Template:Did you know nominations/Terug tot Ina Damman


 * 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 Yoninah (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Terug tot Ina Damman

 * ... that the titular character of Simon Vestdijk's 1934 novel Terug tot Ina Damman, the first in the Anton Wachter cycle, was based on a girl who rejected the writer at age 14?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Froberg mutiny, in combination with these edits.

Created by Drmies (talk). Self-nominated at 22:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Long enough, new enough, no obvious plagiarism, meets other criteria. Good to go.Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg However much I appreciate the edits to the nominated article proposed as a QPQ, I would not consider a copyedit to be a complete DYK review. Please submit another. Fuebaey (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear, I would have appreciated a ping. Also, I don't agree. Since I spent so much time on that article I can hardly pass it (the original hook, for whoever cares, would be my choice)--so the next person who comes along and plants that *tick* there will be quite happy, no doubt. After further edits the article is good to go. Paragraphs are cited, and while that tool of yours indicates some 70%, with closer inspection revealing that many phrases that are supposed to be the same are really false negatives (phrases like "the regiment had been" and "money and a", a book title, and a direct quote). Now, you may well be right in your reading of the letter, but not in that of the spirit, and I'm afraid I can't accept this kind of dictum from someone who, with all respect, is comparatively new to Wikipedia and to the process. In other words, I'd like to have an editor like or someone else look at it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg By all means. Although I am disappointed with rationale for the request - in which I consider is based on the age of my account rather than my recent contributions - I have nothing against a second opinion. Fuebaey (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @Drmies -- this is Fuebaey's third account, so he may not be as new to Wikipedia as you had thought. Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , on the Internet no one knows you're a dog and on Wikipedia we have few options to judge someone's quality. I did, in fact, base my request on your recent edits: you turn down a perfectly valid DYK, and rather than accept my many edits to that article and comments on the nomination you simply say "the rules is the rules". I do not accept such a dictum easily, unless it comes from someone with some authoritay of some kind or another. You do not have that. If you'd added up all the edits from your previous accounts, maybe. Also, I don't like this business of starting up new accounts: one never knows who one is dealing with. Finally, that you didn't even let me know you saw a problem, and that you'd try to play the legal expert with someone who has over two hundred DYKs, that's not the kind of thing an experienced editor would do. Also, I don't like this business of starting up new accounts. Thank you . Drmies (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Reiterating something isn't really going to strengthen your argument. As I said we have a difference of opinion, so a third opinion would probably be best way forward. Assuming that another editor is incorrect based on a disagreement, let alone dragging up experience, is bad form. If you have a problem with myself in general please use my talk page as to not derail this nomination. Fuebaey (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Since I've been invoked, in all honesty when I saw the original Drmies post over at Froberg last week I thought it was simply an editor working on an article that clearly needed improvement if it was to survive at DYK, not that this was in any way a review that had turned into editing. Indeed, the nomination was at a point where it had been reviewed and found wanting: what it needed then was improvement, not further review, and the two are not the same at DYK. My opinion is that this nomination needs a different QPQ submission. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Commenting only on Fuebaey's assertion that "dragging up experience ... is bad form." I have the opposite view. It is appropriate to look at editor experience in many areas at Wikipedia, and saying it is "bad form" seems like an effort to evade something. My early posts on Fuebaey's talkpage were prompted by a similar concern, coupled with his initial editing under this name, that he was an editor who had edited under another name. At WP, it is common to point to issues with an editor's past editing that re-arise, so the mention seemed appropriate. To me. Epeefleche (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset, I thought to do you all a favor by picking up on something that was languishing at DYK--of course I was going to do a review, until I saw how much needed to be done editing-wise. I should have simply found something easy--a quick glance at the article, a tick, and done. I always thought that the idea of working at DYK was to get articles in a good enough shape to put them on the front page. In this case, I spent at least 45 minutes working on the article, for which I will receive no credit, though I made it survive, I think. You know I've done stuff like this before, and I've done much more than I've been credited with. DYK doesn't need me anymore than the wiki needs me, of course, but good luck with it--I suppose I'll continue to write and submit articles, and I'll do the cursory review in the way that all too often is common practice; I'm sure Fuebay will be happy to step up to the plate and start making the kind of edits that move things forward. Happy days. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is refreshing to see someone admit to arguing from authority. Honestly, how smug have you got to be to actually admit to it? Alakzi (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Valdemar Tofte. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , I just got a notification from some bot that something is missing here. I wouldn't know what, and perhaps, if you want to clear up the backlog on this page, you can figure it out. I've done my DYK review, besides all the other work I did on the aforementioned article--which, I noticed, made it to the front page and got over 5000 views. If you're wondering why I haven't been back at DYK--well, you know. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Fine. Reinstating the tick now that the QPQ issue has been dealt with. Re: the bot, it was a technical issue owing to updates server side. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)