- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Lena Nyadbi
edit_(cropped).jpg)
- ... that one of Lena Nyadbi's (pictured) work, Dayiwul Lirlmim, can be seen from the Eiffel Tower?
Created by Bilby (talk), 124.178.150.205 (talk). Nominated by Josve05a (talk) at 12:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC).
At 417 B, this article is currently much too short for DYK where the requirement is for a length of at least 1500 B. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: I have reverted to the former version of the article and I take responsibility for everything per WP:BANREVERT. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- We've been discussing this on Wikipeda talk:DYK in regard to accepting DYKs predominately written by banned users. Again, this is an article by the banned editor Russavia. While we don't have a consensus one way or the other so far - we may end up needing an RfC - this process of highlighting the work of banned users on the front page isn't something we should be encouraging. - Bilby (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have been following the discussion that User:Bilby talks about. I think he should step back from the issue. Completely. Bilby appears to have created this article by following User:Russavia's edits on Commons. It would appear Bilby has done so to prevent the very appearance at DYK this article is now up for. This is not healthy behavior for an editor to be engaging in. It is also not healthy, nor good for the encyclopedia, for Bilby to revert an excellent article simply because the person is banned. Worse still, Bilby used his admin tools to protect the article. I can't fathom why Bilby would basically destroy content like he has. Regardless, User:Josve05a has confirmed, by way of reverting, that the content is good. I have looked at the article. It is well written, is properly sourced, is on a subject that suffers from bias on Wikipedia, etc, etc. It is a good article and would make for an interesting front page appearance. DYK is not for recognising editors, but their content. I would be happy to see this at DYK; it is everything that is wanted for the DYK section. 80.232.249.244 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Random outside IP address? I'll AGF and assume so. However, most of the above is incorrect. The article is not protected, I didn't expect to see this at DYK and wasn't trying to prevent that outcome, and Russavia is community banned, in which case the community has stated, in the strongest possible way it can, that Russavia's edits are no longer welcome on this project.
- That said, the issue is simply that we shouldn't be highlighting the work of socks of banned editors through DYK. It is not in DYK's interests, nor in Wikipedia's. But I'll leave it to the DYK community to decide, while we try to work out what the community consensus will be moving forward. - Bilby (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Bilby: You can assume good faith, but I shall not. Due to reasonable suspicion, I can say that I believe that that IP was used by Russavia despite his ban from Wikipedia, but that shall not (and has not) anything to do with this DYK, and until a consensus has been made on the talk page (which I don't see happen anytime in the near future) that shouldn't have any inpact on this DYK. Happy editing! (t) Josve05a (c) 22:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have been following the discussion that User:Bilby talks about. I think he should step back from the issue. Completely. Bilby appears to have created this article by following User:Russavia's edits on Commons. It would appear Bilby has done so to prevent the very appearance at DYK this article is now up for. This is not healthy behavior for an editor to be engaging in. It is also not healthy, nor good for the encyclopedia, for Bilby to revert an excellent article simply because the person is banned. Worse still, Bilby used his admin tools to protect the article. I can't fathom why Bilby would basically destroy content like he has. Regardless, User:Josve05a has confirmed, by way of reverting, that the content is good. I have looked at the article. It is well written, is properly sourced, is on a subject that suffers from bias on Wikipedia, etc, etc. It is a good article and would make for an interesting front page appearance. DYK is not for recognising editors, but their content. I would be happy to see this at DYK; it is everything that is wanted for the DYK section. 80.232.249.244 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- We've been discussing this on Wikipeda talk:DYK in regard to accepting DYKs predominately written by banned users. Again, this is an article by the banned editor Russavia. While we don't have a consensus one way or the other so far - we may end up needing an RfC - this process of highlighting the work of banned users on the front page isn't something we should be encouraging. - Bilby (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Under Wikipedia:Banning policy, when a user is site-banned (as is the case with Russavia), if they edit in violation of the ban, their contributions (whether to articles, talk pages, or other features) may be deleted without further ado. That doesn't necessarily mean they _must_ be deleted. As a general rule, content from a banned user may be retained or restored if another user chooses to take personal responsibility for that content. It looks like that's what happened to this article -- by restoring the deleted content, User:Josve05a took responsibility for that content (implicitly, if not explicitly). If editors familiar with the topic agree that this is valid content that is worth having, Wikipedia:Banning policy should not prevent the content from going to DYK. However, we definitely wouldn't want to give the banned user (or a sockpuppet) any "credit" for it! --Orlady (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello User:Bilby and User:Josve05a. This is my third DYK nomination review and is the longest article I've reviewed so far. The length of the article more than meets the DYK requirements. The sourcing is good. I especially like the archiving of the sources and I have bookmarked that site for future use. The article is well written. The "hook" is verified by the sources. I think this would make a nice DYK. Good luck. PNGWantok (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)