FkpCascais

Information icon 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]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

Talkback

Hello, Gatoclass. You have new messages at Darkness Shines's talk page.
Message added 15:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[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)

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment

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]

DYK RfC

  • 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]

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Talk:Cromwell's Soldiers' Pocket Bible

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)

e-mail

Hello, Gatoclass. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
ygm
}} template.
--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK talk page

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]

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

DYK reviews to return to

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]

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

DYK for Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University

Alex ShihTalk 12:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Caucasian Albania

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]

DYK process

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]

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

Talkback

Hello, Gatoclass. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Rose Lambert.
Message added 18:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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]

DYK eligibility criteria

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]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

DYK for Rose Lambert