Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Queue 6

In the first hook in queue 6, both jumping spider and Salticidae lead to the article jumping spider. I think that jumping spider should not be linked. Joe Chill (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on the grounds that if only one of them remain as a link, it should be the name of the article. A F K When Needed 19:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. Doesn't matter either way to me. Joe Chill (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Reworded hook to get rid of the issue. Ucucha 19:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Queue 4 & 6 fixes

• Hook 1 in Queue 4 needs a "(pictured)".
• In hook 8 in Queue 6, the Mona Lisa is a painting and should be italicized. Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Got them both, thanks. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Or Materialscientist did. Love how when two people try to do the same thing at the same time, it just does it without any hint of an edit conflict! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Pulling hooks from the queues

I've pulled (so far) three hooks from two sets I just promoted: Hovertrain, Arterial embolism, and Beth Rickey. I'm posting this here so the issue can receive more scrutiny (both the articles and my actions). Shubinator (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I took a quick look and I agree with your concerns about all three. cmadler (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, after looking it over (not being the one to approve it), that Hovertrain could likely use additional referencing. However, I disagree that "one inline citation per paragraph" should be a standard, either formally or informally. That is, I believe, the general standard of referencing for a B-class article (at least for WP:MILHIST), and I don't think we want to restrict DYK to "B-class or better" articles. So referencing should be "reasonably extensive", but perhaps not that extensive. Now, as for copyvio/plagarised hooks, I fully agree that they should be terminated with extreme prejustice. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this informal rule has long been discussed on this talk page and, as far as I recall, has always been endorsed by the project. Materialscientist (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been more and more accepted as time goes by: 1, 2, 3. It's been a while since the last discussion; time for another? Shubinator (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Time? No, no time at all :-) Materialscientist (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, one citation per paragraph has been used here as a rule of thumb in determining whether an article is adequately sourced. It's a convient guideline, but not a strict rule here at DYK. In general, if an article is sourced with at least one in-line citation per paragraph, it's presumed to be adequately cited, and in general if an article is well below that (as is the case with Hovertrain), it is usually presumed inadequately cited. cmadler (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've opposed hooks from articles that have no citations. Joe Chill (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I made a post on the Beth Rickey hook asking if any of you can think of a different hook. Joe Chill (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the hooks pulled from the queues for lack of sources, I've made this argument: "The article in general should use inline, cited sources" has to be read as "as opposed to other methods of citation", as otherwise it would be contradicting WP:CITE, which requires citations only for material likely to be challenged, and for quotations. Also, additional rule D4 refers to the hook - we prefer hooks with multiple citations - rather than the article as a whole. And sadly it's been a while since DYK had enough review churn to be able to prefer some hooks over others rather than take what it's given. Where community consensus policies disagree, (a) where possible both should be read in the manner that makes them agree, and (b) if they cannot be made to agree the general content policies take precedence over the project-local policies. More to the point, the purpose of DYK is to feature new articles, not perfect articles, the vast majority of DYK nominations don't meet the proposed sourcing criteria, and there's not enough editors doing reviews at DYK to bring the deficient nominations up to that standard. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that the DYK policy of at least one, reliable, in-line reference greatly helps the reviewers (whom we're always lacking and who are usually not specialists in the topic, but are familiar with WP:RS). We can't just embrace any new DYK articles AGF and promote it on the main page - it is the face of WP, after all. Materialscientist (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As a reviewer, I fully agree with that. In fact, I believe every article should have pretty much every fact cited. I'm just saying that (a) that's not in line with the relevant general content policies, and (b) DYK doesn't have enough reviewers to pick and choose to this level. New articles often lack sources, DYK solicits new articles, ergo the majority of DYK noms are going to undercited. If that's not something the community are comfortable with they either need to (a) change the WP:CITE policy and (b) put in the work at DYK to enforce it, or (c) rethink the nature and purpose of DYK. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:DYK is a specific project filtering the Main Page content, not WP content which is regulated by more general policies like WP:CITE. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The DYK section on the main page explicitly says, From Wikipedia's newest articles. It does not say, From Wikipedia's best newest articles. But it's clear my position here against requiring a chicken in every potinline citation in every paragraph is a minority. Ah well. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(ecx2) If community consensus policies are disagreeing, local DYK ones aren't coming into the ruckus. WP:Verifiability says that information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. Every edit window has a link to WP:V, not to WP:CITE. On D4: It was created to mirror a similar sentence at WP:N; here's the discussion that lead to D4. While I was reviewing, most articles passed the standards we applied; nominators usually just need a nudge to fix minor issues. They had to get the information somewhere; we're just asking that they reference whatever that something is. Shubinator (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, DYK doesn't have a huge backlog now; it's normal. We usually have between 175 and 275 hooks on T:TDYK. Shubinator (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• WP:V says in the lead para that in practice not every fact needs to be attributed, and then goes on to refer to WP:CITE for further information. To put it another way, requiring a minimum number of citations in the document effectively imposes a higher standard in this regard on newly-created articles than the standard required for featured article status, which only requires citations "where appropriate" (which oddly links to Wikipedia:When_to_cite, rather than WP:CITE, although they're in relevantly identical terms). Making DYK more exacting (in this respect) than FA can't by any standard be considered a reasonable outcome, and runs specifically contrary to the purposes that DYK was set up to fill. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

  Eh, DustFormsWords. Why this discussion? You are not a newcomer and know well the actual difference in the review standards of DYK and FA articles. Why using the letter of policy here. Materialscientist (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) We're not setting a minimum number of citations for the article; one citation per paragraph is a quick rule of thumb. Also, all of the content "awards" (FA, GA, DYK, ITN, etc) are moving towards higher standards. An FA candidate with just one citation per paragraph will surely fail. Shubinator (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) WP:When to cite sums up my views. Almost all paragraphs of articles (especially new articles) contain information that the average person (even one in the general subject area) would not know. Shubinator (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• (Replying to Materialscientist above) Well, one of the things I'm noticing is that the procedures at DYK aren't anywhere near as well defined as at AfD. There's a project-specific set of standards that don't integrate well with the general content guidelines, there's no clear procedure for dealing with articles that have substantial content problems that would normally be fixable through normal editing, there's no clear process for identifying and closing nominations that aren't going to be successful in a timely fashion. Most nominations are dealt with by a single editor, which makes it particularly important that the criteria are clear, both to save the time of the single reviewer and to allow other editors to quickly check over that work. As I understood it, the purpose of DYK is to provide a way of recognising new content, short content, and expanded content, without requiring the exacting standards of the Good Article and Featured Article processes, and thereby provide encouragement to editors who work at the "new article" end of content creation or who may be otherwise daunted by the long climb to Good Article. The first step to achieving that goal is clear, understandable and easily explained rules, and I don't think that waving one's hand and saying "Well, the documentation says X but we all know it means Y" is a good way of achieving that. I'm not arguing Shubinator's call removing these from the queue - if he had concerns, that was wholly appropriate - but I do think it's important that this issue gets answered so I'm not wasting my time and the time of other editors approving articles that are going to be pulled, or turning down articles that should get up. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's true, we have an unwritten rule or two that really should be written down. I'm assuming you're talking about the ~1 inline cite per paragraph on Hovertrain, because for the other two the rule was either already written down (Beth Rickey) or applies to all articles and doesn't need to be stated (Arterial embolism). Looks like we'll have the discussion that MatSci doesn't have time for... Shubinator (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Beth Rickey I didn't get involved in. Arterial embolism is a plagiarism issue and really I'm only playing devil's advocate there. My concern is (for present purposes) the citation issue, and (for another day) a clearer workflow process between nomination (which is pretty well documented) and moving to the prep area (at which point it's also pretty well documented). The review guidelines are pretty shaky and very poorly presented, especially as to what happens if a nom is declined or two or more editors disagree. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't notice the copyright violation, but I felt arterial embolism was a rather poor article that relied heavily on substandard sources, which as it happens it had also plagiarised. I was annoyed when it was promoted with an alternate hook, but not so much so as to wade in and pull it. I think one thing we need to do is clarify what happens when reviewers disagree, as essentially I & DustFormsWords did here. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• The simplest thing is to say that a good faith objection is enough to block the nomination; if there's not consensus to feature it probably shouldn't go to the main page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, with the caveat that if pressed, the objector needs to be able to clearly explain what needs to be changed/fixed for them to remove the objection. If the objection is notability, for example, the article should be sent to AfD, and if it survives, notability is no longer suitable grounds to object. I don't want DYK to end up like the US Senate. cmadler (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes

A

• Proposed change to rule wording A WP:When to cite / WP:CITE are pretty reasonable guidelines, and the consensus seems to be that (a) articles should comply with them and (b) that that was the original intention of this part of the DYK rules. Would anyone object to me changing WP:DYK from "the article in general should use inline, cited sources" to "the article should substantially comply with Wikipedia's citation policies by including inline, cited sources where appropriate"?

That sounds like a weakening of the current rule, and if anything consensus is for the rule to be stronger. Also, as we can see above, two people's opinions on "where appropriate" can differ by a wide margin. Shubinator (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll say that consensus could swing the other way. At least if my vote says anything about it. :) Since I support this one... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - too much variability in "where appropriate". —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I took the phrasing "Where appropriate" from WP:V, which uses the same language, and links to WP:When to cite for further clarification. I've linked to WP:CITE instead as it has the same information and is a policy (whereas When to cite is only an essay). - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I know. It's also present in WP:FA?, and it's also the cause of numerous disputes—one right off the top of my head is Wikipedia:Featured article review/John Vanbrugh/archive1. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Shubinator, that would be weakening the current rule, when the issue here is whether or not to strengthen it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per previous commentators, this would weaken existing rule not strengthen it. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Shubinator. cmadler (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - dubious and unnecessary. Materialscientist (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

B

• Proposed change B Another additional rule (D5? or tweak D2): "Articles with at least one inline citation per paragraph are preferred." Shubinator (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

...and oppose this one. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - "One citation per paragraph" is potentially more stringent than featured article, and more importantly it's arbitrary rather than based on a sound logical footing. I can't see any justification for having rules that are more stringent than, or just plain different from, a full application of WP:CITE, except as it applies to the featured hook. WP:CITE is the standard required by WP:V, WP:GA and WP:FA for citations and I can't see any rationale for requiring the citation level in DYKs to be higher. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sound logical footing: New articles at Wikipedia are almost always created in areas the average person knows very little about. Almost every paragraph has some fact the average person doesn't know. WP:When to cite says that you should cite stuff that the average person knows very little about. By modus ponens, every paragraph in an article at DYK should have an inline citation. (Also, as I and MatSci have said above, FA requires much stricter citing; we're not even scratching the surface here. On another note, it doesn't have to be a different inline cite for each paragraph.) Shubinator (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There's still no reason for DYK to require anything more than the letter of WP:CITE/WP:When to cite. If that's what those call for, then just saying they should be followed is sufficent, and there's no need to spell it out further here, IMHO.- The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what you'd think, but we still needed D4 even though it was practically copy-and-pasted from WP:Notability, and you'd think every article had to first adhere to notability before appearing on DYK... Shubinator (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with lots of redundant links all pointing to WP:CITE, to make sure people get the message, if that's what it takes. My problem is that what you're suggesting is more stringent than, or different from, WP:CITE. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you follow the logic above, Prop B is weaker than WP:CITE; WP:CITE would require an inline citation for each and every fact that the average person didn't know. Aka FA standards; real FA standards. Shubinator (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I still don't think every paragraph should necessarily be cited. But maybe I'm assuming the average person is smarter. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support - per Shub and common sense. You got your information from a reliable source, right? Then cite it. Otherwise, it's OR and shouldn't be allowed anyway. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As noted - what's wrong with WP:CITE? My main problem with this is that it won't add anything at all but more red tape. Because people will (a) look over the article, (b) see a ^[#] on each paragraph, and (c) check 'approved', not doing anything more with regard to those references than noting they're there, without even checking the references section at the bottom, let alone clicking on any of them to verify that what's said is, well, what's said. No offence meant at all! but requiring the spamming of inline citations on the grounds of "otherwise it's OR" seems to me to be very close to a policy of ABF. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No offense was or will be taken, it's a civil disagreement I'm all for AGF, but that isn't what we are debating here. This is about whether we and/or readers can check on the information if we are so inclined. I'd rather have in-line references that people can check and verify—even if they don't—then no references at all. I'm tired. If that doesn't make sense, I'll clarify tomorrow. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That made sense to me. I can see the point there - see my comment replying to Gato below. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - since this issue has come up quite frequently, we probably need to add something to the rules. I'm not sure I agree with this particular proposed wording however. We might need to have a discussion about the exact wording - I'd like to see something like "a rule of thumb is for one cite per paragraph, excluding the intro and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a phrasing I'd have no trouble backing, at all. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. Added as amended wording 1. Shubinator (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Strongly agree in principle with formally increasing the level of citation necessary; however, I don't think it's going to be easy to formulate a rule that's simple, generally applicable & not prone to "jobsworth" interpretations. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I support the principle of putting this common practice into writing, but I'd prefer a different wording, such as that proposed by Gatoclass. cmadler (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

B1

• Amended wording 1 (add to D2 after the first sentence): "A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." Shubinator (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• This, I can handle and support. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps if it said, "at least one" so nobody thinks that one per paragraph is a maximum as well as a minimum. Some paragraphs may need several while others easily get by with one. - Dravecky (talk)

• I'm not keen on adding "at least", because it tends to imply that one cite per paragraph may not be enough. I'm not sure we need to quibble about the exact wording right now in any case. I think we should just concentrate on passing a motion to add something to the rules regarding one cite per paragraph and worry about the actual wording later. Gatoclass (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree - that's why 'a rule of thumb' in the original proposal works. Sometimes more will be needed; sometimes, an article might be able to skirt by with less, but one is the general 'good practice'. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm fine with this (although it needs another exception for plot summaries). Ucucha 17:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • On another minor point, I'd prefer making this a separate rule over putting it in D2, since D2 already contains three rules, and it makes more sense to, well, put one rule in one rule. Ucucha 19:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Added plot summaries to the list of exceptions. We could split D2 in half, so "inline, cited sources" + "one citation per paragraph rule of thumb" is one rule, and "properly labeled" + "formatted" is another. Shubinator (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
      • That seems a good idea (separate content from form). Ucucha 10:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I like that idea. New D2 would be "The article in general should use in-line, cited sources. A rule of thumb is..." and new D3 (renumber current D3 and D4 to new D4 and D5, respectively) would be "Sources should be properly labelled...References in the article must not be bare URLs..." cmadler (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Is there consensus for amending this now? The current situation where some reviewers are expecting broadly one citation per paragraph and others are looking only at the hook fact(s) is causing confusion to those new to the DYK process. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like consensus to me. I've gone ahead and made the change. Disclaimer: I did suggest the rule; if you think there's a conflict of interest and it influenced the final decision, revert away. Shubinator (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. It looks like you removed a rule (possibly accidentally) numbered D2, stating "Wikipedia, including Wikipedia in other languages, is not considered a Wikipedia:Reliable source." Was this an accident, or should that rule not have been there? I'm pretty sure it's clearly stated elsewhere, though I'm not able to find it at the moment. Also, I'm guessing we should either link to a diff on this discussion, change the link once this gets archived? cmadler (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
      • That rule was moved to D4 for consistency between WP:DYKDN and WP:DYKAR. We usually don't link to the discussion; only D3 has the link, and many others were made as a result of a thread here. I put the link in the edit summary so the curious can find it. Shubinator (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

C

• Proposed change C - That Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Additional_rules rule D11 be amended from "Multiple sources are generally preferred" to "Articles with multiple sources are generally preferred" to reflect what seems to be its original intent and, apparently, community practice. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I can most definitely agree to this one. Shubinator (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Same here. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave C overnight and if no one jumps out of the bushes to oppose it I'll boldly make that change tomorrow. If anyone reverts we can always bring the discussion back here. In the mean time I'm hoping more people register an opinion on the first two, less because I favour any particular one (although I obviously like mine) than that I just want to be able to do reviews knowing that I'm doing them in accordance with consensus. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - that just looks redundant to me, given that the section is already entitled "Other additional rules for the article. Gatoclass (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, but WP:DYKDN isn't as clear. Shubinator (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose change of wording. Redundant to title of section. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - it's redundant, as Gatoclass pointed out, but since it doesn't change the meaning of the rule I'm indifferent to this change. cmadler (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Only link to the new content

How do people feel about hooks in which there is only one link, to the created/expanded article? The purpose of DYK is to spotlight new content, and other links tend to distract the focus. Presumably, other relevant articles are already linked to in the new article, so there's no need to have those links in the hook. Agolib 23:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You have to be specific. I have had hooks where it is just not reasonable to link more than one-two items. I believe any non-obvious (to a layman) term should be linked, and, I sometimes use my hooks to bring attention to existing articles, which often receive more views than the nominated one. Another issue which is often forgotten: DYK hooks are often wikilinked to poorly written pages. I believe such links should be avoided even if they are logical. Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Links to stubs etc are found in Today's featured article, In the news and so on. Isn't it good if someone sees them, and expands them? Geschichte (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, what I meant is to avoid linking not to short, but to poorly written articles (POV, copyvios, etc.). Materialscientist (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. PleaseStand ^(talk) 01:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Clarrie Isaacs and Aboriginal Provisional Government

A double DYK for Clarrie Isaacs and Aboriginal Provisional Government is currently in Queue 4. The hook may be incorrect. The Aboriginal Provisional Government was, according to the APG website, founded in 1990 (though some sources quote an earlier date). Though key APG figures were involved in the passport incident, it would seem the passports may have been issued by another entity. I'd suggest that the hook be changed to something like:

...that Australian Aboriginal activist Clarrie Isaacs was denied entry to Australia while attempting to use an Aboriginal Passport?

An APG hook could be something like:

...that the Aboriginal Provisional Government was founded in 1990 with the aim of creating an Aboriginal nation state independent of Australia? Hack (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why this was being ignored. I've moved the hook back to the suggestions page. As I recall, there was a problem with the suggestion of Aboriginal passport -- I'll try to locate the original discussion to restore. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• PS I've replaced it with Peter Deinboll, who probably therefore needs additional scrutiny before going live. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Lists - don't they count toward DYK size?

Per my discussion with the reviewer here and the reviewers suggestion, I am bringing this question up. I think that rewriting the Parten's stages of play to eliminate the bullet points would be detrimental to the article, and I also feel that the article has enough content for a DYK. Other thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As the reviewer in question, I'm easy on whether this is currently long enough to qualify. However, I note that the MoS states "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." which, IMO, applies here. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I think that this is an article that deserves a little leeway with the normal rules, and so shouldn't be refused simply for having a lot of its content in the form of a list. On the other hand, I'm still left feeling a little bit under-served when I read the article (perhaps because I work in pedagogy), so I wouldn't be sorry if it didn't make the Main Page in its current state. Physchim62 (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC) (PhD in Fence-Sitting)

• An alternative, particularly if it's possible to expand the individual stages, would be to make each stage into a sub-section. i.e.

Stages of Play

Unoccupied (play)

At this stage the child is not playing, just observing etc.

This would mean that most of the text was counted and would allow for subsequent expansion, although I don't know what others' views would be. Mikenorton (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am all for further expansion, as the existence of a dedicated article on Parallel play demonstrates, it is quite possible. But we should not create tiny sections BEFORE the expansion. (I also feel that the article is large enough for A DYK - but of course, if it is expanded further, that would be great). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a very bad idea to alter the format of an article in any way just to satisfy a prose-counting tool in order to qualify for DYK. If an author feels that an article is better with prose formatted in bullet points, that prose should be counted. It's easy enough to fool the tool by reformatting, replacing Wikibullets with a character such as "•", but you'd end up with an article which didn't look as good. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I usually tend to be a stickler for rules, but I think the length here is OK. I agree with Mandarax, IAR with this. cmadler (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics

Can Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics be featured on the main page with the hook "...that Rio de Janeiro was shorlisted during the bidding process for the 2016 Summer Olympics despite scoring lower than Doha?", regarding the date of June 4? The article is not new, but I am working on a substantial expansion to enable its appearance on the main page due to the anniversary of two years of the shorlist. Cheers; Felipe Menegaz 04:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That is unlikely. It is already 27,840 characters long, so meeting the 5x expansion requirement would mean you'd need to write over 100,000 characters of prose, which is a difficult task and would most likely yield a bad article anyway. That being said, if you do expand it fivefold you can nominate it through the normal process. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're dead-set on having the article on the main page, the best way to do is is probably to nominate it for In the news if there is some major change that happens, or to get it up to Featured article status (which I assume is possible given that the bid is over now). There are 6 years before the Olympics happen there, so you have 6 anniversaries to try, I think that leaves you plenty of opportunities. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, my goal is to feature this article in all sections of the main page. It was already displayed on In the news on October 2, 2009; there is an entry for On this day... on October 2, 2010; and now I want to feature it on Did you know... on June 4, 2010, before nominating it for Featured article status to be displayed on Today's featured article on September 7, 2010. All dates are milestones of the bid process: September 7 → Bid offically submitted. June 4 → Bid shorlisted. October 2 → Bid elected.

A 5x expansion will harm the article... So I would like to know if there is any possibility of an exception to be made. This is very important to me and I think it would be a good example of how to disseminate well written articles through the main page. Since the dates of display are important anniversaries for the topic, make an exception is a fair option. Regards; Felipe Menegaz 16:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to bending the rules to facilitate someone's editing goals. It's one thing to fudge the date by a day or so, or to count 4.5x as 5x, but anything much beyond that would need a very convincing rationale. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not dogmatic on the 5x rule, but seeing how there has been no work on the article since 14 May (no recent expansion), to even double the article in prose length right now would be potentially detrimental to the article's quality. As much as I laud goals, the next best step for this article is a return trip to FAC, not a listing as one of Wikipedia's newest articles, which it is not. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's impossible to feature this article on all sections of the main page anyway, as DYK doesn't take former ITN articles. (Also, while I'm not experienced with OTN, I'm not sure if any of those dates will be considered significant anniversaries.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I forgot about that rule, you're right. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is why I asked. :) Thank you very much for the responses. Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 19:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, there's no harm in asking :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"A Question"

Is it considered a COI if you approve a hook for which you suggested an ALT, after which the original nom said they liked said alt? I'm presuming it is. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If you suggest an alternative hook which the nominator/creator states they prefer, then the verification of that hook should be left to another editor. I see no problem with promotion once verified though. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but you know what they say about assuming. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Timing vs AFD

I've been expanding the article Divine countenance and would like to enter it into the DYK list. But it's an AFD rescue and this complicates the timetable as we can't have it on the main page while it's at risk of deletion. So there's a clash between the 5 day rule here and AFD's 7 day timetable. What can be done, please? Colonel Warden (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The rules are: articles should be submitted within (about) 5 days after their creation/expansion. AFD is not an issue - if the nomination satisfies the DYK criteria, it will wait the AFD decision in the suggestions queue (T:TDYK), no matter the AFD timing. Materialscientist (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - I have made the nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Queue 4 fix

Hook 6 in Queue 4 is missing "that" and needs bolding and linking. It should be:

• ... that Theodor Grotthuss published the first basically correct concept for the charge transport in an electrolyte in 1806?

Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 13:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks- fixed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-receipt of DYK credit for Mariusz Adamski, Item 7 on today's frontpage

moved here from WP:ERRORS HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I nominated Mariusz Adamski for DYK based upon the expansion I did to the article. I know this expansion was not 5x but I was the one who copyedited the lede paragraph and provided concrete cited examples of how Adamski has had jet wash ruffle his pants on runway centerline and from the boom perspective of an F-16 pilot. Could someone please look into this? I also very proud of the fact that I wikified the article and saved it from the WP:AFD. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. A duplicate nomination led to the confusion. Shubinator (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 5 fix

In Queue 5, hook #6 about the Ancient Forest Alliance still has the word (pictured) in it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks- fixed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Current queue sets

contained too many basic errors (wrong "pictured" labels almost in every queue, etc). Anyone please have a look for remaining ones. Is Dorota Nieznalska in Q2 neutral enough (BLP)? Materialscientist (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if anything neutral can come from that. The article makes it sound like her whole professional life is a big scandal after big scandal. Joe Chill (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I know I should put my lazy ass down and start composing preps myself instead of blaming others who diligently keep the project running, but what I see today is a sign of a forthcoming crash - 3/6 images were not protected in the queues, which contained some obvious style problems; we've got only 7 approved hooks at T:TDYK; FOUR hooks in prep2 are military wise. HEY, there is at least a dozen of experienced reviewers like me, who are just watching this page, but are not active on this project. Please do come out and help ! Materialscientist (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd do more, but at the moment I'm on borderline burnout, alas. :( - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 5 fix

In Queue 5, hook #3 (Jackey Jackey), "the-then Governor" should be "the then-Governor". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gerhard Kowalewski hook in Prep area 2

• ... that German mathematician Gerhard Kowalewski introduced the matrices notation in 1909?

There were problems with this hook as discussed here, and the ALT1 hook was under consideration. This was my nomination, so I think someone else needs to look at it. Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 07:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The alt hook ... that in the early 1930s, mathematician Gerhard Kowalewski persuaded more women at German universities than anyone else to become doctors in mathematics? is much more interesting, and I would support it. Please comment on whether its source is reliable enough. Materialscientist (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A Google search on "European Women in Mathematics" Newsletter returns 2,000 hits, including 4 Google Books. --Bruce1ee^talk 08:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area

How far ahead can items be listed in the "Special occasion holding area"? (I know there are special rules and a special page for April 1 items.) Let's say I was planning on creating an article related to Easter. What would be the best strategy?

• Create the article now and place the nomination in the holding area for eleven months? (Would this option even be considered, or would people object to such a long holding period?)
• Create the article now and let the DYK run whenever it's approved?
• Wait until shortly before Easter to create the article?

And one additional question on a slightly different topic. How "special" does the occasion have to be? Could it just be the birthday of the subject of a biographical article? Or should such a request just be placed after the nomination in the "regular" nomination area? Agolib 00:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As a semi-lapsed DYKer, my views would be: (a) Option 2, create the article now and run with DYK now. Option 1 (very long wait) breaks the whole "From Wikipedia's newest articles" concept, and April Fool is an one-off exception; option 3 keeps potentially valuable content out of the encyclopaedia for several months just for the sake of a DYK on a better date, which isn't much of a benefit to anyone. (b) The more that the "special occasion" area is used, the less "special" and therefore less useful it might become. I think that it should only be used where there's the potential for a number of articles for that topic/date, rather than e.g. someone's birthday with no chance of additional related articles. In the latter situation, I would suggest making the suggested date request in the regular nominations area, and if time is running out then leave a polite message here at WT:DYK asking someone to take a look ASAP so the hook can be selected for the best date. Bencherlite^Talk 00:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, there have been holding areas for national pork day, so there is a possibility of many Easter articles. However, you'd best be suited by talking to an admin that frequently updates the cues for DYK. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there could be many Easter articles, and in fact there have been special holding bays for Easter articles in the past and no doubt will be again. My point is that, on any view, waiting from now until next Easter is far too long. Bencherlite^Talk 07:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a sixty day rule of thumb would be good. If the occaison is more than that ahead, just run it right way If not, a holding area is OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think 60 days is too long. I'd limit it at about a month (28-31 days). cmadler (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 4 suggestion

The third hook in Queue 4 which currently says "that the moth Clouded Magpie resemble" would be better as "that Clouded Magpie moths resemble". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and now it does. Bencherlite^Talk 11:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6 caption

The last entry of the current Queue 6 should refer to Joseph II instead of Rudolf II. Sorry, just noticed it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Shubinator (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Local update times

Can I suggest that the following text be added between the heading and the table? "The highlighted row shows the queue that is going to be uploaded to the homepage next." Schwede66 21:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3

There's an extra "(pictured)" in Q3. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Also "Stegosaurus" is misspelled in the third hook. –Grondemar 02:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Got both, thank you. Courcelles (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Allow some DYK hooks into newly promoted GAs?

Please see proposal here. Crum375 (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before (although I am not saying that it cannot be discussed again). You might want to take a look at this, for example. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I have added it to the pump discussion section. Crum375 (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Special occasion area 6 June!

This is a reminder of a 6 June hook there. It would have been perfect in queue 2. - Generally: special occasion in the middle of the day, not the very first of a day when that day hasn't begun for most of the world. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Jerome Tiger

File:Jerome tiger stomp dance.jpg

What's going on with Jerome Tiger DYK. This edit says it was disapproved but it's in the Queue1 with one of Tiger's pictures. How can the painting be in the public domain? It says it is the uploaders "Own work" but in the article it says that it was Jerome Tiger's art and that Tiger died in 1967. -- Esemono (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the hook is OK (the objection was that the originally-proposed hook wasn't - and still isn't - in the article; the queued hook is), although I'd like to see it examined a bit, as it seems that something happened out of process. But the image should be speedy deleted, both here and at Commons. (Unfortunately, both are currently protected.) cmadler (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the image. Feel free to place a speedy deletion tag on it. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the queue. It looks like the image is no longer locally hosted, but the Commons version is still protected. cmadler (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin on commons, so I can't unprotect it there. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

White Horse Prophecy

Apologies to everyone if I accidentally violated procedure by promoting my own suggestion (White Horse Prophecy, currently in prep area 2). This is my first time venturing into the DYK world, and my (mis?)understanding had been that since the suggestion had been approved per procedure — and, at the time, it was the oldest approved suggestion in the template talk page queue — it was appropriate for any editor to move it into the prep area, and I took "any editor" at face value and assumed it included myself. It was not my intention to "cut in line" or to disrupt the process in any other way. Although I hope this article will be considered for DYK on its own merits, I'm noting the issue here in order to give others a chance to weigh in on the matter. In the future, I'll be happy to defer to other people rather than promote any other suggestion of my own; if this is the preferred approach, could I suggest that some qualifier to "any editor" should be added to item #2 of the DYK process description? Richwales (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter now, just try to avoid doing this in future please. Gatoclass (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 1 Hook 5

I think that hook 5 in queue 1 which says "...that Spanish surgeon Fidel Pagés was the discoverer in 1921 of epidural anesthesia, which is used in millions of childbirths and surgical operations every year worldwide today?" should be reworded to "...that Spanish surgeon Fidel Pagés discovered epidural anesthesia, which is used in millions of childbirths and surgical operations every year worldwide today, in 1921?". I think that using "discoverer in 1921" sounds awkward. Joe Chill (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked, within these lines. Materialscientist (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Another Queue 1 edit

In the sixth hook of Queue 1, '''[[Suillus sibiricus|Siberian Slippery Jack's]]''' should be '''[[Suillus sibiricus|Siberian Slippery Jack]]'''{{`s}} (per rule C7). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

February 13 DYK

An article that I started Typhaea stercorea had a DYK on February 13, but the tag was never added to the talk page. Joe Chill (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Tagged. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Q1 tweaks needed

A couple of minor tweaks in Queue 1, plz: there is a spurious " in the St Sebastian's Church hook, and an extra . before the question mark in the Jack Sinagra hook. Thanks, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Both taken care of, thanks. Courcelles (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Translations from other Wikipedias?

Are translations from other Wikipedias acceptable DYK candidates? (There are currently at least two suggested hooks from such articles.) Among the "selection criteria" are that an article "may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article" (but does this include pre-existing articles in any Wikipedia?) and that one should pick articles which are "original to Wikipedia" (it's original to the English Wikipedia) and "not inclusions of free data sources" (such as other Wikipedias?). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's always been allowed. Joe Chill (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Translations are allowed, but normal citation rules apply (and Wikipedia, including other languages, is not a reliable source). I mention that because I've noticed that Wikipedia in other languages doesn't always have the same sourcing expectation. cmadler (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 5 - Chris Nahi

There's a negative BLP hook in queue 5:

... that rugby league player Chris Nahi is banned from the sport until 1 October?

Perhaps it wasn't considered unduly negative as he's obviously controversial (it's not the most negative statement in the article) but I thought I'd mention it. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• That's not good- I'm going to send it back to the suggestions page per rule H6. Courcelles (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's back on the suggestions page. Courcelles (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 2 Hook 1

When I moved the first hook to prep 1, I forgot to put {pictured) in italics. Now that it's in queue 2, I need an admin to do it. Joe Chill (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent hook - ... that a recent bomb blast before a dance show in Stavropol killed seven people?

That should be an ITN candidate. Not a DYK one. DYK should not be a clearing house for recent events which don't make it. 94.192.44.89 (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• ITN considered it, and if memory served, the nomination died more than being solidly rejected. Besides, DYK got rid of the rule baring former ITN candidates months ago. Courcelles (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Do you know roughly when that rule changed? I went looking for the discussion but couldn't find it. cmadler (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• While a number of articles that have appeared on ITN have been disqualified for DYK (principle of the new article having already having been featured on the Main Page), I am unaware of being an unsuccessful ITN candidacy being a commonly accepted reason for rejecting a DYK nomination. --Allen3 ^talk 12:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 2 typo

In the first hook of Queue 2 for List of international rugby union tries by Brian O'Driscoll, [[try|trys]] should be [[try|tries]]. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There is also a stray (pictured) in the St Matthew's Church hook, second from the bottom. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed that too (Eh, I should have noticed that earlier). Materialscientist (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hook in both Prep area 2 & PrepExtra

The last hook in both 'Prep area 2' and 'PrepExtra' is the same. Mikenorton (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the last hook from prep extra. Joe Chill (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I started compiling PrepExtra around 6:18 PM EDT (see the timestamp on the placement of the inuse tag), and while I was doing that Wizardman and Joe Chill promoted Preps 1 and 2 and prepared new sets which had many of the same hooks promoted. Perhaps we should clarify that if one editor has placed an inuse tag and is actively promoting hooks to one prep area, other editors should avoid starting to prepare the other prep areas until the first is done to avoid conflicts? –Grondemar 23:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6 tweak

Queue 6, hook 1 is missing the leading "...". Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, along with a couple of other problems. Ucucha 05:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"that St. Joseph has been in Egypt since 1852?"

This hook is simply misleading, and looks to getting its hits (and kicks) from a potential confusion. I know there's a group of users who feel these hooks are the way to go here, but I for one find the "riddle" approach too frivolous for an encyclopedia, and downright insulting of the readers' intelligence. Plus, it is also in breach of the requirement that the hook has to be about something interesting in the article, not about an interesting way of phrasing something uninteresting. Dahn (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Based just on that hook, this actually sounds like it might be a good item for the April Fool's Day queue... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That I can agree with. For those who share my concern about the hook: it is now in Queue 4; in case there's consensus about this, I would suggest replacing it with another hook, pending April 1, 2011. Dahn (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that this should be pulled from Queue 4 and held for 4/1/11. cmadler (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's now back on T:TDYK. There were a couple of people there who had less of a problem than the people commenting here. Ucucha 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Prep 2 question

Does Ismael Urbain in Prep 2 have sufficient sourcing? 75.4.229.227 (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Err. The article is translated from French wiki and is mostly based on a French book, available on Google books. The book is really bulky and somehow not really searchable (e.g. I read a phrase but don't find it in the search) - a nightmare. Thus I added what I could find, and the referencing might be acceptable now, but if someone wishes to improve it, they are very welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Bloom Festival

This article was nominated, verified and moved to the queue within the space of 7 hours. To me, it reads like an advertisement. Can someone else check this. It's currently in queue 5.Quasihuman (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Two very minor Queue1 hook 1 edits

In Queue 1, (''pictured'') should be ''(pictured)''. Also, [[Henry Holiday|Henry Holiday's]] should be [[Henry Holiday]]'s MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor editing DYK article

If an editor edits an article and adds non-formatted citations and tells the DYK nominator or a DYK reviewer to fix it, is that fair? In my opinion, that's lazy and the editor should do it him or herself. I'm having that problem on Template talk:Did you know#Dinoshark. I'm sure not doing it. Joe Chill (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This tool would autofix (some, not all) unformatted ref for you, thus think first about quality of the article, its references and added content, not formatting. Materialscientist (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I still don't like people (even in real life) leaving work unfinished for others to do that they could easily do themselves. Joe Chill (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Embrace help, even awkward. Nobody is perfect. Materialscientist (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Materialscientist. A polite note on their talk page thanking them for their work, with a polite suggestion that they could use {{cite web}} for citing web pages would be in order. Mjroots (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly understand Joe Chill's frustration in this case, in which an editor added bare-URL citations and then the same editor wrote that those very same bare-URL citations needed to be formatted before it could be used for DYK. My first thought was that maybe the editor knew that formatting was needed but didn't know how to do it, but now I see that it's a very experienced editor who should have no problem formatting their own citations as they add them. I guess what I'm saying is, I feel your pain. But what's done is done. cmadler (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I misunderstood the original question. {{minnow}} issued to FT2. Mjroots (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving T:TDYK

Aren't the nominations archived? __meco (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nominations are not archived, but can be found in history of the T:TDYK page. Successful hooks are archived. See "Archive" in the top-right box on this page. Materialscientist (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a good reason they couldn't be archived? It's not like what's in these little discussions is completely useless, and relegating users to searching the page history makes this resource utterly impracticable. __meco (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about archiving the actual talk page? Unlike many project pages, this page does not stay static and as nominations are approved/declined, they are subsequently removed. To do otherwise on a page that sees hundreds of new threads monthly would make for too many bytes of details present, causing even slower (and sometimes impractical) loading times on some users computers. To archive nomination discussions and the talk page would mean only excessive archiving but also further problems that would arise on the occasions that a nomination is placed back onto the project talk page because of an issue that has been raised at either of the the prep areas, queues, or while on the main page, hence the archive for prior successful submissions that have appeared on the main page only. Kindly Calmer Waters 08:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Falls of Cruachan derailment

The AfD has been reopened for reasons unknown. Could the queued hook be returned to the talk page for now? Also, could an uninvolved admin look into the reopening of the AfD (will raise at WP:ANI too). Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Panic over, it's been re-closed by an admin as a keep. Mjroots (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The re-closure has been challenged at WP:DRV, so it's on the back burner whilst the discussion continues. So far, all editors have endorsed the result of "keep". Maybe a  On hold should be added to the entry when it goes back to the suggesions page. Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sending it back. Courcelles (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sent back, with a note, and a different hook promoted into Q5. Courcelles (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thimphu in Q3

Can someone come up with a better DYK for Thimphu? The one in Q3 now is "... that Thimphu (pictured) is the capital city of Bhutan?"

The instructions say: make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Bells, bells, bells (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Many people never heard of Bhutan. Perhaps they'll go "where's that?" — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, both Thimphu and Bhutan are not usual names, and it is a very rare event to have a country capital article expanded for DYK. Materialscientist (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I must say that caught my eye, but I was expecting another user to bring it up as well (I was already accused of being nitpickish in DYKs). With all due respect, I also find the expectation that people have maybe never heard of Bhutan as uncharacteristically blunt, and probably patronizing of our readers. I mean, even if this were really the case, we should not guide themselves by this standard if we can avoid it. There was nothing preventing a hook from reading something like "... that Thimphu, the capital city of Bhutan, has..." or ""... that Thimphu, the capital city of Bhutan, is..." Dahn (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Got a suggestion for the rest of the hook? And it is merely fact that lots of people never heard of Bhutan and Thimpu. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree that a better hook should be possible for this article, but if not found, the current is not horrible. Just as a test, I must say that whereas I knew Bhutan from an early age, it is the first time I hear about Thimphu (I mean it was 1st time a few days ago when I saw the nom). Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's far catchier than most DYK hooks: leave it is what I say. Physchim62 (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse, is this really the place to bring up a suggestion? I see plenty of such tidbits readily available, but glancing over the article I also see problems with sourcing (for instance, notes follow paragraphs in such manner as it is impossible to say what part is from which source). But you could for example go with: "... that, in Bhutan's capital city of Thimphu, fresh fruit and vegetables are only sold at weekend morning markets?" But really, every section has something interesting in it, and you could even combine several tidbits into one hook. As for who has heard or hasn't heard of Bhutan, that's a slippery slope argumentation. Dahn (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Dahn, please stay constructive. Sure, there are dozens of interesting facts there, but we need a reliable and screened fact, and that is what T:TDYK review process is for. Thus if someone can quickfind such fact - great, if not, I see no valid reason to return the hook from the queue. Materialscientist (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that I did just that: notice that the weekend markets fact is one of the facts in the article that are immediately followed by a citation. As for the facts being screened: precisely why I asked Rlevse if this here is the venue for discussing alternative suggestions. My understanding is that, if there is an objection to the hook, the hook returns to T:TDYK, where we discuss the alternatives (and, incidentally, the sourcing issues). And also, for transparency's sake, whatever other fact we quickfind, it would still have to be verified through this process - T:TDYK return. (That said, I think the article is fine, and I have a very good personal relationship, as an editor, with the content creator. But an objection is an objection.) Dahn (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The hook itself is fine, it's not invalid or anything. This is simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I do believe the first user to raise this issue here compared the hook with the instructions, so, no, it is not really a case of IDONTLIKEIT (no more than the "perhaps they'll go where's that?" counter-objection is a case of WP:ILIKEIT). It also appears to me that Materialscientist agreed that there should be a better hook. I have proposed an alternative that would address such concerns (which I share), and in my example I tried to address both preferences. Frankly, what more is required for this hook to go back to T:TDYK, given the countless precedents were similar issues were raised? Dahn (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Dahn, some editors (me included) tried to raise the issue of boring hooks, but with no much success. You can oppose a boring hook at T:TDYK, and then it will be up to consensus. However, once it is approved and promoted, it is only demoted if there is a critical problem with the article, fact, etc. Demotion just because the hook is too plain is rare (not because it is wright or wrong, but because the general DYK consensus was against that). Poor phrasing is fixed right in the queues, rarely by returning. Hook substitution (from the same article) is practiced, sometimes, but we need exact phrasing and formatting. Materialscientist (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. I was unaware of that subtlety. Well, how about the alternative I proposed? (Bear in mind this is my alt hook only because it's generally hard to see what other info is backed by what other source.) Dahn (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Or how about: "... that Thimphu (pictured) became Bhutan's capital in 1961, even though it had been designated as such since 1952?" (I presume this is backed by the citation(s) at the end of a paragraph, but in any case it looks like it's easily verifiable.) Dahn (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

<indent> Fruits hook is tricky, because the source is offline and is from 2006 - things might have changed. Same problem with the 1952 hook - it is not easy to find it in the on-line refs, and I assume it is in the offline one (this is not to say the fact is incorrect - the authors are trustworthy). Materialscientist (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Reviewer" userright

The "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

The Flagged Protection trial is going to be starting very soon, and non-admins who have had access to edit semi-protected articles since roughly Day 4 of their editorship will now have their edits going into a vetting queue unless they are granted autoreviewer and/or edit reviewer permissions by an administrator. This will have a significant impact on editors who have, for years, been working on quality content. More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you have not already done so, please request this "right" at WP:PERM/RW or ask any administrator. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 4 photo

The queue 4 photo isn't in focus. Is this really the best photo that we could have chosen? Schwede66 08:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A check of Commons:Category:Greg Young shows that there are currently two images to choose from, the current image or one of his backside. Unless you or another interested party can provide an alternative image with a copyright status appropriate for use on the Main Page before the queue runs, the selected image appears to be the best available choice. --Allen3 ^talk 10:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree the existing choice is poor quality. The second item, German submarine U-371, has an appropriately licensed image, but the hook is perhaps a touch dull for the lead? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The existing pic is fine, being a little out of focus is no big deal. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Timing

I am delighted of course that two of my nominations are soon to appear on the main page. But I note that they are to appear between 0100 and 0700 tomorrow morning. This seems to be a daft time for DYKs relating to UK articles to appear on the main page as I guess most UK folk (if they have any sense) will be asleep between these hours, and will therefore miss them unless they go into the archive (very unlikely). Is there some sort of sensible way that DYKs relating to UK articles could appear when UK folk are awake (that is, not between 0100 and 0700)? And the same for USA and other countries of course.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There are already a lot of permutations in trying to put together balanced updates without worrying about what timezone this or that hook might appear in. Which hooks are you referring to? Maybe if you get lucky, someone will swap an update around for you. Gatoclass (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand you want to see your own hooks but if we swap it, people in another time zone won't learn about what you wrote. Someone will always lose. And as Gato says, there's a lot to worry about in putting DYK queues together. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I really do appreciate the work done by the DYK team and understand how difficult it must be. Just a bit disappointed, that's all... But keep up the good work! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And they received the lowest number of "hits" for some time. Ah, well!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-06-14/Technology_report says that there have been problems with page view stats recently, so it might be that instead of the timing of the DYK. Bencherlite^Talk 11:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The stats may disappear for some days, and they are grossly off for the last few days. My usual test is to look at some stable article, say diamond. A minor drop over the weekend is normal though. Materialscientist (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I think you can use the Wayback Machine to bring up the appearance of the Main Page for a certain day & time. For more info take a look at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Using_the_Wayback_Machine. Hope this helps. 02:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shearonink (talk • contribs)

Too many Welsh church hooks for one set? "Surely not", I hear you say, but...

Resolved

 – with thanks to the unflagging efforts of Gatoclass and Courcelles. May the blessings of an obscure long-dead Welsh saint be upon you, if you care for such things. Bencherlite^Talk 15:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Much as I might think that every hook in a DYK should tell you something fascinating about a medieval church on Anglesey, given my current article writing habits, to have two hooks about churches just a few miles apart in the same queue (queue 2) is probably a little excessive. Would it be an idea to swap one of them into another queue to spread the excitement more widely? (As they're my articles, I thought it best to let someone else do it) Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 10:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Swapped. Gatoclass (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

On a related theme, St Peulan's Church, Llanbeulan and Peulan are (at present) on T:DYK as a double-hook, but I've only had a credit for the church. I've tagged Talk:Peulan, but if someone (anyone!) fancied giving me the credit for Peulan on my talk page to avoid me self-awarding, that'd be great. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 14:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Put on my postman hat. Courcelles (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sunday

Edith Selig, nominated for the third SUNDAY after Trinity, is now in Q6, - that is Saturday around the world. Could the hook be moved to Q2 or Q3 please, to have it on Sunday at least some parts of the world? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6 fix

In Queue 6's first hook, australites should be lower case (and in the alt text too), as used in the article and in the cited refs. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Decapitalized. Materialscientist (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right place to suggest rephrasing, but would it be better that the pizza company DYK read "... that [[[Richelieu Foods]] produces over 50 million frozen pizzas and more than 20 million crusts annually—foreach year for other companies to market under their own private labels"? i.e. change "annually" to "each year" and correct the hyphen (by removing it). Si Trew (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the right place for suggesting changes to hooks in the queue, but for hooks already displayed on the main page, main page errors will probably give a faster response. In this case, I think the em dash is intended to insert a dramatic pause before the hook's punchline? Espresso Addict (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's not incorrect, though it possibly could be phrased better. Given that its Main Page time is more than 2/3 over, I don't think it's worth changing for a possible phrasing improvement. cmadler (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realised it was already on the main page. Thanks, anyway, for the advice: I'm new to DYK (but not to Wikipedia). By the way it should have been an em dash (WP:DASH), perhaps I was getting tired but I thought it was a plain hyphen, and my gnoming instinct kicked in. Si Trew (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Translations

I've recently translated Old Rouen tramway from fr:ancien tramway de Rouen, reasonably faithfully I hope. Of course, it will have translation slips and may not meet English Wikipedia standards in some other ways (typically my first translation does not read very naturally, for example) but it is, after all, a "new article" and so (I presume) is not expected to meet a particular standard.

Now, I've read the guidelines and rules, and what is considered a "new article" i.e. genuinely created or significantly expanded. It meets both criteria. On the other hand, the rules tend to say or imply "new to Wikipedia" and this article is not, as such, new to Wikipedia, but only to English Wikipedia. Perhaps that is implied by the word "Wikipedia", I don't know.

I'm not here trying to garner favour for my particular DYK, just that if translations don't qualify there is little point my submitting them. I've had a few before that others have suggested be submitted to DYK (they never were), but this one in particular may be of interest just because it was (until I created it) at WP:WikiProject France/Article requests, so presumably at least one reader or editor wanted the article! That being said, unfortunately that project does not seem to log who requested it, or why.

So, a simple "yes" or "no" about whether it meets the DYK criteria is all I am after (and perhaps I'll then suggest clarification to the rules/guidelines, unless I missed something there). I'm not trying to pre-empt the "exit criteria" ("shall we use it?"), only the entrance criteria ("shall I submit it?")

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, translations are allowed on DYK. There is a common problem with referencing (many wikis are poor with that) but Old Rouen tramway seems fine. Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Hungarian Wikipedia seems often to be very bad at references, which is particularly annoying as books on Hungarian history (and Hungary generally) are extremely hard to find around here (Cambridge, UK) either in bookshops or libraries. What, world-famous seat of learning I hear you say?

I'll check again at the guidelines in case it is implied in a way that I missed, but perhaps I'll add specifically that they are allowed, being WP:BOLDish. A one-sentence section should be enough, I would have thought, saying pretty much what you said. Si Trew (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Having had a brief look at the article, I'd say go ahead and nominate it! You might also want to consider a GAN too. Mjroots (talk)

Queue 1

Would an admin mind replacing the fifth hook in queue 1 with the following:

• ... that the church dedicated to St Cwyllog in Llangwyllog, Anglesey, Wales, has a rare surviving Georgian triple-decker pulpit?

I missed the double-hook when I set up the set. –Grondemar 17:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, Grondemar. Hopefully no one will mind too much that I did it when my articles are in the hook... Bencherlite^Talk 17:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Same hook to 2 queues

This hook ...

... that when Fr. Jeremiah Callahan was appointed president of Duquesne University in 1931, he used the opportunity to tell reporters about his personal critique of Einstein's theory of relativity?

is currently sitting in Queue 2 and Prep 1. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop that train!

I just noticed that KeSPA is in both queue two and five. Both hooks are approved, but I'd hope we don't feature it twice ;) Pick whichever one is more interesting. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, replaced in Q2. Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I might be helping a bit around here, now that I have the bit, if, of course, help is needed. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The DYK section of main page errors could always use another DYK-familiar, admin-powered eye. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Elakala Falls assistance

Would anyone want to help me improve this article for a DYK nomination, it's my first attempt at it and help from a more experienced editor would be appreciated. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I took a look and cleaned things up a little bit. This article could really use another good source or two, if you have any others. Also, the statement that "There are numerous professional photographers that include photographs of these waterfalls in their online albums accessible on the web", while obviously true (based on my Google searches for sources), still needs to be cited; otherwise it's original research, which is frowned upon in Wikipedia. The article might also benefit from more description of each of the four waterfalls. All that not withstanding, I think this is probably about ready for DYK (go ahead and nominate it). Just pick an interesting fact, make sure it's got an inline citation immediately after it in the article, and nominate it -- be sure to include the photo in the DYK nomination also, because that's a great picture. You can continue to improve the article while it works it's way through the DYK process, which will take at least a few days. cmadler (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, getting a reference about the photographers might be difficult, i'll have to look more. I added another reference, a book about the county's history. And chose to use the little story about how the falls got it's name as the DYK, seems most interesting, although most likely purely legend... Expansion to description of the 4 different falls probably can be done with available references, i'll look into that. I started the DYK, hope I did it somewhat right, I've never done a DYK before and it seemed a bit confusing. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 2 tweaks

In Queue 2, the fourth hook should spell out "one" instead of having the numeral "1" (per WP:ORDINAL), and in the last hook, "Nestle" should be "Nestlé". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Crum375 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Error in Queue 2

When the hook for André Jullien was moved over, the wording was changed that introduced an error. In the nominated hook, it was noted that Jullien's list had the exact same 4 First Growths that the Bordeaux Wine Official Classification of 1855. The hook in the queue states that he named all of the First Growths, which implies to the modern reader that Jullien named all 5 current First Growths-including the one that was added to the official classification in 1973. While a stroke of omniscience that would have foreseen a whiny baron making a pest of himself, would have been exceptionally notable, Jullien's feat merely was in nailing down the 4 First Growths that were officially listed in the historical classification before it became the historical classification. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't say 4, it says "including all of the first growths", so which is correct? Or did the hook come from the sentence before that? This is why it's good if hooks exaclty or almost exactly match text in the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The articles says "His writings on Bordeaux include one of the earliest classifications of the region's estate with Haut-Brion, Margaux, Latour and Lafite listed among the finest wine of the area. Nearly 40 years later, the official 1855 classification would closely mirror Jullien's rankings including all of the first growths." Which in that context says that Jullien's list mirrored what the 1855 classification says. The hook (as it is currently worded) says "that wine writer André Jullien classified the wines of Bordeaux nearly 40 years before the official 1855 classification, including naming all of the First Growths?" Which, to the modern reader when you talk about Bordeaux First Growths you are talking about 5 estates. The modern reader may not be immediately aware that the 1855 classification only had 4 First Growths so while the article clearly talks about 4 estates, the hook implies 5. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is important to note that articles do not have the same "200 char" character limit that DYK has so it is not always possible to have the hook come word for word from the article. Hence the reason that it is better to seek clarification rather than change the hook to introduce an inaccuracy. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point but it also possible to make the match between the hook and article clearer or to put an amplifying not in the DYK nomination. I've changed the hook in the queue. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for your time and attention to DYK. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

June 25 LGBT Flag Day and Carlos Monsiváis

While on the frontpage, I noticed that tomorrow is LGBT Flag Day. Carlos Monsiváis, who is in Prep 1, was outed as being openly gay on his article talkpage with reliable sources. It appears a slot is open tomorrow afternoon which would be an appropriate way to honor this deceased poet. The info has not been added to his article because I have never editted an article with that subject matter. I went on the WP LGBT Studies page to ask for their help. I did add their WP banner to his talkpage based upon the talkpage post. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see this DIFF. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Stalled review

Is anything wrong with this: my nomination's entry  ? The hook is clearly cited, I don't know why somebody moves it. And why we have to wait for the original reviewer who clearly didn't understand what was being stated. I myself don't understand the DYK process and how things move forward. Can't any editor move that to the preparation page? If it falls off the bottom of the nomination page, that means it never appears on the main page? Thank you. --Rajah (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. Every nomination will be reviewed - hitting the bottom of the queue list is not an issue. No, it can't be moved without an approval. Materialscientist (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but can't you approve it and move it? Or do I have to have the original reviewer's consent? Also, roughly what percentage of approved hooks make it to the main page? If only 5-6 make it each day, then most are never used, right? --Rajah (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Some answers (i) I can, but have too many distractions right now. (ii) You have to sit and wait for the review (I myself am in the same position, thus don't take it personal). If initial referee doesn't come out, somebody else will take over. (iii) Every approved hook makes it to the main page. Materialscientist (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, each hook is on the main page for 6-8 hours. Currently we're going through 32 hooks a day. However, we change the rate of hooks featured on the main page depending on how many hooks are approved, not the other way around. Shubinator (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers, I appreciate it. I added the fact that every approved hook appears on the main page to the Template talk. I didn't know that. I also didn't know they updated multiple times a day. I know I should RTFM, but most users won't even scratch the surface. I think pointing out that all hooks will be reviewed and that all approved hooks appear on main page should be prominent on the nomination page. Thanks again.--Rajah (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 1 fix

The last hook in Queue 1 is missing a "... that". Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 07:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Added. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 5 fix

Looking at the Queue 5 page, it seems that I didn't add bold to Aruku Around when I first created the suggestion, whoops! --Prosperosity (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Ucucha 13:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 4 fix

{{editprotected}} In queue 4, the Holy Trinity Church, Horwich hook needs a space between the ellipsis and in. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Made some fixes there. Ucucha 14:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 5 fix

Hook 6 of Queue 5 is missing a leading "that". Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Added. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Too much terrorism?

Does anyone else think that two terrorism hooks (Operation Arabian Knight and Jihad satire) in Queue 3 is too many? 75.5.15.187 (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how Operation Arabian Knight managed to pass. It's a negative hook about a BLP which violates DYK policy, and the article as a whole in my view is a violation of WP:BLP. Regardless of this article surviving AFD, it should not have been featured on the mainpage in my opinion.

In regards to your question, the answer is no, there should not be two terrorism hooks in the same update, there are plenty of alternatives to choose from ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree to removing this one, Gatoclass. The parts of the article about the operation are fine, but it appears to me to stray heavily into details of the men's history that are concerning, although at a very quick scan (I haven't checked in detail) it appears fully referenced to reputable news sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I don't think there's a problem with the referencing, my concern is that the article reads like a collection of every bit of hearsay published by one news org or another. The AFD confirmed the community's opinion that the article should exist, but we have always had a higher standard for inclusion at DYK and this article rings too many alarm bells for me.

In regards to the original question put by the OP, I have now moved one of the terrorism hooks from that update to another one. Gatoclass (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I raised concerns re Operation Arabian Night hook on the nominations page, these were ignored, and the hook was approved by Rlevse without a rationale. Quasihuman (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I realised with a couple of minutes to go that this was due to go live with no-one having removed the hook, so I've removed it. I didn't have time to make a replacement before the bot updated, but as several items are long, it balances on my screen with only 7 hooks. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, well could someone at least have made an effort to ask me about this? The refs are solid. We've had more than one hook on the same topic before, there was an 11-hour span of time here and no bother to mention this to me. The only sound argument to remove this (noting it was done after Gato moved the other hook to a different queue) is a higher standard for BLPs at DYK. Issues about naming and piping had been fixed too. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the rule about no negative BLPs for DYK? Crum375 (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Rlevse, I assumed Gato would remove the hook, forgot about it, then realised -- literally 2 or 3 mins before "go" -- that it was still there and decided to play it safe, given that by then three people had expressed doubts about the article's suitability for DYK.

I am of the opinion that DYKs about living people should be held to higher standards than other articles. I note a much blander hook from yesterday was castigated at main page errors for negativity about a living person. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Crum 1) depends on what is defined as "negative", not all agree on the same level. @Epresso - Fair enough. @all - I don't object to it being removed and I'll raise my BLP for DYK level, but when my name is being thrown around in this manner I have right to tell my side. It would have been good to have at least asked me/notified me about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have notified you after I removed it. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

1. I've no problem with the hook being moved to another queue. Which was the suggestion of 75.5.15.187. Who kicked off this thread, while this hook was already in queue. But that's not what was done.
2. Gato responded to 75.5.15.187's suggestion that the hook be moved to a different queue by pushing for something completely different--the hook's deletion. Without notifying me (as the editor and nom) of this conversation. Or notifying the sysop who had approved the hook. Railroading through a position different from the issue that initiated the thread.
3. Gato had already raised his objections at the article's AfD. The AfD closed as a Keep". Gato's view was considered, and rejected. I wrote at the DYK: "I hope Gato will support consensus". Gato wrote: "Given that the AfD closed as a fairly comfortable keep, I guess it would not be entirely fair for me to stand in the way of promotion, although due to my BLP concerns I will not be promoting it myself"
4. Quasi objected to the hook, claiming that it focused unduly on a negative aspect of a living person. I responded, "For a person accused of terrorism and seeking to kill people, I hardly think that a hook mentioning a spelling error is "unduly" negative. It's one of the least negative statements in his entire reported background." I wrote further, "In fact, it is viewed by many as a fact that may be a net positive for him. As with his co-defendant's mother, who said in his defense that: 'he's not a terrorist; he's a stupid kid.'[1][2][3] That was highlighted in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, in which NYPD Commissioner Kelly said he was upset by media's tendency to downplay victories against terrorism by describing would-be perpetrators as stupid.[4] In sum, IMHO this isn't the sort of "unduly negative" material we are seeking to protect against."
5. Despite Gato having given his word at the DYK review that he would not stand in the way of the hook's promotion, and his tacit approval of another sysop approving the hook, and despite his view having been flatly rejected at AfD, he now -- after the hook was already approved and in queue, did precisely what he had said he would not do. He pushed for deletion of the hook. He did it under the pretext of a discussion that was not about whether the hook should be approved. He did it in a manner that decreased the liklihood that either the nom or the supporting sysop would see the discussion. And he failed to notify them of the discussion.
6. While Gato's AfD points had been addressed, leading to him say he would not stand in the way of the hook's promotion, Quasi had raised one remaining point which I addressed in a fulsome, referenced, response. He suggested that the mention that a living person had held a sign with a spelling mistake was "unduly negative". I explained why it wasn't, and why the person's supporters in fact viewed it as positive. The promoting sysop no doubt reviewed the discussion, and made a judgment as to the strength of Quasi's point. The hook was promoted over Quasi's objection. But Quasi was indeed heard, and responded to. The fact that Quasi did not "get his way" is not reason to seek to overturn the result, after the promotion, as the hook sits in queue -- in a discussion away from the eyes of the nom and the promotor of the hook, and a discussion that he does not even alert them to.
7. Espresso Addict had many days to comment on the hook when it was awaiting promotion. He failed to. He here, in this side-alley discussion, raises for the first time points I disagree with. He says vaguely that the article "appears to me to stray heavily into details of the men's history that are concerning, although at a very quick scan (I haven't checked in detail) it appears fully referenced to reputable news sources". Huh? It's one of the better-referenced articles we consider at DYK. And there are no BLP issues in the details of the mens' histories. If there were, we could address them at the articl -- but there are not. Reporting details in the article, which are precisely what our highest-level RSs reported, is precisely what a good BLP does.
8. In sum, aspects of what has happened here trouble me. Gato not being his word. Gato and Quasi making a second, out-of-process, hidden-away-on-a-DYK-talk-page as the already-approved hook sits in queue, effort to delete the hook. Gato and Quasi failing to notify the nom or the promoting editor of this discussion. Espresso joining, after having made no comments on the hook in the many days it was available for review, and making vague "lots of details ... appears to ..." comments that I believe are lacking in basis as a reason to delete the in-queue hook. I believe the process smells fishy.

I request that this hook be put back in a queue at the earliest convenient moment. I'm more than a little troubled by the way some comported themselves here -- and I expect admins especially to comport themselves at a high standard, in accordance with WP:ADMIN.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a consensus among the DYK community that DYKs about living people are held to a higher standard than other DYKs and than articles in general. I merely upheld this consensus, and prevented the appearance on the main page of a item that three editors, two of them admins, had independently found of concern. I'm sorry it went so close to the line, and in particular that the credits bot erroneously credited you for the DYK. However, having noticed (whilst scanning the hook set for typos, as I often do shortly before the next set goes live) that the problematic hook was still in the set, I believe I would have been failing in my duties as an admin had I failed to remove the hook. I didn't comment while the hook was at the suggestions page or at AfD because I'm not currently reviewing DYK suggestions or AfDs, being busy on other parts of the 'pedia. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just responding to Epeefleche's charge that I reneged on a commitment to stand aside from the debate - that comment was made prior, of course, to Quasihuman's fresh concern, about the negativity of the hook, which to that point I had not even considered. That was an entirely new debate which I had made no commitment about, which I therefore felt entitled to participate in. Even so, I did not participate in that debate either. It was only when someone raised the issue about two terrorism-related hooks in the same queue and I went to check the queue that my misgivings were rekindled. And when I checked to see how the hook had managed to make its way to the queue in spite of Quasi's objections, I found that Rlevse had verified the hook without responding to Quasi's concerns, which is against established convention, and that Rlevse had also both verified and promoted the hook - again a discouraged practice. Not that I blame Rlevse for either of these actions because he is still relatively new and probably hasn't picked up all the nuances yet.

But the end result is that we had a dubious hook promoted which seemed to me to clearly breach our rules, and which had not had much scrutiny. So in responding to 75's concerns, I simply reiterated the objections to the hook while doing so. I did not remove the hook myself, did not call for its removal, and did not participate in the subsequent discussion or decision to remove it. So I feel I have largely stuck to my original commitment, in spite of the fact that I feel that commitment was largely made redundant after Quasi raised his additional concern. Gatoclass (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite true that I haven't picked up all the nuances. I agree we should hold DYK BLP to a higher standard. Also not that prior to Eppe posting his views here, I had removed the nom from the page after Espresso put it back because of all the concerns raised. Also note I tend to work with the older noms as once they "go pink" few people bother with them and I feel it's a disservice for them to sit there and languish. I also promote a lot of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, can't respond right now as my PC has suddenly started crashing randomly every few minutes. Gatoclass (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Espresso--First, to clarify, I think you did precisely the correct thing be removing the hook from that queue. I believe that the IP was spot-on. Two hooks on the same subject were not the best form. And I fully support your having removed it from that queue.

I understand that you are only trying to do good/the right thing here, and appreciate that very much. I also understand that DYKs about living people are held to a higher standard than other DYKs and than articles in general--that is reflected, to the extent that it is in the case, quite properly in the DYK rules. My point, as made in the DYK discussion which was engaged in for some time, was simply that this BLP clearly met the standard reflected in the DYK rules. As far as "consensus" is concerned, I would point you to the fact that the only non-addressed issue in the many-days-long discussion, following proper protocol, was a concern raised by Quasi. That concern had been addressed. Gato had, its true, initially raised a concern which he said was reflected in his concern about the article passing BLP -- as he himself reflected in his DYK discussion comments, the community -- the consensus we seek to uphold -- say things quite differently than did Gato. And Gato himself kindly promised that given that he would not stand in the way of another sysop promoting the hook. The fact that Gato is an admin whose view does not comport with the consensus view of the community frankly makes his view -- which he had promised he had abandoned as a bar to the hook's approval -- being of lesser significance than the view of others. The promotion sysop and I have over 120,000 edits between us--I'm not sure if you saw that of moment, or simply weighed that the same as a !voter with 300-odd votes.

So, I fully support Espresso's action. I would simply request now that if it were possible for the hook to be put in a future queue at some time as may be most convenient, that would certainly be much appreciated. For the reasons mentioned here and at the original DYK discussion. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: As to what is not considered unduly negative, note that third-most viewed DYK said "... that Sergeant Len Siffleet was the subject of a famous photograph (pictured) depicting an execution by the Japanese in World War II?". With a photo of a person being beheaded. Compared to that, which passed muster, a spelling error seems trivial.

The same w/the highly viewed hook "... that in April 2008, Forbes listed Omid Tahvili (pictured) as one of the world's ten most wanted fugitives?"--Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Two terrorism related hooks in the same queue are not too many. Perhaps the DYK can be seen as microcosm of the world we live in, where terrorism is always being discussed. I disagree with the removal, though it's not a big deal since if was just moved to another queue. Of more importance, are the claims above about a higher standard for BLP's. I may agree with that, but no editor has bothered to point out how the articles failed this higher standard. I've previously commented critically on how Galoclass has acted inappropriately regarding Islam and Israel related articles at DYK, and am disappointed that this has continued. The article should be placed back in a queue.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6 fix

Hook 4 of Queue 6 has a double "the". Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 20:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you. Single "the" now. Bencherlite^Talk 20:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

confusing

Hi all, As a non-regular who stopped by, the directions on this page about how DYKs happen are pretty confusing. Is it correct that an editor wishing to submit a DYK nomination should:

1. write the article :)
   1. make sure their article meets the DYK criteria
2. write the hook, following the instructions
3. edit this page with their suggestion?

Do I have that correctly? If so, I might edit the instructions a bit to emphasize where to leave suggestions. Thx! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that's the general idea :) Shubinator (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

To that I would just add, you don't actually have to write the article. You can nominate someone else's article, assuming it meets all the DYK criteria. Gatoclass (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

How can I help?

OK, I'm constantly being told in RfA and various talk pages I stalk that DYK is constantly in need of more admins, so one of the first things I did when I passed RfA was add my name to the list of admins willing to help. Nobody's come begging me for assistance yet, but I'm active around ITN and WP:ERRORS so what can I do to make my mop useful around here? :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Approving (disapproving if appropo) hooks is the biggest need, especially the older ones as people focus on the newer noms, but you don't have to be an admin to do that, nor to move them to a prep queue. You do need to be an admin to move the preps to queue rotations and to protect the lead hook's image. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I guess everyone could give you their own advice. There are many parts in the DYK process and I would say take what you like most. IMO, the weakest DYK spot is reviewing the nominations at T:TDYK. There are many and you might find some of them interesting. Another one. You're working around the main page, fixing DYK errors. Thus you can extend that into preventative action, that is going through the Queue from time to time and checking the hooks for anything (grammar, facts, already featured in DYK/ITN, etc., etc). Materialscientist (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area 2 July

Please remember, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Got it. In prep1 now, should end up in queue 2, which'd make it July 2 for wiki time. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Review needed -- it's been a week

could someone take a look at the Florida legal article at the top of Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_June_24, it hasn't been reviewed yet, thanks Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 09:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Queue 4 fix

Hook 1 of Queue 4 is missing a "(pictured)". Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Added. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Newness rule question

Let's say I have an article in article space in January 2010, move it to my user space in February 2010, gradually expand it there, and then move it back into article space in June 2010. Is this a "new" article at that point DYK-wise? Crum375 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume this is about Chris Limahelu at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Chris_Limahelu? An important part of the history is that this was deleted through PROD, restored and userfied, then moved back to the mainspace from the userspace. My instinct is to say that in the circumstances, it's not a "new" article (it's got the history from before its deletion, and it's the same article as before, after all: it's not as though a previous article was deleted as a copyvio, or a new article has been written without any reference to the old article) but it could qualify as a 5x expansion if sufficiently expanded. At present, I note that it has not been expanded enough to qualify under that head. Bencherlite^Talk 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This was my feeling too, but someone claimed it's now a "new" article, and that the 5x shortfall is therefore not applicable, so I wanted to get more opinions. Crum375 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It can't possibly be treated as a "new" article – otherwise any article that was deleted via prod and later restored upon request (which happens a lot) would be "new" for DYK purposes, regardless of whether it spent time in userspace post-deletion or not, and potentially regardless of whether it had been on DYK before or not! That couldn't be right. Bencherlite^Talk 19:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That interpretation would act as a discouragement for the recreation of any deleted article. I saw a redlink on a page, learned that an article was deleted for having not being addressed during the prod period, and asked it be userfied so I could see what it was that had been deleted. 7 sentences were the entirety of the article that was deleted. I see now that I should not have done a "move", but rather a cut-n-paste, as my work on the article made it significantly different from the one that was deleted. My bad to think "significantly different" might also equate to "new". Live and learn. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

However, and my error notwithstanding, expansion should be relatively easy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not being picked on specially - see Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules rule A4, which shows that this type of situation has come up before; I don't think the fact that the article in question has been deleted and restored in the interim makes a difference. With all articles submitted to DYK, regardless of whether they've previously been deleted or not, we don't look at the old article and the new article and see how many sentences have been reused in the new article. We don't look at the quality of the old article either (so if someone says "the previous version was 2,500 characters without any references, mine is 2,500 characters with full references", we don't count that as a "new" or expanded article for DYK purposes). Except for copyvios, we simply use the crude measure of a fivefold expansion of text. If we were to expand the scope of DYK to cover articles that have been made "significantly different" in the last 5 days, regardless of whether there was any overall increase in the length of the text, that really would be a massive extension of the project's scope. It's no more a "discouragement for the recreation of any deleted article" than the existing bar at DYK against old articles that have not been expanded x5 is a "discouragement against the improvement of any existing article". Bencherlite^Talk 19:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I claimed the article was "new" as I saw it had been moved from userspace today, and DYKcheck doesn't tell you if an article was moved TO userspace. I've seen many times where reviewers have missed that it had been moved from userspace, and I was concerned that this had happened here. ErinM (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

DYKcheck tells us that it was created in May by another user (bold added):

• Prose size (text only): 2384 characters (413 words) "readable prose size"
• Article created by Aardvarkzz on May 2, 2010
• Article moved from User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Chris Limahelu on June 21, 2010
• Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 42 edits ago on May 2, 2010

If another user created the article in May, odds are extremely high it was not created in that same user space, and it's a very strong hint that you need to check the History page, if you haven't already done so. Crum375 (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And of course, had I asked for the userfication, and then requested deletion of the userfied version after seeing what it had lacked that caused its deletion in the first place... and then continued creating a better article by that same name... we'd be having a discussion about recreated content, and not about a userfication/improvement/and move. Inre "additional rules" #D8, can anyone tell me just how long was it actually in article space before deletion? I see by the history that it was authored on May 2 and prodded on May 5, but cannot determine when it was actually deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever deleted, only moved to your user space. This was the last version before the move. Crum375 (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted on May 12. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, my mistake. I was looking for deleted revisions instead of the delete log. Crum375 (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with Bencherlite's interpretation. A4 says "no matter if it was up for deletion." This is not just a case of an article that was up for deletion (signaling bad content, which is what A4 is discussing), this is an article that was actually deleted. If a reader tried to go to that article between May 12 and June 20, they would have been invited to create the article (and warned that it had previously been deleted). If you compare this article today to this article 5 days ago, it has been infinitely expanded, because there was no article in articlespace 5 days ago. We can discuss how we think this should be treated, but this is not as simple as just pointing to A4. I don't think there is an existing DYK rule about re-creation of previously deleted articles. cmadler (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• AGF and cookies all around. While this discussion may well lead to a clearer interpretation of just what "new" means when speaking about significantly different recreations of deleted articles, I wish to announce my own efforts and perhaps make this discussion moot in regards the case of the Chris Limahelu DYK nomination, as I believe I am now past 5x... having taken the 759 characters/141 words of "readable prose size" of June 20, and expanding it to 4229 characters/726 words of "readable prose size". If my math is not wrong, this makes a 5.7 expasion of characters and a 5.15 expansion of words. It was not too difficult, as there is much available about this fellow... just took some time. But please keep me informed as to the ultimate decision here, as the rules are not clear about these instances. I note that User:Bencherlite's comments convince me I would have been better of to have requested deletion of the original 7 sentences after having finally seen the original article, and simply proceeded with a complete rewrite that would have then not included the brief and unhappy history of its predecessor, and User:Cmadler brings up a valid point in that this probably should be addressed to prevent future confusions. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason that it's 5x expansion without regard to the previous article's quality is so that the people here don't have to assess quality, correct? (broadly speaking) It seems to me that an article actually being deleted is a clear indication based on other standards of poor quality in some fashion. ErinM (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Or, think of it another way. If the article, having been deleted, had been rewritten from scratch (i.e., an editor clicked on a redlink, and created the article) I don't think we'd be having this discussion -- that would clearly and undisputably be a new article. But because the deleted article was moved to userspace, stripped down, rewritten, and then moved back to articlespace, it's more questionable. cmadler (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any consensus on this issue? I'm sure it will come up again. ErinM (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Bueller? ErinM (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3 fix --- need to swap out one hook for a different one

Okryugwan (3rd hook in Template:Did you know/Queue/3) already appeared at DYK yesterday [5]. Thanks, cab (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Allen3 ^talk 06:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Same hook in Queues 4 & 5

• ... that Gerald S. Lesser wrote Children and Television in 1974 to defend Sesame Street against its critics?

This hook is currently sitting in both Queue 4 and Queue 5. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Removed from Q4, new hook promoted. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Queue 1 tweak

There should be a space between "..." and "that" in the first hook of Queue 1. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Added. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK credit for a banned user

I just wanted to draw attention to the discussion at T:TDYK#Kubla Khan (and the same issue just above that at T:TDYK#Ode: Intimations of Immortality, where questions have been raised about crediting a banned user for these two DYK items. That discussion could probably benefit from more input from DYK regulars. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There's more to this, towit: 1) should proxy editing be allowed, 2) if so should the article be allowed at DYK, 3) if so, who should get credit? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, DYK rules don't say anything about who writes the articles, so I think that if proxy editing is allowed by Wikipedia, the article should be allowed at DYK. As to how credit is assigned, that has to go back to the question of whether proxy editing is allowed, and under what conditions. My personal take on it is that you have to look at the circumstances and rationale for proxy editing. If an editor was having computer problems, asked a friend to make some edits for them, and they both acknowledged it (so there's a clear trail), that's one thing, and I think that's just fine. But in this case, the original source of the edits is a banned user. The relevant section of WP:BAN states that Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them. In the section on reverting, reinstating, etc., the policy also states that Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content. My reading of those statements is basically that the user actually making the edit takes responsibility for it, and therefore should get any credit for it. The whole point of banning a user is that a banned user may not edit no matter if the edits are good or bad. Finally, the "Difference between bans and blocks" section indicates that a site-banned editor is not "a member of the community". If they're not a member of the community, they can't be credited for work by the community. cmadler (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that logic. I would like (in an ideal world) to reward "good" even if someone has done "bad", but we said "you're banned" - writing a DYK from a proxy is just playing a game which we should not be interested in or encouraged. They must go away until told or until their appeal is granted (and don't play here till then). IMO Victuallers (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I suggest we protect these two pages? I'm assuming the person who moved these pages did it it by mistake and is very sorry Victuallers (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it and look into it, I think this should be treated the same way we treat information imported from a foreign language Wikipedia. It appears to me that: 1. A user, who was site-banned on English Wikipedia, is now making contributions at Simple English Wikipedia (no problem there); 2) In writing Simple English Wikipedia articles, the user is first writing the articles in userspace, then simplifying the language (no problem there); 3) A English Wikipedia user became aware of this and copied the content into English Wikipedia articles (possible problem). The third step is possibly problematic if the content is being added verbatim, because Wikipedia's license requires attribution. Is indicating the source in an edit summary sufficient attribution? As for DYK, I think the hooks can be used, and nominator credit can be given. If the copying is not verbatim, I think creation/expansion credit can be given to the user who actually added the material to English Wikipedia. If the copying is verbatim, and if the edit summary note is sufficient attribution, I suggest that no creation/expansion credit be given. cmadler (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Its a case but Disagree. I have edited at simple and they have few/no articles that look like these two. They would be full of comments for simplicity. Its a game. No DYK credit. Consider action action against those aiding and abetting and for extending bans. IMO Victuallers (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, action against them would have to be taken up at WP:ARBCOM or WP:ANI; that's far beyond the scope of DYK. cmadler (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should take a step back and use some common sense. If the editor were blocked for adding content of dubious quality, then I would agree that there would be a problem, but in this case the editor was blocked because he created a disruption. So, at this point we have an editor, though banned for disruption, working quietly outside the project and writing quality material which is then added by a 3rd party, and yet the arguments still arise. Bans are not meant to be punishment but a means keeping the project functional, and yet we are getting tied down in arguments because it irks some people that a banned user gets DYK credit for work he did off project? If the community finds it is more important to punish a banned user than allow his proxy edits, which undoubtedly add to the quality of the project as a whole, I would be greatly disappointed. Likewise, denying DYK credit as a punitive measure seems a bit puerile if you ask me. Mrathel (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ottava was banned notwithstanding the quality of contributions he/she made. To suggest that the ban is somehow less important because it's been imposed on a productive editor rather misses the point of what a ban is. WP:BAN says "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad", and it also notes that for the duration of the ban, banned editors "are no longer considered a member of the editing community". I fail to see how someone who has been "completely ejected from the project" (to quote WP:BAN again) can be given any credit (through DYK or otherwise) for work done off-project, even if (and I think it's a very big "if", personally) those copying Ottava's edits here are not themselves breaching WP:BAN. Bencherlite^Talk 15:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't get very excited about this. If the content is usable, use it. Even if it is in OR's sandbox at SE, it is licensed and thus usable elsewhere. This is no different than translating from another Wikipedia in my view. I think that credit in an edit summary would be ample. As for DYK credit, it is not worth arguing about. A DYK credit is really no big deal and I feel any answer on this one is acceptable. I personally would give no credit to anyone, taking the position that we do not have DYKs based on existing content and the entries in OR's SE sandbox "exist".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My views on the questions asked by Rlevse above: 1) Yes. If it improves the encyclopedia. 2) In some cases I think it's okay, others probably not. In the particular case right now, the article is extremely good and I think it would be a shame not to feature it at DYK. 3) Don't care. -Atmoz (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, content originally prepared by editors blocked/banned on this wikimedia site should not be featured at DYK. We should absolutely not be giving public recognition to blocked users, and especially not to those blocked users who aggressively sought these types of "rewards" before their blocks. In this particular case, Ottava Rima was banned for 1 year because of tendentious editing and bullying around "his" articles. By giving him recognition for these contributions, we are encouraging him to continue his games - why shouldn't he write articles, get someone else to copy them to en.wikipedia, get DYK credit, and leave himself the freedom to potentially badger other editors over email/IRC/talk pages at other wikis, since he can't use the talk pages here. (Since his block, I have received emails from him concerning comments made by others at an FAC nomination for an article he had previously nominated - these emails displayed precisely the behavior mentioned at his ArbCom case which led to his ban. I have a hard time believing I'm the only one receiving these.) If Ottava Rima's sole goal is to improve the encyclopedia, then let him write articles and find someone to proxy them without any fuss. If he refuses to do so without the recognition - for himself or the content - , that would show that improving the encyclopedia is not his primary goal. I'd much prefer we not encourage anything else. Karanacs (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on policy, I can't see any reason to reward a banned user for text they crafted while banned. - Dravecky (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Writing content has become a reward? Or is being recognized for writing content a reward? I didn't even know we called DYK credits rewards. I thought it was just due attribution, moral rights, etc. Blurpeace 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem (one of several) with that view is that Ottava Rima is no longer a member of the ENWP editing community. He is prohibited from contributing to ENWP for the duration of the ban -- that's what "banned" means. cmadler (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand what your concern is. He writes freely licensed content elsewhere. We find the content useful and import it. From the banning policy, "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them." I'm pretty sure this isn't about rewards. He should either be credited or nobody credited. Blurpeace 19:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom precedent-the one case I recall on this was when ScienceApologist was banned for 3 months and he wrote an article on another project on optics. Someone, I forget who, made a motion at RFAR for this article to be imported so no one would get "in trouble" for aiding a banned user. The motion passed. This case is different as people are just simply going and doing the importing. If someone wants I or a arbclerk can try to find the motion in the archives. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Here it is. Bencherlite^Talk 20:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicely remembered. Sounds correct and avoids accusations of sockpuppetry as policy descibes. This is causing a lot of heat. We can continue to debate, forget it, make a resolution or refer this back to ARBCOM or "your suggestion". The current debate at Simple here is also causing much debate. I am resisting joining that one as the banned editor has no reply here. I am surprised that a Bpard member is allegedly involved and there may be a justifiable reason in line with policy, but that makes no difference as to who is right, We do need to agree/find a way forward. Victuallers (talk)

Did you mean simple:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#For info? Bencherlite^Talk 20:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest monitor the situation, and let it proceed for now. If it becomes a problem, start an enforcement case and forbid people to copy his content here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That it's causing all this talk here on en wiki (and not just on this page mind you) and on simple wiki tells you it's a problem. My suggestion is a motion like ScienceApologist's. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a similar motion was passed for Piotrus, though I forget the name of the article now. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Found it: Wikipedia:EEML#Proxy authorization for work on Lech Wałęsa. 01:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that neither Chzz nor Ottava (even as a banned user) broke any rules here so any talk of "action against those aiding and abetting and for extending bans" is out of place. Folks who have a problem with this kind of thing need to go to the relevant policy change and get consensus for changing it, specifically the unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them part - though IMO that would be a totally counterproductive and unnecessary change. Along the same lines, since technically speaking Chzz created the articles and is responsible for them (for good and bad) I see no reason why s/he shouldn't get credit. Whether or not Ottava gets credit should be left to DYK regulars and reviewers to decide; personally I don't have a strong opinion on this, though I'm leaning towards "no credit" for some of the reasons articulated above. It should also be noted that the only reason this has come up and is generating heat here is because of Ottava's high profile as a (former) Wikipedia editor - if it had happened with someone else nobody would have even noticed.radek (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this is not the first time this has happened. There was an earlier article that was submitted for and placed on DYK and credit was given on the user talk page in that case - the article was Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. I read through that article at the time it was added to Wikipedia and made some suggestions on the talk page as well as making some minor edits to it, but I restricted myself to making suggestions and copyediting the content after it arrived here. I avoided actually doing any importing, as I wasn't able to check and verify the sources used to my own satisfaction, something I think anyone importing such content should do. The key is to focus on the content and not the contributor. It is easiest to think of the contributor as a writer who is not a member of the community, and to focus on checking whether the content is suitable for use here (just as you would for any freely licensed content you wanted to import). The other important point is to avoid interacting with the contributor if they try and influence any subsequent editing of the content, as that would indeed be something akin to proxy editing (in practice, though, it is difficult to know where to draw the line). About DYK credit, having considered some of the arguments above, I think that featuring such articles on DYK is OK if the articles have been independently checked. The approach that should be used is the one that would be used if importing from a non-wiki freely licensed source, or translating from another language wiki. In those cases, the identity of the contributor is sometimes relevant, but mostly not, and I don't think the issue of DYK credit ever arises in those cases (i.e. just have no credit). Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There was also a DYK for Optics, done by ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) over on English Wikisource while banned.(see the talk page for details) The import was coordinated/achieved by Durova iirc.

Russavia (talk · contribs) may have also created an en.wp DYK over on simple while he was topic banned here.

wrt the credit, it should go to whom it is due. Ottava is banned for behavioural reasons rather than content issues, so if simple.wp is happy to let him develop en.wp articles over there, importing them to en.wp is a win-win solution. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The "credit" issue is a red herring except for those engaged in an imaginary competition. Does anybody really think that Ottava won't claim the articles as his work unless somebody adds a few lines of wikicode to his user page? What other worry is there? That he'll come back from his ban and add two to his total on the "just for fun" DYK counting list and that will let him "beat" somebody else or "win"? I also like the idea of Simple as Proxypedia: let's send all the problem and banned users over there to develop non-Simple articles and then import them. It is a win-win solution. Yomangani^talk 09:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless you administrate Simple, in which case that solution would seem like enwp exporting problems. Courcelles (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, this is English Wikipedia's problem, not Simple's. Don't make it ours. Take care of your own. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was being sarcastic, but it didn't travel through the ether apparently. Yomangani^talk 11:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh. My sarcasm detector always goes on the fritz when I'm sick, sorry. Courcelles (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If the administrators on simple have a problem with OR's use of the simple wiki, they can address it on simple by improving policy about use of user space, and/or show OR the door.

For the purposes of en.wp, it doesn't matter where the content is written, as long as it is under an acceptable license and the content is good quality. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

True...I think it is a fair exchange: we export trouble and import articles. Much simpler to push problems onto another Wikipedia than to work out an effective system here. Instead of banning from now on let's exile them to Simple! It sounds more impressive too. (Not that I can quite figure out what in OR's behaviour merited a year's ban anyway. That some people were fed up with his occasional histrionics and intransigence? There should be a quite a few others joining him in the Simple Gulag then.) Yomangani^talk 01:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ottava was banned from here; he is free to do as he wills on any other project that will have him. If simple.wp doesn't want to become a haven for banned English Wikipedians, it needs to create policy which prevents their project being used in this fashion. My guess is that http://www.mywikibiz.com/ would be happy to be the preferred haven for banned English Wikipedians. Pavon Prison indeed. We have imported articles from mywikibiz.com too. The issue of whether or not it is appropriate to import articles from other projects is best discussed in another forum; it is the issue of the DYK credit which is here for discussion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Which isn't worth discussing. We don't have to worry about giving or not giving credit because a DYK credit doesn't give any benefit. Despite attempts to dress it in some sort of official clothing, it's just a bit of wikicode that notifies somebody that an article they worked on is on the main page. You don't need it to add to your figures on the DYK chart if that's what you want to do, you don't need it to entitle you to work on the article, you don't need it to qualify for some role in the WP hierarchy. There's nothing to stop anyone giving a "DYK credit" to anybody for any article at any time and, as I said above, I don't suppose anybody seriously thinks that Ottava isn't going to take credit for an article just because there isn't a box on his talk page. Do whatever is easiest for how the bot is set up and be done. Yomangani^talk 09:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(out) My thought is OR was ultimatley banned because s/he was causing too much disruption and wasted effort by others - after all, we are primarily here to write an encylcopedia. Attempts to circumvent the ban, whether credited here or not, still are turning into more wasted effort. I have no problem with importing properly licensed content, or even allowing it . I see no reason to give DYK or any other kind of credit here to a user who is banned. ArbCom made its decision to avoid further drama, but I guess we never learn. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch: exactly. If it weren't for this meta-drama, this type of addition of quality content wouldn't be problematic. Nor does it seem to have been a problem when Elegy was added, which as Carcharoth noted is a close precedent. It's up to simple:wp to decide whether this is 'gaming [a] system'; currently there is no consensus there that the work done isn't also appropriate for that wiki (which is what I assume, in the meantime). –SJ+ 07:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Aw gee so what? OR gets a feeling of self satisfaction and having gamed the system. We, as Ed points out, are consolated with exceptionally good articles by OR, and we don't have to put up with him, just with his articles. He can call himself DYK God for all I care. The only possible downside I see is if people start transmitting his objections to changes in the articles, in which case, pull the switch on it. If other banned editors choose to write excellent articles in their Simple sandbox which get brought over here, well, the project will last our time but a little extra help on it wouldn't go amiss.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

The articles appear to qualify for DYK (I have not verified the hooked facts myself) based on 5x expansion (actually more like 10x to 20x). Therefore I suggest that they should be used in DYK. Chzz nominated them both, and should get nominator credit. Ottava Rima can not receive DYK credit for the 5x expansion because the site ban means that he is not part of the ENWP community. Either Sj can be credited as the user who actually added the content, or (my preference) no one gets that DYK credit. If anyone believes that action needs to be taken against any of the involved editors (circumvention of a ban, problematic proxy editing, etc.), that should be taken up either at WP:ARBCOM or WP:ANI and not discussed here any further. cmadler (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of explicit credits -- if we want to start doing that, we should begin with actively crediting the authors of articles on the article page! -- in particular, please don't give me credit here. –SJ+ 07:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Another suggestion: Stop giving "credits" completely. The people who contributed to and nominated the articles know who they are, so they don't need crediting unless it is for some imaginary WP-aggrandizement - and we all know how very non-WP that concept is. The notifications were originally a way of letting editors and nominators know that the articles they had contributed to were featured on the main page because they might not have known (the first time I got a notification I didn't even know what DYK was). Nowadays it is extremely rare that the author doesn't know the article is listed at DYK so the notifications have become essentially useless. "Credits" from DYK don't mean anything: they don't have any official status (should I wish to, there's nothing to stop me putting a notification on Ottava's page whatever is decided here), they don't come with free ice-cream, you can't redeem them for a set of cut-glass goblets or a screwdriver set when you collect enough and you can't use them to wedge a wobbly table leg. Admittedly they can make the "New Messages" bar appear, but that's hardly a unique selling point. Yomangani^talk 16:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before Yomanangi. A lot of people like getting DYK credits, as evidenced by WP:DYKSTATS. It's your prerogative to disdain awards but obviously that is not the view of many Wikipedians. Gatoclass (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The question of who deserves a "credit" seems to be a bone of contention here, and since "a lot of people like getting DYK credits" seems to be the answer as to why we shouldn't scrap it, the alternative solution would be to make everybody happy by sharing it round to anybody who wants it. Yomangani^talk 19:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a win-win, it is aiding a banned user in skirting their ban and gaming the system. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So what? We're coming out ahead and if there is a problem, ArbCom can cut it off cold.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you said that. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, what is the alternative? Endless drama over two projects? Watch it and hope there's not a problem, if there is, intervene.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Wehwalt. We get the good part of Ottava—ridiculously detailed and complete articles—and avoid most of the drama. If someone is willing to write good, neutral, and complete articles while banned, why shouldn't we take advantage of that (and them)? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so. If he's willing to do that, the DYK credit is negotiable.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Every time we post one of his DYKs, he gets a tingly feeling in his body that we can't control though, unfortunately :) Gary King (talk · scripts) 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

They've got an app for that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Issue with Prep 1 hook for Ernst von Dobschütz

The lead hook in prep area 1 states that "Ernst von Dobschütz (pictured), after the death of Gregory expanded List of the New Testament manuscripts". What's throwing me off is the ungrammatical wording (and capitalization) of "expanded List of the New Testament manuscripts", and the wording is exactly the same in the article. I thought that there might be an article titled List of the New Testament manuscripts, but that doesn't exist. Should it just be "expanded the list of New Testament manuscripts" (or some variation thereof), or am I missing something. Alansohn (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If "List of the New Testament manuscripts" is the title of a document or book, then it should be italicized: "... expanded List of the New Testament manuscripts". Otherwise I believe it should be "... expanded the list of New Testament manuscripts". —Bruce1ee^talk 05:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a title. See the comment with the nomination at the time it was moved to Prep. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no apparent work by that name so I have modified the hook as suggested. Also dropped the reference to Gregory as the relationship between the two is not made clear in either article. Gatoclass (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3 error

In the fourth hook of Queue 3, I don't think John Nihill was an attorney, so he couldn't be "disbarred". That should be "barred". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Queue 4 slight mistake

In queue 4, last hook, please change {{*mp}}...in 1944 the [[Lyon]] to [[Paris]] rail line was blown up 22 times by the [[Special Air Service]] during '''[[Operation Houndsworth]]'''? to {{*mp}}... that in 1944 the [[Lyon]] to [[Paris]] rail line was blown up 22 times by the [[Special Air Service]] during '''[[Operation Houndsworth]]'''?, as it is missing " that" after the ellipsis. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

More hooks

Can we start adding an extra hook or two to the template- it would make Main Page balancing easier and, as a bonus, it might slightly reduce waiting times. the last few days, DYK has been noticeably shorter than OTD, but ITN is is very short already because of the TFA and nobody likes trimming form OTD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

TFA length is very variable and will change in 7 minutes, thus usual practice is to stick to 8 hooks no matter what. There are currently 6, which surprised me, I guess it is because of one long hook, but I would keep 7. Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well there'd be no harm done in having 9- worst case scenario is I have to add to OTD, which I can deal with. Could we try a it for a day and see how it looks, perhaps? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The main page looks different on different screens in any case. We used to try to balance up the mainpage but it's basically something nobody bothers with anymore. But Borgqueen often used to pull an entry from ITN or OTD if the DYK update was too short. Gatoclass (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if there was a 6-hook update for some reason, that's usually too short, though they do slip through sometimes. I know we've sometimes had 7-hook updates when a hook got pulled out of the queue and not replaced. The normal 8-hook update is usually about the right length; as Gatoclass pointed out, the main page looks (very) different on different screens, so there's not really any way to guarantee a balance. cmadler (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Stalag Luft III murders article from July 3

I self-nominated the Stalag Luft III murders article from July 3 and notice it hasn't been reviewed yet. I just added a scan of the book that I used as a reference for the hook, if this makes a difference...?Michael Dorosh^Talk 12:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Doodlebug disaster

This article is currently on the main page, but all refs are bare urls. I'm not suggesting we remove it, but can we please ensure that it doesn't happen again. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Egaads. Partly my fault. Trout me! I did not approve it but I did move it to a prep queue. I've held noms up for that before but missed this one. Sorry. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Prep 2 - William Downie Stewart

Hello, I'm not sure whether the editor compiling this DYK set has seen my thoughts on the ALT1 hook that has now been chosen: "I do not believe that ALT1 is a better hook, as "his daughter" is ambiguous. Does it refer to Stewart Sr or Stewart Jr?" But if it was a deliberate choice, then that's fine. For interest, the originally proposed hook was as follows: "... that two children of New Zealand MP William Downie Stewart, William Downie Stewart and Mary, were Mayor of Dunedin and Lady Mayoress, respectively?" Schwede66 01:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved the hook to Prep2; I thought the ALT1 hook was clear enough at first glance. How about this as an alternate?

• ... that New Zealand MP William Downie Stewart's son, William Downie Stewart, became Mayor of Dunedin—and his daugher Mary served as Lady Mayoress?

–Grondemar 02:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's better. Good effort! Schwede66 03:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Collusion between Broccoli and Mbz1

A clear pattern has emerged with these two users in recent months. Mbz1 submits an article, and Broccoli drops in a short time later to verify it. Typically, Broccoli completely ignores any outstanding issues and adds a verify tag regardless, as he has just done again today, falsely declaring on a hook of Mbz1's that I had challenged that "All issues were resolved." Another of his recent verifications, for Sol Hachuel, consequently slipped through to the main page in spite of having numerous problems.

Broccoli has made a total of ten edits to T:TDYK - every one of them a verification of an Mbz1 submission. Evidently they are colluding off-Wiki, with Mbz contacting Broccoli whenever one of her nominations is up for review or has run into trouble.

I therefore recommend that from this point, any verifications made by Broccoli on the Suggestions page are ignored. I am also asking myself at this point whether further action should be taken against Mbz1, who not only continues to submit problematic articles to T:TDYK, but who now appears to have been engaged in a concerted attempt to subvert our normal review processes. Gatoclass (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this should be brought up at WP:ANI, with a request for a topic ban on Broccoli verifying any hooks at DYK. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am fond of Mbz1 contributions that I am watching on both Commons and Wikipedia. If I see she wrote an article or nominated an image for FPC, I review it, and, if I feel like supporting it, I do. As a matter of fact I am translating Sol Hachuel in Hebrew for Hebrew Wikipedia right now. In case you do not know how to call my behavior, you may call it collaboration.

Your behavior is shameful and is a disgrace to this project. I don't have to justify my actions on front of petty people like you. It is more likely that you have an agenda against Mbz1, and therefore try to taunt her. Go and do something constructive. You make yourself pathetic. --Broccoli (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that (once again) Gatoclass is the only one expressing a problem at that hook, it seems a bit odd for him to handle his dispute with others in such heavy-handed, hostile fashion. WP is not a battleground. Gato may want to consider letting others handle Mbz1's DyK submissions, for a while. It's not good for wp for such a reaction to be displayed by a sysop over what is essentially a content dispute.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur in the thrust of Gato's suggestion. It doesn't matter whether the relationship is one of nefarious collusion or innocent collaboration. In order to ensure that the DYK criteria are met, it is essential that the review be conducted by someone who is independent of the article's creator. A collaborator should not be coming to DYK for the sole purpose of approving his/her co-collaborator's hooks. Even assuming total good faith, I think the practice is inappropriate and is a recipe for problems. Cbl62 (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• I see your point. The same holds in reverse, of course. Perhaps both should take a break. I'm a bit surprised by the hostility of Gato here -- Gato, the only editor expressing his point of view, makes bald untempered direct accusations above which clearly violate Wikipedia:Assume good faith and our rules against personal attacks, seeks to block out from contributing here those who don't share his personal point of view (which as we know can be a unique one), and fails to notify the parties who he is accusing and seeking action against know of his effort here? Smells quite bad. I would suggest Gato separate for a bit. He is not living up to his wp:admin responsibilities to model the best on-wiki behavior. Other very good editors can play his role.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Further comment. I am troubled by the attacks on Gato as reflected in this thread (e.g., calling him "petty" and "pathetic"). Gato has been instrumental in helping to make DYK a functioning machine for years. Gato has occasionally critiqued my hooks, and we all get sensitive at times about criticism. However, my perception is that, even where I disagree, Gato's comments have been consistently driven by a desire to improve the quality of DYK and nothing else. We all owe a lot to Gato and the others who make DYK work on a day-to-day basis. We can have differences of opinion, but let's avoid the name-calling.Cbl62 (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I note that I wasn't the one who called Gato those things. I do stand by what I have written here, however, which relates to what I view as disturbing behavior on his part in this regard. This isn't a thread to discuss Gato's editing generally; if it were, I'm sure there would be many to weigh in with plaudits as well as criticisms. But his actions in regard to this thread would be more than mildly disturbing if they were those of a regular editor. That he is a sysop leads to him having even greater responsibilities to model appropriate behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'll spare us all the drama of a witiquette noticeboard entry. And simply mention to Gato that (especially as a seasoned sysop) he might have considered whether the appropriate thing for him to do upon opening up the above discussion might--perhaps--have been to notify those he was accusing.--Epeefleche (talk)

• Well, Gatoclass "forgot" to mention that Sol Hachuel was promoted by a different user too, that at least one of my DYK nomination supported by Broccoli was promoted by a different user before Broccoli promoted it.

Sure Sol Hachuel has "numerous problems" :) As a matter of fact it has 7,700 problems in Gatoclass opinion. Why? Because the article is about 17-years old Jewish girl, who was beheaded by Arabs in Morocco in 1834. I could not believe, when Gatoclass blamed me in being "overtly sympathetic to the subject".In my other DYK nomination he wrote: "Could there be any more demonization of Muslims crammed into this article? ". I urge you to read the Maimonides Synagogue about 800+ years synagogue as it was, when the comment was added, and see for themselves, if it has anything to do with the fact.

The article Gatoclass is not happy now is about an Arab king, who allegedly converted to Judaism around 400 CE. Today Gatoclass threatened me with ban on DYK nominations.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And all of that after he unilaterally completely removed a hook fro the Queue and deleted it all without ever bothering to notify me. Surprise, surprise, this article was also concerning Jews and Arabs Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948). BTW it was promoted not by Broccoli , but by an absolutely different editor.

I believe that Gatoclass proved more than once that he has a strong negative bias towards Jews and Israel. I believe he should be topic banned on commenting/declining/promoting any DYK nominations on those subjects.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. If you are going to raise a charge of anti-Semitism, you best have strong evidence to support it. What evidence have you of Gato's supposed "strong negative bias towards Jews"? The diffs noted above surely don't support the accusation. Cbl62 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not say antisemitism. Of course I am sorry, if it sounded that way. It is not what I meant. English is not my first language, and sometimes I cannot express myself properly. What I tried to say is that I believe that any article in which interaction between Arabs and Jews are described positively towards Jews and/or not so positive towards Arabs meets a strong resistance from Gatoclass on DYK nominations. As long as I am talking about my English I'd like to mention that 90+% of my articles that were nominated for DYK were copy-edited and cleaned up by at least one, in most of the cases, few editors. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true that you did not say "anti-Semitism." You said that Gato has proved that he has "a strong negative bias towards Jews." That is essentially the dictionary definition of anti-Semitism ("discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews"). My point is simply this. Topics involving the Arabs and Jews are highly charged. I have spent some time this afternoon reviewing Gato's comments, and those comments appear to be driven by a desire to eliminate bias in EITHER direction. When you accuse someone of being "shameful," "a disgrace," "pathetic," and anti-Semitic, it tends to end the dialogue. Please keep the discussion civil. Cbl62 (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have never used neither of the words you are accusing me of using. Please bring the differences, in which I called him "shameful," "a disgrace," "pathetic,", and if you cannot bring those differences of me using those words please strike out your comment. I will also appreciate, if you are to share with me your findings of Gato "desire to eliminate bias in EITHER direction" by providing few differences please like I did to prove my point.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the error. It was your collaborator Broccoli who called Gato "shameful," "a disgrace," and "pathetic." Your comments were focused on Gato's purported "anti-Semitism." Cbl62 (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I explained to you what I meant under "bias toward Jews", yet I'm still waiting for you to provide some differences of Gato "desire to eliminate bias in EITHER direction". For example I could provide some differences which prove my "desire to eliminate bias in EITHER direction" Here's for example my latest article The Holocaust's Arab Heroes, and I could provide other differences that prove my point by request. I am still to see something like that by Gato. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Without expressing any opinion about the merits of this particular case, I think that DYK reviewers should not review a nominated hook if they have any connection with the submitter. The more they are distanced from the nominator, the better. So if you come to the DYK suggestions page to review hooks, look for editors you don't (or hardly) know, and give a wide berth to hooks by people you know (or have interacted with) closely. There are lots of hooks, and lots of potential reviewers, so to eliminate unfairness or even the perception of unfairness, let other people review hooks by people you know well. Crum375 (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is a good point, Crum375. While I have no connection to Broccoli at all, Gatoclass is involved with me, and involved with me a lot, as I explained below. IMO he should stop reviewing my DYK nominations once and for all.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both. I would think that in addition to Gato and Rselve, there are lots of other potential reviewers. Let's all agree on that, and close this thread, before it lives on past its useful life.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I have absolutely no problems with Rselve reviewing my DYK. I actually appreciate, when they do. As a matter of fact just few days ago I asked Rselve to help me with my English in the very same "problematic" Sol Hachuel. They looked at the article, done some copy edits, and did not find any problems.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

One more point. I actually filed AE about Gatoclass behavior. I was topic-banned for I/P conflict articles and Gatoclass was advised. Gatoclass was not happy about the advise he got and bugged the closing admin a lot about that. When I was topic banned I started to write articles about events that had nothing to do with I/P conflict, but Gatoclass has never let go on me.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Gato, this goes way beyong chance level. I'd support a ban/injunction with Broccoli and Mbz1. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean you support banning me from DYK nominations, and do you also see that Gato declining some certain DYK "goes way beyong chance level" too? Just wonder. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean you can both nom and approve DYKs but not each others. At this point, I agree with those who say there is not yet the evidence presented to make the claims stated against Gato. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to my claims of Gato's failure to AGF, failure to advise others of this discussion when he should properly do so, failure to live up to the strictures of wp:admin, etc? I think they are readily apparent, of the res ipsa loquitur variety. As to the claims of others above, I agree in that I don't know that fulsome evidence has been presented. Nor would I suggest that this is at all the correct forum for such an exercise. If it were felt that disruption were at such a level as to require a focus on that, I would think that this would not be the first stop in dispute resolution; AN/I or RFC or mediation some other stop (certainly not arbitration, at this point) would be better suited fora. Hopefully, a separation will improve the immediate situation.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rlseve. I was wondering if you were around. It strikes me that perhaps accusations of tag-teaming efforts could easily go both ways, and a review of recent behavior might be illustrative of deeper problems. But that's not the purpose of this thread. I'm not suggesting a ban on Gato per se, but think he should disengage from this editor under the circumstances, and at minimum take the actions a good faith sysop takes when he has engaged in the above behavior. It does the project little good when sysops ignore each others' mis-steps, and beat on the other editors. Just the opposite, perhaps. Let's all clean up our acts and have some fairness and fair-dealing in this neck of the woods.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the obvious heat btwn Gato and these users, it may be good if they avoid each other for a bit. let the dust settle so to speak. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Rlevse. As well as Crum 375 above.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Me too. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for not being as familiar as some here with the prior interactions between Gato and Mbz1, but I just now clicked through to the diff supplied above. It contains the following advice from sysop Sandstein to Gato, almost exactly three months ago: "Gatoclass, I strongly recommend that you recuse yourself from taking any administrator action or administrative action (e.g., deleting DYK hooks) with respect to editors you are in content-related disagreements with, as with Mbz1 here. (I've not evaluated whether you should have recused yourself at the time of the incidents under discussion, but you should now.)." That sounds along the lines of what some of appear to be concluding now as well. While I see, again from the above diff, that Gato was antagonistic towards that advice, I wonder whether had he followed it (and Sandstein's explanation as to how it was behavior required under wp:admin) we might not be wasting time here on this thread, and instead improving the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No comment about the other stuff, but as for the suggestion of taking this to ANI: it seems like this is a DYK-internal issue, and if someone posted at ANI the people there would just say "you guys deal with this over at DYK". It's not something that requires administrator intervention. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The items properly brought on this page do not belong at AN/I. The other "claims", if supported by diffs, have zero to do with DYK. Cf. the admonition to Gato above -- that was given to him at AN/I. They are -- if pursued -- therefore appropriately dealt with if necessary by AN/I, RFC, meditation, and ... if all else fails ... arbitration. As with all other alleged sysop misconduct. See, e.g., wp:admin which says in part: "If a user thinks an administrator has acted improperly against him/her or another editor, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action (see Dispute resolution process below). For more possibilities, see Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents and Requests for comment: Use of administrator privileges." WP:Admin goes on to discuss arbitration as the last resort.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Complaining about injustice seems to be nothing more than a distraction here; the moment Broccoli and Mbz were accused of anything, they immediately defended themselves with "there are evil admins out to get us". No one has addressed the issue that was originally brought up: the issue of one user rubber-stamping another's DYK nominations. Who cares if Gato and Mbz "like" each other or not, the original issue is a real issue that should be dealt with. Complaints about who is mean or nice to whom can be taken care of elsewhere. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur. The original message pointed to a specific and valid reviewing issue, whereas the thread turned into (another direction) that Gato and Mbz don't like each other and thus should both be reprimanded. One more thing bugs me here: in this story, Gato acts not as an admin, but as a regular DYK editor. We may well disagree with his view on a specific article, but raising a red flag that he abuses admin privileges and violates arbcom resolutions is, IMO, simply out of line. Back to the original point, without any prejudice to Mbz1 and Broccoli (except for some unacceptable incivility above), I support the motion that they avoid approving each others nominations. Materialscientist (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot say I dislike Gato. I can say, and can prove it with many differences that Gato is biased towards some DYK nominations. That's why I am asking the community to atop the proposal I stated below. IMO, if this proposal is to pass it will save lots of time of everybody involved. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if there is a disagreement here. The immediate issues belong here. And suggestions have been made as to how to address those issues. Those suggestions, as it turns out, align smartly with a suggestion made to Gato at AN/I three months ago, in regard to his interactions with Mbz. That confirms, to me, the wisdom of such suggestion. And the fact that Gato's behavior is discussed in this thread is consistent with how we address complaints across wikipedia. Both editors' relevant activities are subject to examination. Indeed, that is how both Mbz and Gato received corrective direction at the AN/I three months ago.

As to the further suggestions of possible wp:admin violations that have been articulated (which, of course, are simply suggestions at this point and would have to be demonstrated), those issues would be outside the scope of this page.

As Material correctly points out, I don't think the issue that has been touched upon in the wp:admin discussion bears at all on misuse of admin tools. However, Gato is obligated under wp:admin to "to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies.... Administrators should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors...." This obligation applies to Gato whether he is editing as an admin or as an editor.

My response above was simply to clarify (in light of the comment to the contrary above) that if an editor were to pursue the aforementioned issues (which is not clear, and which I am certainly not suggesting), then some combination of AN/I, RFC, and mediation (and, if necessary as a last resort, arb) would be the appropriate direction to take the issues. As is stated clearly in wp:admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

1. Mbz1 and Broccoli do not comment on each other DYK nominations.
2. Mbz1 and Gato do not comment on each other DYK nominations.
3. Gato never removes promoted Mbz1 nomination from a Queue as he's done once, and which was discussed here

• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Do not support - you might rethink you proposal, but there is no ground for banning from constructive comments, and for "never removing your nominations" from the queues. Materialscientist (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose These are separate issues and can be dealt with separately. Trying to get restrictions put on your opponent by lumping all these things into one proposal is not really appropriate, and giving yourself special immunities ("Gato never removes promoted Mbz1 nomination...") isn't fair. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all the proposal concerns only me, Gato and Broccoli. There are many other DYK reviewers, who could make "constructive" comment on my nominations. Second of all sure there is "ground" if for nothing else then at least for stopping removing my nominations from the Queues by gato: Here's the ground : "Gatoclass, I strongly recommend that you recuse yourself from taking any administrator action or administrative action (e.g., deleting DYK hooks) with respect to editors you are in content-related disagreements with, as with Mbz1 here. (I've not evaluated whether you should have recused yourself at the time of the incidents under discussion, but you should now. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stay focused on current problems and avoid poking a dead horse. That case (Gato's removal from the queue) was settled and did not recur. I meant constructive comments by Gato; other editors are not a subject of this thread. Materialscientist (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not a "dead horse". It is AE result that should be enforced, and you should now that. I do not find Gato's comments on my DYK nominations to be constructive at all, and I could prove it on example of my current nomination, and the other DYK Gato promoted today, but I believe nobody here is interested in my proves.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. I think this needs some work. First of all, I would think #1 should relate to promoting one anothers' noms. That is the gravamen of the complaint. As to #2, I would suggest that something better capturing the comments of the various editors in this thread, and at the related AN/I, would be in order, and that some timeframe (which accords with a related comment made by Material) might be more appropriate (after which we would hope the issue would no longer exist -- if it were to continue, it could be re-explored). Whatever is done with number 3 should be folded into #2, reflecting the comments of Sandstein below and the concurring editors in this thread.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have a time, maybe you could re-write it then?--Mbz1 (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Rjanag, Before we are making such a noise over the non random pattern of support of one user in Mbz1 DYKs, I think we should refer to many many times when Mbz1 nominations were hunted by users who were in deep conflict with her outside the scope of DYK nominations. She was hunted to wikimedia, where she was among the few most fruitful contributors (She's a top photographer), by mostly POV users who were edit warring with her(in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area). She complaint and provioded evidences many times. As for GatoClass, if I'm not wrong, he's not a neutral candidate to give objective evaluation of Mbz1's DYKs and if I'm correct it can be also proved with diffs. It's better both of these users will stay away from each other on the DYKs page. --Gilisa (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This thread was begun in relation to Mbz's attempt to avoid scrutiny of her articles by having a buddy verify them - often totally against consensus. Now she is employing this very thread to propose a new means of reducing scrutiny of her serially problematic articles. To support any such proposal would be simply rewarding bad behaviour.

I can see it was an error to begin this thread just before I logged off last night as it has allowed certain parties to mount an extended attack on me without having the opportunity to defend myself. For the record, I refute the claim that I have somehow victimized Mbz - on the contrary, I have worked hard on several of her articles to try and get them up to DYK standard so they could be promoted. What I found so galling last night, and the reason I started this thread, is that having spent a couple of hours last night trying to help her fix her latest problematic submission, I came back to T:TDYK to find that once again Broccoli has attempted to circumvent the entire process by prematurely verifying Mbz's submission.

At this point I feel I have already given Mbz's articles far more attention than they deserve. Any other editor who submits problematic articles normally does not get the benefit of having the reviewer try to resolve the issues - such articles are simply failed. And now somehow the fact that I have gone out of my way to assist Mbz in DYK compliance is being spun as victimization? That is absurd. Gatoclass (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My article had no any serious issues to begin with , now it has no issues at all except your 3 objections on my DYK nomination. On the other hand you had no problem in promoting this Hank Erickson with the references missing for the entire section.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No serious issues? The entire article, and hook, were centred around the claim that King Abu Kariba was an early Arab convert to Judaism.[6] It took me about two minutes to find this source, which states that Some of the Kings, such as Abu Kariba, are supposed to have been converted to Judaism, but the accounts are late and legendary and probably based on no more than the fact that they caused several Jewish monotheistic inscriptions to be erected in their kingdom. The whole premise of your article was based around an alleged fact that has been dismissed as a legend. I would hardly describe that as a minor issue. And that was only one of the article's problems, the others being that you sourced much of it to another Wikipedia article and that you hadn't figured out some fundamental details about the date of the kingdom and the king's relatives. Gatoclass (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Gato, it is not me, who did not figure out the dates. It is the sources (BTW all reliable ones) that had different dates, and you know that! The source you mention is included now, and has been for the last 14 hours or so, yet 3 your objections are still in my DYK nomination--Mbz1 (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well if there is confusion in the sources that cannot be resolved, that point should have been made in the article, but you didn't do that, you just ignored the contradiction. And in any case, I very much doubt that an issue such as whether a king ruled in 400 or 500CE could not be resolved with a little bit of research. Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Assume good faith! I did not see a single source you are talking about. You cannot request that I have checked everything available on the NET. I used quite a few sources that all repeated the same thing. You found one more. It is included now. About the dates. No research will provide the "right" dates because some sources provide no dates at all, other provide different dates. I just searched for the words "lived about" and found many articles that are in biography portal :[7] Sometimes it is all, but impossible to come up with the right dates for the events that happen such a long time ago.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support item 1; Oppose items 2 and 3. I agree that Mbz and Broccoli should not approve each other's DYK submissions. However, I oppose any actions being against Gato, for the reasons noted above. Cbl62 (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What reasons given above? I asked you few times to present the differences of "Gato's comments appearing to be driven by a desire to eliminate bias in EITHER direction." Where are those comments? I'd like to see them please because, if you are saying something like that you should have had something in mind I guess. Please share it with me!--Mbz1 (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, and based on my reading Gato's comments on the articles/talk pages that you referenced, I see nothing that would support the notion that there is a vendetta against you or prejudice of the type you suggested. To the contrary, the comments appear to be appropriate and constructive. There is, IMO, no basis to support any action against or restriction on Gato. Cbl62 (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, where is his "a desire to eliminate bias in EITHER direction"? I am more than willing to admit that I was wrong, I am more than willing to ask for an apology, but before I do I would like to see the prove of your words pleas. Please provide me with any difference, in which Gato scrutinizes any DYK nomination of an article that is sympathetic to Arabs/Muslims and critical to Israel at least 50% as he scrutinizes the articles that are other way around (not only mine BTW). On the other hand I could provide tons of differences to prove my point, but now I'd like to see a single one, that proves your point. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand the burden of proof. You proposed a restriction on Gato, and it is accordingly your burden to show why the restriction is needed. You have not done so IMO. It is not the burden of the accused, or of those opposing the restriction, to comb through every diff to prove good faith or innocence. Cbl62 (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I understood you quite well "Either way" means either way. I hope you'd agree that quite a few DYK could be scrutinized, if one wishes to do so, Here's my new proposal: I could provide by request quite a few differences that show how Gato scrutinizes the DYK of the articles that are critical to Islam/Muslims/Arabs and or sympathetic towards Israel (not only my articles BTW). If somebody could provide me with any difference, in which Gato scrutinizes any DYK nomination of an article that is sympathetic to Islam/Muslims/Arabs and/or critical towards Israel at least 50% as much as he scrutinized few of mine (and not only mine) nominations, I will not only apologize publicly in any place of Gato's choice, but I should be blocked for at least a month. How is that?--Mbz1 (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not a "proposal", that's a challenge. Bargaining and challenging, or otherwise being confrontational, are not going to solve anything. If you're starting to get upset, I suggest you take a short break and let others have their say. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not upset at all, and I am not trying to be confrontational. If I said "I do not want to hear anything, I am right, and that's it" then yes, it would have been "confrontational", but I'm simply trying to prove my point or to be proven to be wrong, and I know no other way of doing that except presenting the differences. There's nothing wrong with that--Mbz1 (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think much more needs to be said about this. I think I have made my point about the collaboration between Mbz and Broccoli. There appears to be a consensus that Broccoli should from this point refrain from verifying articles submitted by Mbz, a consensus I would endorse. Though I am upset by Broccoli's behaviour, that restriction would probably be sufficient at this stage.

I don't know what is to be done about Mbz's submissions because they are frequently failing to come up to an appropriate DYK standard and I personally am getting tired of trying to fix them. If this thread results in more scrutiny of her submissions by other reviewers, that would at least be a step in the right direction. Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable!!!!And who is to "scrutinize" my nominations? You, gatoclass? And you know what, I do not mind my nominations to be scrutinized more than others do, as long as you, gato, stay out of that. Broccoli done nothing wrong, you have, Broccoli was not advised about their behavior on DYK, you have. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I suggest the following: 1. It appears that Broccoli's only edits at DYK were approvals of articles by Mbz1. 2. There is not necessarily any evidence of off-wiki collaboration or explicit collusion between Broccoli and Mbz1. 3. Some of Broccoli's DYK approvals ignored problems that had been raised by other editors. SUGGESTION 1: Broccoli is welcome to nominate articles for DYK and to comment on any nominated articles, but should refrain from any approval or rejection until more familiar with DYK expectations and standards.

4. Mbz1 regularly makes nominations at DYK. 5. A portion of Mbz1's DYK nominations have significant problems preventing their immediate approval. 6. As an experienced editor and DYK contributor Mbz1 is expected to be familiar both with DYK standards and with Wikipedia standards. 7. There is no obligation on a DYK reviewer to fix problems they identify in articles. SUGGESTION 2: Mbz1 is encouraged to have an experienced DYK reviewer evaluate articles prior to submitting DYK nominations. Special care should be taken to consider and correct possible POV issues prior to submission at DYK.

8. Gatoclass is a frequent reviewer at DYK. 9. Part of the job of reviewing DYK suggestions is to carefully evaluate the article and hook for any problems, including insufficient or unreliable sourcing and POV. 10. Some topics are more sensitive to POV and sourcing concerns than others. In particular, topics relating to the Arab-Israeli conflicts, religious conflicts, etc. are very sensitive and require heightened scrutiny. 11. When identifying concerns, Gatoclass has tended to be very specific, making lengthy explanatory comments on article talk pages. 12. Gatoclass has frequently assisted in improving problematic DYK nominations, something that is not a required part of the DYK review process. 13. Gatoclass previously deleted a hook by Mbz1, and subsequently acknowledged that the deletion was an error. SUGGESTION 3: I see no evidence that Gatoclass has acted in bad faith or otherwise against any guideline or policy. Gatoclass already issued an apologyacknowledged the error for the previous out-of-process hook deletion. cmadler (talk)

Please give some examples of "the portion of mine DYK nominations that have significant problems preventing their immediate approval

Please give me some examples of any of my DYK nomination objected by any other editor but Gato. Yes there were questions, but not a single objection, except Gato's one. Only one of my other article might have been objected (i am not sure, but maybe) by somebody else, after Gato engaged me in a long debate, and deleted the hook. (highlighted by me)

I've missed on Gato's apology for the deleted hook, or maybe I saw it, but forgot, if you please could link me to it. Besides IMO if an apology were issued, it would have meant that Gato admitted wrong doing, and restored the hook, but he never did. So what was that alleged "apology" about?

You see no evidence that Gatoclass has acted in bad faith or otherwise against any guideline or policy? It is just the words. Please present me your evinces on the specific examples for both pro-Israel and pro-Arab nominations (not only mine) I could present many evidences, please present at least two going either way.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• As to the portion of your DYK nominations that have significant problems, one need look no farther than the immediate triggers of this discussion. As to examples of your DYK nominations objected to by other editors, that is irrelevant (and hence I'm not going to waste my time digging). Just because Gatoclass might be the first to note a problem (and there is no need then for other editors to repeat the statement) doesn't make the problem any less. The only question is whether the objections were/are valid, and they appear to me to be so. I have stricken the term apology; Gatoclass did acknowledge making an error in the diff you linked near the top of this discussion. ("I will concede in retrospect, that in spite of my sense that the article was clearly going to fail, it probably would have been better to return it to the Suggestions page, if only for the sake of transparency.") As to Gatoclass's actions, the burden is on the accuser (you) to show evidence of bad faith, not on Gatoclass or anyone else to show a lack of bad faith (impossible to prove the negative). I do not see that you have not shown such evidence here. cmadler (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not say that one nomination you pointed out could be considered "the portion" of my nominations, but I'm asking you please come to the article talk page(because this place is not the right place to discuss it), and explain to me one by one what issues the nomination had before, and what it has now that prevents it from being promoted.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to know more about my experience in wiki work, I suggest that he will look up here. Broccoli (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

All well and good except some (many?) of us do not read Hebrew and so can not evaluate that experience, and that participation at Hebrew Wikipedia shows us nothing of your familiarity with our DYK processes. cmadler (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm one of the few who have more than 100,000 edits, and AAMOF I did write a few DYK's in he.wiki. So, I know that the process is a little bit different, but I believe I can contribute here. However, the rude accusations raised against me based on nothing are very intimidating and makes me wonder if I would like to contribute here at all. Broccoli (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Since proposals are still being made, I guess since I started this discussion I should come up with some of my own, so here they are:

• 1/ I propose that Broccoli be banned from approving hooks/articles authored or submitted by Mbz. Should Broccoli violate this ban, he will be banned from approving any hooks at DYK. Broccoli may still nominate hooks by Mbz, or comment upon them, but he may not approve them. Reviewers and updaters are meanwhile advised to treat any other approvals by Broccoli with caution.

• 2/ Mbz is advised to try and find a mentor to assist her to prepare articles for DYK. The mentor should not be a DYK regular but be someone with good English language skills and a good grasp of policy. In the meantime, reviewers are advised to treat submissions by Mbz with caution, in particular to carefully fact check her articles and to be on the lookout for issues involving NPOV and SOAPBOX. Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Fine with me. cmadler (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Practically almost all (90+%) of my DYK submissions have been co-authored by at least one, and sometimes two/three other (different) editors. So I am not sure what other mentor I need unless you, Gato, would like to become my mentor. Oh yes you cannot, you are DYK regular :) BTW what is wrong with a mentor being DYK regular? No, seriously, Gato, please do adopt me, and be my mentor. I mean it! Your English is great, and no matter what I do have a lot to learn from you. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said above I do not mind my nominations are taken with special "cautions" as long as you Gato will not be the one, who review them. After all we have dozens editors, who review DYK, have trust in their abilities! Please, gato...--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to be the one to review your nominations, I was thinking perhaps of some user with more sympathy for the subject matter you choose to write about, but with a firmer grasp of policy. I'm not insisting you find such a helper, I just think it would be a good idea, it would certainly save the kind of unpleasantness that tends to occur when an article with issues hits the Suggestions page, don't you think? But ultimately it's your decision, I just suggested that it would be advisable to get some assistance, that's all. Gatoclass (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not asking you to review my nominations. I am asking you to be my mentor, which means that, when I am to write an article, I will ask you to help me with my English and any other problems you find in my article, and only after that I will nominate the article for DYK, and include you as my co-author. I was doing the same thing with quite a few different editors, who were kind enough to help me out. IMO if you'd agree to be my mentor, it will be a fun thing to do. Please note that from all my DYK there are probably not more than 25% that are about certain subjects. My subjects are as different from each other as a day is different from a night. Besides the other "helpers" would not work out. Let's for example take Sol Hachuel that you did not like. Before it appeared at the main page it has been edited by: user:IronDuke , user:Ceranthor;user:Rlevse ; user:Epeefleche ; user:NSH001 just to name a few editors. All of them made several edits, but you still feel sorry you missed on this nomination, and did not decline it. The same applies to Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948). It practically was fully re-written by user:George and other editors, but you still did not let it go. I hope you do see now that no other "helper" and no other "mentor", but you is going to solve the issues between you and me.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am too busy with other things to act as somebody's mentor. If you want me to check your articles for DYK compliance before submitting them to T:TDYK, I guess we could give that a try, but I can really only make general recommendations, I don't have time to be regularly making substantial edits to someone else's articles. Gatoclass (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Now I am really desperate, by your refusal to become my mentor. I showed you on the example with Sol Hachuel how many editors with different point of views edited the article, and you still see big problems with it. 90+% of my articles have been extensively edited by such experienced editors as User:Invertzoo, User:GiacomoReturned, user:Truthkeeper88 ; user:Tobyc75 and others, who were included as my co-authors in my DYK nominations, and in spite of that you still see many of my nominations as problematic. I do not know what to do anymore, except maybe you voluntarily stop reviewing my DYK altogether for 6 months just to give it a try, and to see, if Wikipedia survives me and my DYK nominations :) On my side I promise that I will not submit any DYK that was not reviewed/edited by at least one other editor. Agree?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And now I did add you as an author to my current nomination. You have done quite a work for it, and found a new important source. If somebody else did it, I would have added them as my co-author, as I have done many times in the past, and of course you should not be treated any differently than others users, who were helping me out, are.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am astonished to discover that there is censorship in en.wiki. I will of course ignore it. The basic and fundamental idea of this website is that everyone can edit in GF and may contribute to improving Wikipedia. Me included. Broccoli (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know how they do things on the Hebrew Wikipedia, but on this one you don't get to thumb your nose at consensus. If the consensus is that you should not be permitted to approve Mbz's hooks, then one way or another you will be obliged to comply. But you are certainly not helping your cause by making such defiant statements. Gatoclass (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, no one has the authority to censor an edit which does not contradict this site policies. What I said was not a statement. It is what's going to happen, regardless if you like it or not. Now please go and do something constructive rather than harassing me and spread slanders about editors (me) that you know nothing about them. Broccoli (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I trust that other users are taking note of Broccoli's attitude that he is free to do whatever he pleases on this project regardless of consensus. Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that there is a consensus that censorship is legal in en.wiki. Broccoli (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I take note that Gato was the only editor who expressed a negative view about the hook that was the focus of this thread. In terms of failing to respect consensus (a violation of wp:admin), and having an imperious view instead of the value of one's own point of view, that may perhaps not reflect as well on Gato as we would hope.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a somewhat silly arguement. I'm not sure which of the two hooks mentioned at the top of this thread you're referring to, but both of them certainly appear to me to have significant POV and sourcing issues. If one editor points out a problem with a hook or article, there is really no need for five other editors to chime in saying "agree" unless the basis for the criticism (e.g., DYK rule interpretation) is being questioned. So the fact that Gatoclass was the only editor who expressed a concern about a particular hook or hooks means nothing except that Gatoclass was the first editor to review the hook(s) and observe said problems. cmadler (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I'm against general ban against Broccoli in regard to approval of Mbz1 nominations. I think it have to be case sensitive. This is the first time this issue is raised against him and therefore what I suggest is that from now on he will more carefully review DYK nominations. There is no need in further action for now. Broccoli was cautioned and at the moment it's enough. --Gilisa (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. This is reminiscent of the discussion that followed the last AN/I brought against Gato. At the AN/I close, Gato was given strong advice by an uninvolved sysop (not just a "friend of Gato", who bestows DYK awards upon him). That advice was to disengage from the user who had brought the AN/I against Gato (who happens, coincidentally, to be the same user as the one at issue here). Gato, in his response, turned Nelson's eye to the strong advice, and seemed quite unable to accept it. Now, not surprisingly perhaps, three months later, we have Gato before the community again. In an effort to bring punitive action against the very editor who had brought him to AN/I! And whom he had been advised to avoid, by the closing sysop! Applying the standard Gato uses above in his own examination of circumstantial evidence, it would be understandable if one might wonder to what extent desire for retribution might drive an editor to ignore Sandstein's advice, entangle heavily with Mbz, and seek to disapprove Mbz's submissions and start this string in an effort to neuter him (while failing to notify Mbz of the discussion). This is far from the behavior required of Gato by wp:admin.

I find it a bit peculiar that Gato is so quick to, on the basis of non-specific interpretive circumstantial evidence which arguably does little to support his view, make the assertions he made at the beginning of his claim. But at the same time, he (and perhaps some others) are blind and mute to the circumstantial evidence that points to retribution being his motive.

Entangled in the same sort of problem. Receiving the same advice. Again failing to heed it. This is getting old and patience is wearing thin with such behavior. I would suggest that Gato take the advice that he disentangle from the other editors. Ultimately, I predict, it will be to his benefit. As continued failure by Gato to listen to the advice to him both in the close at AN/I and above would I expect simply set the stage for further complaints about his behavior. That's not a result we want, and nor would I hope is it one Gato would want. Let's not turn this into a battleground.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

it would be understandable if one might wonder to what extent desire for retribution might drive an editor to ignore Sandstein's advice, entangle heavily with Mbz, and seek to disapprove Mbz's submissions

Except that far from "seeking to disapprove Mbz's submissions", Mbz just promoted me to co-authorship of the article in question thanks to my contributions to it. Perhaps next time you should try checking your facts before launching on another baseless diatribe against me. Gatoclass (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I did promote you for the work you have done, as I would have done for any other editor in such situation. I disagree with most of the points you have made about the article, but you have done lots of work on it, and deserve to be my co-author. As I mentioned many times above 90+% of my articles do have at least one co-author.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Retribution. @Gato: I did check the facts. They aren't baseless -- your statement is an untruth. These are the facts: 1. Mbz reported you at AN/I three months ago. 2. You were advised by the AN/I closer to stay away from him. 3. You protested against that sysop's direction to you. Strongly. 4. You are the only editor seeking to disapprove the hook in question, a mere three months later. Rather than being part of consensus, you are against consensus. 5. You seek to in this thread neuter the editor who three months ago complained against you at AN/I, leading to the above admonition to you. 6. You trot out patent "my view is" circumstantial evidence above as though it is "truth". 7. Three months after Sandstein cautioned you as to your wp:admin obligations, and to disengage from Mbz, you are again before the community. 8. You fail, in opening this thread against the editor who reported you to AN/I, to even take the basic civility step of notifying the editor you are attacking. WP:admin foists special obligations on you to follow civility, not to engage in the opposite behavior. 9. You may well confuse and mislead others by calling this fact of circumstances, when presented, "baseless".--Epeefleche (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You are the only editor seeking to disapprove the hook in question

Uh, no, I am not "seeking to disapprove the hook in question", as my work on the article demonstrates, I have gone out of my way to see that the article passes DYK. So again, your claim is without substance. But since we currently seem to be engaged in speculation about the real motivations of this or that user, perhaps it would have been appropriate for you to mention that I recently opposed an article you submitted that was ultimately rejected. Gatoclass (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the interest of full disclosure. Since you bring it up. At the risk of allowing you to divert this discussion from the focus on the interactions between and behavior of you and the editor as to whom you are complaining.

You did in fact oppose an article I brought to AfD. First, you claimed there was a "clear BLP violation", as you sought to delete the underlying article in an AfD. Not one editor agreed with your view of BLP. Not one, even though you thought it "clear". And the AfD closed "Keep". Completely unsuccessful in your effort, you then attacked the hook at DYK. Admitting that the hook itself was perfectly fine. But complaining about one sentence that was not in the hook. But in the underlying article. Which was the same thing you had complained about in the AfD, and which received zero agreement there by other editors. There was not consensus support for your position. You then either attacked supporters or reverted "approval" of the DYK, until the moment you received support from another "closing" editor ... who had in the past given you a DYK award. You lacked consensus support for your position. The closing editor was completely confused. He thought you were objecting to the hook -- which of course you were not. And he himself had among his few DYKs promoted a hook re an article with far more "BLP-like" issues (accusations of vaginal penetration of a 23-month-old). So, yes, I do have familiarity with your recent questionable and anti-consensus behavior. While it accords with your heavy-handed treatment here, that's not the focus here.

Since you bring it up, that entire matter did serve to demonstrate what can happen if a wayward editor or two, acting against consensus, seek to force their own non-consensus POV on others, and are aggressive enough to do it against consensus. This system works if editors and sysops respect the rules. It does not work if editors or sysops act against consensus, pushing through personal POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, just to set the record straight - I was never advised to "disengage" from Mbz1 as you claim. Sandstein's recommendation was simply that I refrain from using my admin tools in relation to users (in general) with whom I am in a dispute - an impeccable piece of advice, certainly, but not one that applies in this case (or indeed, the previous one, but that's another story). So once again you are mistaken. Gatoclass (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Gato -- I assume good faith. Thus, even though it has been referred to more than once, and you argued about it at great length, I assume that you inadvertently mis-read the advice to you. The disengagement that sysop Sandstein strongly suggested you engage in at the AN/I against you three months ago was certainly not, as you incorrectly state, limited to your not using your admin tools. That was part of it. But only part. Here is what he wrote: "Gatoclass, I strongly recommend that you recuse yourself from taking any administrator action or administrative action (e.g., deleting DYK hooks) with respect to editors you are in content-related disagreements with, as with Mbz1 here. (I've not evaluated whether you should have recused yourself at the time of the incidents under discussion, but you should now.)" Note the phrase administrative actions, such as deleting DYK hooks. The advice clearly applies as well to non-admin-tools administrative action.

When you went to Sandstein's talk page to clarify his strong recommendation to you, he wrote: "What I recommended is that you do not act in an administrative capacity, e.g. by removing hooks from the queue, in cases where you are involved in a conflict (especially a content disagreement) with the editor who wrote the hook. Instead, you should propose that another administrator do this, in keeping with WP:ADMIN." You, of course, curiously wrote Sandstein you would "decline [his] recommendation". He responded that "You are of course free to disregard my recommendation, but if you do so in a topic area covered by arbitration sanctions I can readily imagine this resulting in sanctions against you."

For the good of the community, so we don't have to see you here again and at AN/I again, I would add my voice to those who have suggested that you disengage from Mbz. It smells horribly of retribution when you take these actions a mere three months after you were brought before AN/I by the same editor. Give us all a break. Disengage. Drop the stick. Your obligation is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Which this is rife with. You should not pursue the editor who reported you to AN/I, three months later, by opening this thread and accusing him based on purely circumstantial evidence, which is at odds with the parties' statements and therefore an AGF violation (not that you first, as you should have done, raised the issue with the parties), by ignoring strictures of AGF and civility that you are bound to follow (and in fact to model), and failing to even notify him of your effort to punish him. In the closing sysop's strong recommendation to you at the above AN/I, and in his follow-up conversation with you as to which you seemed unimpressed, he referred you to your wp:admin obligations. I add my voice to his on this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh nonsense. This is just blather. This episode does not directly concern you at all, but you've added more reams of text to this thread than anyone else, and yet you accuse me of trying to seek revenge. I think any disinterested party reading through this thread would come to the conclusion that the only person motivated by "revenge" at this time would appear to be yourself. In any case, it's time to take your own advice and put down the stick. I'm sorry that you are disappointed your article was rejected, and I concede it was a difficult case, but I have to do what I think is right. I would also remind you that the decision is never ultimately up to any one user, but is decided by consensus, and consensus was that both the article and hook had problems. Gatoclass (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Elsewhere, you invited editors not directly involved to participate in discussions. Here, you seek to chill my right to participate in this discussion because "this episode does not directly concern you at all". That's odd.

I did not bring up your past instances of questionable behavior. You did. I simply responded to you, giving the context.

You, as a sysop, have certain special obligations. Above and beyond those of other editors.

When an editor is reported at AN/I, receives a strong recommendation from the AN/I closing sysop, tell the closer he is disinclined to follow the strong rec, and then in short order attacks the editor who reported him to AN/I by seeking to neuter him here -- without even notifying the editor of this conversation -- that might well be seen as violating wp:admin. In that a neutral third part might wonder whether you are doing your best to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

I don't think it right to let you derail this conversation from focus on the accused and the accuser in this thread. But so as not to let an untruth stand -- as you well know, there was certainly not consensus support for your position at the other hook deletion. Absolutely not. You simply (as here) tried to get your way in another forum. You did not receive consensus support (as you had received zero support at the AfD). You took the administrative action of reverting approval of the hook (even though it was in accord with consensus). And you then sat until an editor who had given you an award came by and, completely misunderstanding whether the hook was at issue, supported you -- despite a complete lack of consensus! But that isn't the issue here. If you wish to discuss it elsewhere, I'm happy to. But let's keep focus here on the behavior of you and Mbz.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Okay here's my summary, for which I'd like to use an example of Sol Hachuel.

1. The article was edited by user:IronDuke , user:Ceranthor;user:Rlevse ; user:Epeefleche ; user:NSH001 and others. Each of the mentioned editors made more than one edit to the article before it went to the main page.
2. The DYK was promoted by Broccoli.
3. The DYK was promoted by NSH001
4. The article was viewed 7,700 times on DYK date.
5. Gato expressed sorrow that he missed on the nomination, and it was let go on the article's talk page and here. He is talking about the article, which was extensively edited by at least 5 other editors, but me, that was promoted by at least one other editor, but Broccoli, that was viewed by 7,7000 people with only a single IP expressing their complain that BTW looked more as a rant. Any more questions?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to end discussion

Let's end this discussion. It's become an unproductive battlefield. There doesn't appear to be consensus for any sanctions/restrictions on Gato or Mbz. On the other hand, there was a strong sentiment that Broccoli should not "approve" Mbz's hooks. That point was supported by, at a minimum, Gato, Rlevese, Materialscientist, cmadler, and cbl62, though it was opposed by Broccoli and Gilisa. In the interest of ending the bloodshed, I suggest we declare no consensus on that point as well and move forward. If Broccoli chooses not to follow the "suggestion" made by several DYK regulars/admins, then the community can re-evaluate at that time. Hopefully, everyone will have cooled down by then. Cbl62 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your summary is not exactly right. You have missed one very important statements by Rlevese: "Given the obvious heat btwn Gato and these users, it may be good if they avoid each other for a bit. let the dust settle so to speak." I support your proposal to end the discussion, but I believe it will be better for the community, if Gato is to follow an advise by Rlevese, and of course I will follow it too. IMO it is necessary because still nobody explained to me how come that Gato's opinion about Sol Hachuel is soooo different from at least 5 independent editors. This step will safe community's time. And for the record I oppose any sanctions against Broccoli. Yes they promoted 9 of mine 40+ DYK nominations. At least 2 from those 9 were promoted by other editors as well. None of their promotions was ever objected. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No consensus for that or anything else. Let's move on. Cbl62 (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree there's no consensus for anything, and I agree to move on. I added my statement for the record, and for Gato to consider it.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'll second Cb162, as to the bottom line, if only to avoid further non-productive disruption. This thread has been a waste of everyones' time. If there is misbehavior in the future on the part of the complainant or the accused, this conversation can be linked to in whatever future discussion is had on such misbehavior. Whether that conversation takes place on this page, at AN/I, at RFC, at arbitration, or elsewhere. One caveat -- I think the word "approve" above should be understood to mean "promote"--certainly, I would be against any suggestion that this thread, with the discomfiting appearance of retribution by a sysop who failed to even notify the accused of this discussion, should lead to Broc not expressing a view at future DYKs. That would be a detriment to the project. I also suggest that if Gato chooses not to follow the "suggestion" made by several editors/admins, including the strong suggestion made to him in the close of the AN/I brought against him by Mbz, that he disengage from Mbz so as to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, then the community (or the closing admin or arb) can re-evaluate at that time, understanding that such advice was made to Gato. Now, by multiple editors and admins. Hopefully, everyone will have cooled down by then, and we will not see either editor in this regard either here, at AN/I, or elsewhere.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, this thread has been a waste of everybody's time, largely thanks to Epeefleche's repeated attempts to deflect debate into discussion of old disputes which happened to involve me. But in retrospect I think I am partly responsible by making the initial post just before logging off, which prevented me from nipping that trend in the bud. I apologize to the DYK regulars for the misjudgement, and will endeavour not to make the same mistake again.

Having said that, I also endorse Cbl's summary, and indeed said much the same thing quite a bit earlier, before the discussion unfortunately flared up again. Gatoclass (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Gato -- I would ask that you retract your personal attack, which is false. As you well know, you are the one who has repeatedly led us down red herring paths, away from focus on the complainant and the accused. I'm somewhat disappointed, btw, that you continue to fail to apologize for not AGFing and for not taking the civility step of notifying the accused, while you do take time to apologe (only to DYK regulars; certainly, that's not an example of a sysop modeling appropriate behavior -- as much as some would seek to create a clubby "we support each other against the regular editors" attitude, surely that is inimical to the responsibilities of a sysop) for the timing of your log-off (a non-issue, that nobody else has spoken to). I do appreciate, however, your today heeding the strong advice of sysop Sandstein at your AN/I as well as that of a number of editors above, when you considered removing Mbz's hook from the queue--there are other admins who can handle any real issue; I believe that that is the better course.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well as you have done little else but attack me for the last two days, I think you are being just a tad precious to expect a retraction from me merely for noting the phenomenon. But I won't continue, as I'm sure you will want to have the last word as usual. Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Queue6 - NPOV issue

The 3rd hook of Queue6 says "abortions were not allowed for partially born babies". The use of a term such as "partial-birth abortion" is controversial and is indicative of a specific point of view (and "partially born babies" seems even more so). See the article which I linked to for information about the controversy. Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view, especially on the main page. 75.5.1.244 (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a term acceptable to all sides? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to late term abortion for now, as a more neutral term. Feel free to improve. Crum375 (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I had to change it back. Chaim Sofer was literally writing about partially born babies - i.e., when the baby was partially born, part sticking out of the mother. He did not rule at all on late term abortions. This is not a "NPOV issue", nor is it "representative of specific point of view". It's best not to try to impose modern anachronistic political POV on older, unrelated issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case, we'd need a good source for it. AGF is normally used in DYK, but since this is clearly a controversial issue, it would have to be attributed to a high quality secondary source. Crum375 (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have neutralized it a bit for now. Any change must be supported by a high quality secondary source. Crum375 (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're using the term "neutralized" here, since there's no "neutrality" issue to deal with. Regarding "a high quality secondary source",

Interpreted in a similar manner the further provision of the Mishnah. . . "but once the major portion has emerged one may not touch it" [the fetus] implies that even the maiming of a partially born child or amputation of a limb is forbidden in order to save the mother. R. Chaim Sofer (Machaneh Chaim, Choshen Mishpat, no. 50) draws such an inference and indicates that the rationale motivating the decision is the fact that the physician "cannot guarantee with certainty" that the child will survive the surgical procedure. However, if non-interference will result in the loss of both mother and child, R. Sofer permits maiming of the child in an attempt to save the life of the mother. J. David Bleich, "Abortion in Halakhic Literature", Tradition, 1968, 10(2), p. 101.

It was also published, with mild copyedits, here you can't see the whole paper there, but you can see most of it. He uses the very phrase "partially born child" (more than once, actually). Any other objections? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, although it seems Brewcrewer got it a little wrong here. As I've adjusted the wording in the article, Sofer ruled that even if the birth is threatening the life of the mother, once the baby is partially born (as opposed to still in the womb), you can't even injure it to save the mother. However, if both mother and baby are doomed, and injuring/cutting up the baby could save the mother, then you can do it to the baby even if it's partially born. So, what now? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How about the following alt? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• ... that Chaim Sofer ruled that under Jewish law, abortion is permitted to save a mother's life, except if birth has already begun and the baby appears viable?

Hmm, that's not bad at all, but I would re-word it to

• ... that Chaim Sofer ruled that under Jewish law, injuring a baby is forbidden, even to save a mother's life, if birth has already begun and the baby appears viable?

His innovation was not in ruling that abortion was permitted in Jewish law (it generally is if the mother's life is threatened), but that it was forbidden to even injure the baby under this specific circumstance. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the source, Sofer allows maiming the partially-born child if the lives of both the child and the mother are threatened. So it's a bit more complicated. Crum375 (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)