User talk:Gatoclass/Archive 22

BNA access
Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Nantucket (IX-18), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merchant Marine Academy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup
HazelAB (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com
Hi Gatoclass, I noticed you have been given access to Newspapers.com. Since you have also shown interest in editing in the Middle East area, would you be able to help with a quick bit of research?

Per the threads at:
 * Talk:1956–57_exodus_and_expulsions_from_Egypt, and
 * WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request/Stale_requests/2014

...we have been looking for an article in the New York World Telegram from November 29, 1956, which refers to an Egyptian government statement that "all Jews are Zionists and enemies of the state".

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have checked newspapers.com, fultonhistory.com, nyshistoricnewspapers.org and britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk and none of them include archives for a paper called the "new york world telegram", although newspapers.com and the British archive do have some stories from the paper carried in other papers. But I did not get a hit on any of these sites for the phrase "all Jews are Zionists and enemies of the state" or for a part of said phrase in any of these archives either. Gatoclass (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking. This source suggests the story was first syndicated by AP, but if that really was the case it seems highly unlikely that it would not have been run by other papers. I might email JVL to see if they can explain their own sourcing. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com query
Hi Gatoclass,

I've recently taken over as volunteer coordinator for the Wikipedia Library's access to Newspapers.com. You had been waitlisted on January 2 because we had run out of accounts, but we got 100 more accounts in February and you were approved. I sent you an email message on February 28 with a link to a form to fill out to get access, and was just about to send you a reminder, but I have noticed here that you seem to have access already. Since you're not on the list of Approved accounts, and don't seem to have signed up through the Wikipedia Library, I'm wondering if you have already acquired your own account. Do you still need/want an account through the WPL? Thanks! HazelAB (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * yes, I purchased an account a few weeks ago as I felt I couldn't wait any longer. But I still want the WPL account as I can use the money saved to purchase additional services instead. I intend to open my WPL account early next week, if that's okay with you. Gatoclass (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, thanks for getting back to me. HazelAB (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

SS Great Britain
I've been doing a bit of editing on SS Great Britain and as you have been a major contributor to the article in the past I wondered if you could help. There are a couple of claims I can't find citations for and I was wondering what else might be needed to get it to GA quality. I've started a discussion at Talk:SS Great Britain if you had any thoughts.&mdash; Rod talk 14:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Some idiot has removed the original citations, you can find them in this diff. As for suggestions - I do recall I was going to add a substantial amount of additional information to the article and then take it to GA myself, but haven't been very active on Wikipedia for quite some time due to increased off-wiki responsibilities. As I recall, I was especially dissatisfied with the "Recovery and restoration" section which I felt was not informative enough. But to give you a comprehensive response I would have to re-read the entire article and I don't have time for that right now - I will try and have a look tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that has enabled me to put one reference back. No rush but any other thoughts when you have time will be great.&mdash; Rod talk 14:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com account
Hi Gatoclass, If you are still interested in getting a Newspapers.com account, please follow the instructions sent via a Wikipedia email on February 28. If you are no longer interested or if you want me to re-send the email, please let me know. Thanks! HazelAB (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Your account has been activated and you should have full access now. Re your question about renewing after a year: I don't know if the partnership will be extended but it wouldn't surprise me. The uptake has been good and a lot of content has been added to Wikipedia as a result. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus. Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
 * was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
 * took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
 * worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! , and  16:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh
Hi. Copying DYK as you said you'd be interested in improving the article
 * Another blogger has been murdered today. I've moved the page to Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh - I was intending to do that a month ago but discussions here on the political angle have pushed me to finally do it. There is repetition in the background section currently. If someone wants to try to fix this up it would be good, there will probably be more news about the guy murdered today over the next 24 hours. -- Aronzak (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ship article standards
Thank you for making me aware of what the standards are for ship articles. I'll attempt to comply with them in future. However, I've edited over 50 ship and ship class articles over the last 20 months, and I cannot recall any that were well-referenced that had no cites in the infobox, and particularly none that had machinery listed in the "ship power" section. I can recall several that had a cite for each line of the infobox and few or none elsewhere. I'm sure you're aware that hundreds of ship articles are nowhere near up to these standards. My observations could be due to my focus on bringing numerous stubs up to a useful standard, rather than produce a few Good Articles. I tend to edit articles that have not had a substantive edit made in two or more years. From what you're saying it sounds like most of the infobox needs to be restated in the article, if only to cite useful references.

Talkback
North America1000 20:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh
Gatoclass, will you be getting to the editing in the next day or two? I know you said a "few" days, but while I was okay with that, I thought the work would be underway by the end of the week or weekend. I hope you can begin work very soon; otherwise, it's probably best to let the DYK nomination close. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought from your response you weren't bothered with how long it took, and I've been busy this week. But if you don't want to wait too much longer, I guess I can get it done either sometime this week or next weekend. Gatoclass (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I did say "since the article is going to be worked on this week", but I guess I should have been more direct. I'm glad to see that you've been making substantial edits over the past couple of days; thank you for giving it higher priority. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've nearly finished it now - I'll have it ready by early next week. Gatoclass (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Pendentives of Hagia Sophia
Hey Gatoclass. I am interested in your comment here that the "relevant part of the article needs to be clarified to confirm the hook". Can you point me to the sentences in the article that are badly worded/misleading and need to be changed/clarified? AmateurEditor (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied on the template page. Gatoclass (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK incomplete
Hello - I see you are one of the DYK Admins who might be able to help with a DYK question. I got a bot message telling me my nomination for Template:Did you know nominations/Victoria Price' is incomplete, but it has a green check and I don't understand what it is asking me to do further. Could you give me some insight on this?

Same problem as above...i.e. DYK incomplete notice
Sorry to bother you, but I have same problem as editor above. I submitted DYK nomination for Warner B. Snider, but I got this bot notice that it wasn't completed:

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Warner B. Snider at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

However, the Warner B. Snider nomination shows up on main DYK nomination page on 20 Jun, just like is should. How do I get bot turned off without cancelling or duplicating the existing DYK nomination?--Orygun (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ,, I don't know why you got that message, so far as I can tell the template pages seem to have formatted correctly. If you are worried about it, I suggest you post a comment to WT:DYK where somebody a little more bot-savvy may be able to identify the problem. Gatoclass (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mandarax has suggested a reason on my talk page here and let Shubinator (who handles the bot) know. His reason makes sense. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, thanks for that Chris :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, sounds like it is one of those problems I can ignore. My favorite :) Rjmail (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK incomplete
I also have received such a notice for one that has a green tick. Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Corbett (Shaker doctor) Looking at others' related emails about this, I get the impression that something went wrong with a bot or its software. I'm drawing the conclusion I shouldn't worry about it as I have done all the steps correctly. Apparently it will iron itself out eventually and this approved nomination will be put into a queue soon. If I am correct, then no other steps are required of me - if I am wrong let me know what it is I am suppose to do. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Lake Tsongmo and Jabali Upanishad
In Template:Did you know nominations/Lake Tsongmo and Template:Did you know nominations/Jabali Upanishad your observations have been complied. Please let me know if anything more needs to be done so that they can move forward. Thanks.-- Nvvchar . 17:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Johann Lukas Legrand
Gatoclass, you had objections to this nomination, and were going to take another look at it some weeks ago. Can you please post a follow-up as soon as possible, so the next steps—whatever they need to be—can be taken? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I'm afraid that one completely slipped off the radar. I can't look at it now as I will shortly be logging off, but I'll take another look tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Tomorrow would be great. Thanks for the quick response! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Anna Plochl
Thank you for your attention to this article. I understand why you would want to change the wording, but I'm afraid it changes the meaning in ways that may not have been intended. As modified, it reads that he agreed to return multiple times to court her, which is not supported by the sources. What the sources state (if I am reading them correctly, of course) is that he agreed to return a single time to prove his credentials. What I was trying to convey with that awkward wording is that he did keep his promise, but he went above and beyond the promise by returning numerous times (evidently captivated by Plochl). Do you have suggested wording to convey this clearly? Thank you, and all the best, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I gave it another tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect, love it. Thanks so much.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Credit remnant
Hi, you removed the hook for Ekakshara Upanishad, but forgot to remove the credit. I was just taking care of it when it got moved to Queue 1, so could you please remove that DYKmake? M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  11:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Urk, I'm always a minute too late. I see the bot already processed it. Oh well. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  11:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well at least it reminded me to remove the credit from the creator talk page, so your efforts didn't entirely go to waste. Apologies for the error, I am still quite rusty at DYK and was in a hurry to get that one promoted on time. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And I removed the credit from the article's talk page. Thanks for all you do for DYK. It's good to see you back at it. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  11:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it nice to be back :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Prep 2
Hi, I saw you filled the empty lead slot with another hook. The original hook, a special occasion request for July 14, had been pulled due to copyediting concerns, and we've been hurrying to fix it so it can run on July 14. It's now ready to run. Would you mind restoring it to Prep 2? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead. I would still like to see the difluorophosphate article in an image slot though, because it is eyecatching and different from the kinds of images we usually feature. Gatoclass (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread your request, I thought you were going to restore it, I've done it now. Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Your use of rollback
I believe in the DYK project as I think you do. Currently it seems to have plenty of nominations of hooks for new and expanded articles and newly promoted GAs, but few editors doing the administrative work of building sets in the Prep area and moving the sets into the Queue. You have recently been moving Preps into the Queue and that's great.

I have been trying to help out by preparing hook sets. I do so in good faith, believing that the hooks I add to a Prep area have been properly reviewed and approved and are ready for promotion. You may disagree with my view, or in some way think a particular hook or article needs alteration as was the case in this edit. That's OK, I don't mind my selections being reconsidered and removed from Prep, but I do object to my action being reverted. When you revert my archiving of the nomination, I get a notification, but no explanation for the reason behind your actions. I then have to hunt around to discover why you believed the hook was unsuitable. I believe your action is a misuse of the rollback provisions, and you will see from this page that such misuse, if repeated, is considered serious enough to warrant admins losing their admin privileges! Instead of reverting, the same effect can be obtained by using "undo" rather than "rollback" and then you can supply an edit summary explaining the reason for your action. Your thoughts? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , I am struggling to understand your complaint. Perhaps you don't understand that when a DYK hook is returned for further evaluation, the edit made to close the nomination after promotion has to be undone for technical reasons, because if the edit isn't undone, the nomination page won't reappear at T:TDYK. It's part of the standard procedure for returning hooks. Does that address your concern? Gatoclass (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. I think the edit should be undone rather than being reverted. When I look at the revision history of the page I see three options for each edit, "(rollback | undo | thank)", and I think it is the middle one you should use and not the first. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well as it happens, in the example you provided above, I did use undo rather than rollback. I have sometimes used rollback to revert a closed nomination, but I disagree that this is an "abuse" of the procedure, because the guideline states that rollback is allowable "To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear" (my emphasis). I think in the circumstances here, it is absolutely clear that I am reverting the nomination close in order to return the nomination to T:TDYK for further discussion, and that the revert itself is an unavoidable technical step in that process. Also, there is no question of me failing to provide a full explanation for the revert; I invariably do so on the nomination page itself. Gatoclass (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, perhaps I am trying to make a distinction where there is none. I am not particularly Wikipedia savvy, but I do not remember getting "revert" notifications in similar circumstances before. Perhaps that is because not all admins moving Prep areas into the Queue are so assiduous at checking the hooks :-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I should add, I think, that I am very appreciative of the small number of users who take the trouble to build updates at DYK, yourself included, and that on the occasions that I do remove hooks from prep, there is no implied criticism of their work. As I know from personal experience, update building can be quite difficult and time-consuming and I don't believe we should additionally burden updaters with the expectation that they check every aspect of a nomination. Beyond a quick eyeball check of the article to ensure no obvious defects, and a check of the hook for such issues as grammar and interest, I think responsibility for the nom should lie primarily with the reviewer and then with the admin promoting the update to the queue. Update builders are vital to the smooth running of DYK, so once again, thank you for your contributions :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

dyk
please let me know if I addressed your concern on this one  Happy monsoon  day   18:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks, I guess
I wait almost a month to see my DYK for Neepaulakating Creek get to the mainpage...get the talk page bot notice with my original text...and then sadness. My hook was gutted by whoever put it in the queue...then i learn it was you calling the approved version weak. Sad. My hook is now banal and ignorable, a hollow eviscerated shell of itself. And you unwittingly turned it into a falsehood. :-(. JackTheVicar (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Emily

 * disease? Victuallers (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That's what it says in the article :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I misremembered that - I thought it was a hurricane Victuallers (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem - I assumed it was a hurricane myself until I looked at the article - it's unexpected and more unusual I think to have a disease with a given name :) Gatoclass (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Commemorative Cantata for the Centenary of the Birth of Pushkin
Hi, would you mind moving this to the Prep 1 image slot (it's a Special Occasion request), and moving the image already there to a later prep? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gatoclass (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK
hi. updated the lead for that article. sorry this dragged on  Happy monsoon  day   02:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China
Re "Because organs from live donors are more valuable and have a lower chance of rejection, the organs are likely harvested while victims are still alive, a highly alarming claim for which I found little support in the article."

In my opinion if you were familiar with this topic you would not find live organ harvesting alarming. It didn't take me long to find 2 references for live organ harvesting from FG, which are on the talk page. Please read more about this topic before making more edits. There are plenty of articles, http://organharvestinvestigation.net/ and parts of Ethan Gutmann's 2014 book "The Slaughter" available free online. For a reason unknown to me I am unable to edit the top section of the talk page. Aaabbb11 (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Book titles are not sufficient. You will need to provide page numbers, and links where available, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Three books have been published about organ harvesting in China. Have you read anything about organ harvesting other than the wikipedia article? Aaabbb11 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK verification
All good! Sorry that article wound up being less-searchable than I would have expected. But, hey, at least I didn't have to cite any of the Farsi-language sources, right? ;) Seriously, though, DYK curation is a thankless and under-appreciated task here. So, um, thanks! It is appreciated! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem :) Gatoclass (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Hud (film)
Gatoclass, it's been over three weeks since you commented here, but you haven't taken any further action. Should I find another reviewer, or wait a few more days for you to return to the review? Please let me know here if the former. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oops, forgot about that one, thanks for the reminder, I will get back to that shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Great. Thank you for the quick response, and you're welcome. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

DKY nom
Will let you know within 24 hours if I have time to write a new section. I'm actually just recovering from surgery, otherwise I would have been on top of this earlier and maybe saved everyone some grief. Thanks for your patience. The Blue Canoe  17:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A proposal is on the talk page for your review. Cheers.  The Blue Canoe  18:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

German Queue 4
Hi, in Queue 4, the first, second, and sixth hooks all have German subjects. Could you make it so no two are right next to each other? M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  08:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I had to throw that update together in a hurry and do all the verifications and promotion myself as no-one else seemed to be around. Unfortunately, I didn't think to check the first hook, which was promoted by someone else, until the last minute - up to then I thought it was a Dutch hook. I've given them a shuffle per your request. Gatoclass (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's almost like last year, when you were basically the only person handling everything at DYK. (Although thankfully other conditions aren't as they were last year.) Thanks for the shuffle, and thanks again for everything else you do around here. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  09:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually, things haven't been too bad recently but there's been a shortage of prep builders over the last couple of days. And yes, thank goodness those "other" conditions aren't so bad either ;) Gatoclass (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK Queue 1
Gatoclass, there's an extra DYKmake in the set, the Example|Editor one, on the end of the line with the Schopper DYKmake; it should be removed. (There's also a hook without a space between the initial asterisk and the ellipsis, but I don't think that will break anything.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Lower Manair Dam
Gatoclass, I was hoping that you could check the ALT2 here, as you indicated you'd be doing, so we can get this nomination moving again, even if it's only to request another new ALT. Thank you for all the work you do to keep DYK running. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've been planning to do a bit of cleanup on that article before approving the hook, but there are at least two other DYK nominations I want to work on first so I may not get back to this one right away. I don't think it should be too much longer though. Gatoclass (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking care of this one; it's now safely in prep. The one I'm hoping you'll get back to next is Template:Did you know nominations/Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China; it's the only June nomination that remains undone. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Gatoclass, I've just rejected the Falun Gong nomination after your review. I hate to bother you again since you have been so busy, but the oldest nomination now is Template:Did you know nominations/Hud (film), which is waiting for you to do some final fixes before it can be given a "review again" icon. Whenever you can get to it would be great. Thanks for taking the time to get these into shape (or to establish that they clearly aren't, in the case of the one rejected today). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't forgotten about Hud and it's my next priority. Unfortunately, I've found it difficult to find time to follow up on some of these old noms, but I'll try to get started on Hud over the weekend and hopefully have it ready for review some time next week. Gatoclass (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Launchballer just came along and approved Hud as is. If you have objections, now's the time to raise them, before it gets promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This time Hud has not only been approved but has been promoted and is the lead hook in Prep 3. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you,, I noticed that myself. I was disappointed by the promotion as I felt the article could have used substantial improvement, and was actually planning on starting on it tonight. When I saw it approved a second time however, I felt I couldn't justify pulling it from prep as I have struggled to find time for wikipedia lately, especially over the last couple of weeks. On the plus side, I did make a couple of tweaks some weeks ago that I think considerably improved it, though, let's face it, the quotation from Pauline Kael (who wrote a very long 8-page review of the film) is still largely incomprehensible. I was keen to work on this article as Hud is a movie I always found interesting and felt it deserved better treatment, but it's already of an acceptable standard and I can't hold up the nomination indefinitely. But again, many thanks for your consideration in notifying me. Gatoclass (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:


 * , who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy.  A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
 * , second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
 * , first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany.  Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
 * , second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
 * , from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
 * , from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
 * , from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
 * , also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

, and  11:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Undocumented conventions...
...are not really a useful argument against not doing something. Since guidelines are usually where 'best practice' are placed, perhaps something should be included under WP:NOBAN (as the closest relevant part of USER)? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I think NOBAN pretty much speaks for itself. If you are considering an addition to it, I would have to see it before making a judgement about it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for the note. Sca (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks for the interesting contribution to the discussion :)
 * Is the Gato-class my namesake? I don't recall the exact reasoning that led me to that nic now, but I do remember that I thought "Gato" was Spanish for "cat" so that I imagined the nic suggested "classy cat". In any case, it's a bit late to change it now ... Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Re cat, see this. Sca (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I checked the meaning in Google Translate as I wrote that last post :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Pointless definite articles
Just to clarify it in my mind, you could consider the following usage of definite article to be not pointless (my bold to assist in locating the nugatory text): All of which has just or will just appear on DYK, despite your claim that the shorter the hook, the better? Could you explain, in each case, why it was fine to have "the" in each case, and not in today's situation, so I can avoid having another protracted conversation about something which seems fundamentally obvious to me (and a few others, who observe ENGVAR) but appears that you (and a few others who aren't British) object to. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "that both species of the ant Pseudectatomma were described in 2012..."
 * "that the wish-fulfilling tree Kalpavriksha is an artistic and literary theme common...."
 * " that Nina Yang Bongiovi is the production partner of actor..."
 * "that the Demands of the Slovak Nation, issued in 1848, ..."
 * "that when the British Honduran Lands Department claimed..."
 * "that the Orange is the New Black character Tiffany Doggett..."
 * "that the River Ebro rises near the town of Reinosa in northern Spain..."


 * Firstly, I'm really not one for hard and fast rules, especially when it comes to grammar. There is no great writer who hasn't broken a bunch of grammatical rules at some time in their career to write better prose. For me, the chief factor is whether a sentence reads well or not.


 * If you want a rule though - in all the examples you give above, the only one I would consider changing is "the Orange is the New Black character". Why? Well, because there is more than one Orange is the New Black character and the definite article in that example implies that there is only one. In short, including the definite article in that case reduces the clarity of meaning. In all the other examples, the referenced noun is unambiguously unique and the definite article in those cases helps to emphasize that. Gatoclass (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not true though, for instance, Demands of the Slovak Nation is a book title so why does it need "the"....? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You are correct, that one doesn't need the definite article either. Gatoclass (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So in three preps/queues, nearly 1/3 of hooks have such redundancy, yet you objected to an ENGVAR-principled inclusion of the definite article. Nothing like being consistently inconsistent!  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * An "ENGVAR-principled inclusion of the definite article"? What are you talking about? Gatoclass (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * At least the reasoning behind the required inclusion of "the" was based in fact, rather than in some wavy inconsistent thought pattern that seems to be being used at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you again. What, specifically, are you referring to? Because I can't respond to a generality. Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You've already said plenty, thanks, it's very clear to me now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Arshak Ter-Gukasov
Hello Gatoclass,

Hope all is well. I truly understand your concerns regarding the picture slot for Arshak Ter-Gukasov. Can we somehow buy some time here and put Ter-Gukasov's DYK up for next week, preferably the weekend? I usually won't go out of my way for a picture slots so much, but this particular photo is really outstanding and of good quality. I really wouldn't want it to go to waste. Anything you can do will help. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Forgotten?
Your comment here has held a DYK nom for 10 days or so. Have you forgotten? Victuallers (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't forgotten, it was about a German woman who introduced Wollstonecraft to Germans wasn't it? - but I did lose track of the nom, what was the name of it again? Gatoclass (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, I found it in my contributions page, I'll take another look tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK responses
Gatoclass, there are a couple of DYKs about which you had objections where there are responses that might allow for a quick resolution of the issues raised:

Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Template:Did you know nominations/Elephantomyia irinae: Kevmin has added the missing "male" to the article, which seems to be the only remaining issue you had pointed out. If it's ready to go, can you please give it the tick?
 * Template:Did you know nominations/Varaha Upanishad: Nvvchar says that he has fixed a reference, but I can't quite tell what has been fixed for which hook. If it's ready, can you give it a tick, or if not, tell Nvvchar what is still needed?


 * Oops, I missed this message yesterday due to the Signpost posting here about the same time, apologies for the oversight . I have now returned elephantomyia irinae to prep since my concerns were addressed. I will try to take another look at the other one later today. Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have also added a new comment to the upanishad nomination. Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Russia-Syria-Iran-Iraq Coalition
Your comment on the grammar issue would be appreciated. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Narrowing of a restriction
I've sat on this a long time, but I have to ask the first of the restrictions placed on me by you here be narrowed. The wording, "You are prohibited from making bad faith assumptions about any editor or identifiable group of editors. Failure to abide by this restriction is likely to result in the imposition of further sanctions at WP:AE", on its face reasonable at a cursory glance. "Doesn't it just mean 'you have to follow the same AGF policy as everyone else?, one might ask. But it's actually thoughtcrime regulation, and is far too WP:GAMEable, in ways that are detrimental to both my participation and to WP process and equitability.

It's not reasonable, when one examines this more carefully, to attempt to legislate, i.e. thoughts. What thoughts I really have can never be known with certainty by anyone else. But this does nothing to deter other editors, including admins, from assuming they can read my mind and deciding that I'm making bad faith assumptions, then attempting to punish me based on their own imagination of my motivations. I.e., engaging in assumptions of bad faith themselves, and acting on them. It's poisonous and counterproductive. Since that AE request, I've totally abandoned and avoided AE, no matter how many times I get viciously attacked, especially over style matters – by the very same parties I was pilloried at AE for criticizing, I might add – other than I stopped in at AE once to ask a question about whether WP:ARBAA2 applied to anti-Armenian edits at an animal breed article. Or maybe that was at ARCA, I forget.

Request: I ask that this be restriction be narrowed to "You are prohibited from questioning the good faith, without evidence, of any editor or identifiable group of editors". This wording would still prohibit me from wildly accusing people of nefarious things I can't prove (I'm able to argue, albeit sometimes more than necessary, without "going there"), while also still allowing me to address blatant PoV pushing and other policy-violating shenanigans when I can actually prove it. It would also be reasonable to put an expiration date on this (if enough time has not already passed), since without one it conveys a message that WP considers me a barely tolerated pest it is itching to kill, instead of a valued contributor with 10 years and 100K contributions so far. It frankly seems weird to me that restrictions like this were issued without a time-span. I didn't come here to volunteer under some form of life sentence without possibility of parole. I've tried to just ignore it, but two and half years of this is more than enough whipping-boy action for me. 16:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Rationale: I'm frequently threatened implicitly or explicitly with various punishments for the reasons for certain edits or positions, even when I can back up the concerns with diffs and other evidence (often direct quotations from the other party stating what their goal is). I'm careful not to say things like "You're pushing a conservative agenda", "your liberal bias is showing", "you're only here to shill for e-cig companies", "you're illogical", etc. (vs. "That's an activistic position, not a neutral one", "Your position as the leader of this church is going to lead to suspicions of COI", "Your stated views about this dog breed aren't found in any of these sources, and seem to be original research", "that argument depends on the argument to emotion logic fallacy"). Meanwhile, my own good faith is questioned very frequently by people who feel immune from any repercussions because my own ability to respond is excessively curtailed. This is not an equitable result. Taken to its logical conclusion it effectively precludes me from ever being able to effectively use dispute resolution of any form, since "commenting on contributor" in the form of examination of editing behavior is a necessary part of that process, but it's trivially easy to spin any form of criticism of edits or patterns thereof as "assuming bad faith", which I can be instantly punished for (even when I'm not really doing it), but everyone else just gets a tsk-tsk for (even when they really are doing it, in spades). I've been directly accused of assuming bad faith even immediately after I explain that I'm not assuming bad faith and lay out the actual reasons for my concerns. The very fact that I'm "prohibited from making bad faith assumptions" gives any opposing user an "easy win" by simply declaring that everything I say is bad-faith assumptions, and refusing to accept any other explanation. This has had much to do with my consistent failure to ever get any positive resolution of any kind from any noticeboard, resolution process, or request for administrator intervention in the last 2.5 years or so, no matter how egregious the other party's behavior (with one recent exception, where the other side simply refused to participate, and the issue closed in my favor by default, so late that it didn't matter). By contrast, in forums that are not popularity contents, like WP:RM, I maintain about a 90% success rate of what I propose being accepted by consensus; the contrast is stark. I have repeatedly been subjected to one-sided blocks and bans. I have effectively no recourse of any kind on Wikipedia when it comes to inter-editor dispute, no matter what the issue is, and I'm pretty sure it comes down in large part to the wording of this restriction. There is no issue I can raise about any other user's behavior that doesn't raise the spectre than I'm "assuming bad faith" in contravention of this restriction, no matter what proof I have, thus automatically turning all proceedings against me. Technically, I cannot even use, no matter how obvious the vandalism, for fear of some kind of reprisal, because anyone may claim that it means I'm making a "bad faith assumption" (you may note that I no longer do any vandal patrolling).

Please reconfigure this as a prohibition against doing something concrete, that's actually wrong, and violation of which can actually be proven or disproven with facts. Right now it's a commandment against thinking something, which anyone can imagine I'm doing and "prove" by nothing but their assertion that they think I'm doing it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delay in responding to this.
 * Firstly, dispute resolution discussions are typically exempt from this type of restriction (although it should be noted that any user even in such discussions can be sanctioned for making allegations against another user without supplying evidence). So the existing restriction should not prevent you from resorting to dispute resolution.
 * Other than that, the short answer to this request is that I will not unilaterally either modify or rescind the ban, particularly since I see you were blocked for three days last November for renewed disruption of move procedures, battleground behaviour, which is precisely the kind of conduct which resulted in your AE sanction. So if you want your sanction reviewed, you will have to appeal it at WP:AE. If you choose to do so, I will make a longer statement there. Gatoclass (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (No hurry.) My actual editorial behavior here has  changed since your 2013 restrictions were issued.  Any time I'm in a dispute, I check what I'm saying before saving: Does this impute motive or any kind of mental state? Is it critical of the editor, or does it focus on edits or patterns thereof?  Am I addressing actions or personalities? After half an hour do I still want to post this?  Can I pare it down?  Is what I'm saying relevant to WP or is it just inter-personal bickering?  Has someone irritated me enough that I'm thinking about an AN/I action even though I don't believe those are often useful except against WP:NOTHERE types?  Will any of us care about this argument in a month or a year?  Is it better to just take a wikibreak for a month or so than continue participating when someone seems to want to argue with me all day every day?  My answers to these self-questions may not always be perfect, but I'm not a robot. Something that happened a year ago is questionably relevant, especially when virtually every detail of FPaS's block rationale was factually incorrect, as detailed here. This block was questioned as to its neutrality and policy compliance, multiple times, including by an admin pointing out that FPaS got the facts wrong and even reverted previous admin actions; also defending my approach. After remaining silent on the matter, FPaS was then reminded "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Twice. But did not do so.  Essentially the same thing happened when FPaS semi-recently topic-banned me from MoS for supposedly battlegrounding and editwarring, when in fact I backed out of the arguments at WT:MOS, did not violate 3RR, and was the one who opened a WP:ANEW dispute resolution, and provided evidentiary diffs for every single claim I made, and repeatedly made it clear I thought the other's actions were not in bad faith.  FPAS shut down that DR, slapped one one-sidedly with DS, again on the basis of factually incorrect claims about my behavior, and then refused for weeks to respond to multiple requests to even clarify the scope of the TBan or provide evidence for his accusations. He also did not respond, despite being active, to the WP:AN appeal I lodged and in which multiple parties asked him to respond. His TBan was vacated, retroactively .  Many editors would have filed an ArbCom case by now against FPaS for this pattern of questionable use of the tools followed by refusal to respond to concerns about them, but I'm simply not that litigious.  In some of this, his behavior closely mirrors that of another admin who used to target me for punitive action, including applying DS against me right in the middle of DR (at AE), and in the process made accusations without proof that he would not retract (and which ArbCom later vacated and removed from the ARBATC log). (Yes, I can diff all that old history if you want, but I'm avoiding naming the name, given the nature of the discussion and its underlying issue, and because I seem to have an unspoken truce with that admin these days. Speaking of which, I also have an explicit truce with one and an unspoken truce with the other editor in the dispute for which FPaS issued that invalid block. Any supposition that there's some interminable feud going on would be false. Even the other editor in the ANEW case is someone I normally get along with, and anticipate continuing to get along with.)  Anyway, in both of these cases, each admin was blatantly violating the "do not cast aspersions without evidence" principle they were sanctioning me for (and which I did not actually do), by issuing sanctions based on accusations of wrongdoing without proof, even after proof was demanded. They should mutually sanction each other, if there were any justice. Heh. This also relates strongly to the AE case against me for which you sanctioned me, actually. Every claim I was criticized for making is one that I'd proven previously (I have an extensive log of that many-editor debate, over years, though it focuses on which arguments were presented when with what result, not who was an asshat to whom). You all brought the hammer down on me too fast to dig it all back up again and re-diff it. I could do so even today, but the dispute is so stale I doubt anyone cares.  I came to you in good faith to just make your restrictions against me more workable and less gameable, because it's standard operating procedure to approach the admin first.  I  go to AE and ask the admin pool to do it, but why should I need to fire up the engine of bureaucracy?  The wording was yours, and you're empowered to clarify it. That wouldn't be some out-of-band "unilateral" action; the narrowing I'm requesting would still comport with the conclusions reached in that AE request (however much I may think they're predicated on the false assumption I was casting unproven aspersions). I wish your "firstly ... dispute resolution discussions are typically exempt from this type of restriction" point were demonstrated in actual practice, but it demonstrably is not.  I've been sanctioned multiple times with RS under WP:ARBATC while pursuing dispute resolution (at least three times, up to five, depending on one's definitions). This only ever seems to happen to MoS regulars, BTW. I never see it happen to their opponents on any issue, no matter how nasty they get (if I were to avail myself of AE every time I'm attacked in a DS-actionable manner, I would do nothing but be in AE five days a week; I never go there), nor to anyone on any side of any other topic subject to DS. And it doesn't seem to happen to any individual more than me, largely because the wording of your first restriction paints a target on my back. All I'm asking for is that it be tightened a bit to not be thoughtcrime enforcement that automatically turns any appearance by me at a DR board into another excuse to flay me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

- I am glad to hear your approach has "markedly changed". However, you were also blocked a year ago and now tell me that you have been sanctioned "up to five times" under ARBATC.

I am not averse to the notion of rescinding an old ban and allowing someone to start over with a clean slate. My problem however, is that I have no way of knowing whether your behaviour has truly changed over the last 2 1/2 years, sufficient to justify rescindment. This is why I think you need to take your case to AE. At AE, everyone gets a say, including those who are far more conversant with your conduct since the original AE sanction than me. Gatoclass (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking you to rescind it, just clarify the wording to not be some kind of thoughtcrime. No editors here, admins or not, have any business mentally projecting their imagination about my "assumptions" onto me, as if they can magically read my mind. The main enforcement of WP:ARBATC (and mamy other cases with DS) has been against the very same thing – projecting unproven negative theories about other editors' motivations and mentalities. This makes the wording of that first restriction of yours on me more than a bit ironic and self-contradictory. Also, if I complain that the terms of this sanction are being used to gin up bogus additional sanctions against me, the observation that there multiple actual examples is not evidence I'm snowing you, it's evidence that I'm correct.  If were genuinely being a bad apple, AN would not have vacated the last attempt to railroad me, and I would have been indeffed ages ago. Instead, people come to my talk page (including the other editor from the ANEW process that Future Perfect at Sunrise derailed) and directly solicit my input in the same area (MoS) that Sandstein and FPaS have tried misusing DS to keep me out of.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I won't modify the wording according to your suggested wording above, because it adds the phrase "without evidence", which effectively gives you carte blanche to question the good faith of editors any time you think you have some evidence. That is not the intention of the original sanction, and it certainly isn't something I would want to condone. Gatoclass (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not my intent (and it couldn't really work that way since I'd still be subject to the same AGF / NPA / BATTLEGROUND policies as everyone else). Sorry if it seems like I'm belabouring this. Surely there's a compromise between the present working, and a "carte blanche" scenario, something that more clearly enables me to make normal use of noticeboards, with sufficient/reasonable/solid evidence (whatever wording you'd prefer), without being treated like I can be sanctioned on sight for having gone to a noticeboard (or raised similar concerns in user talk; whatever – I wasn't running to noticeboards all the time before this restriction, either).  The issues with the present wording are that it's not tied to any action of mine but to others' assumptions about what I might have assumed, and it doesn't distinguish between me raising legitimate concerns with proof in hand, vs. just being a jerk on the basis of whimsy or suspicion I couldn't back up with evidence.  I'm skeptical that a reasonable balance isn't easy to find in there with some wording tweaks.  I'm not trying to  a restriction.  The legitimate intent behind this one is "follow the behavioral policies better", which I've been endeavoring to do. The exact wording is just having serious unintended side effects that are increasingly inspiring me to depart.  WP is getting to where it's less and less rewarding or sometimes even tolerable, because this allows  to take battleground positions against me with impunity I quit WP almost entirely for 3 months, late 2014 to early 2015 to get away from it). It's not my "job" as a volunteer here to provide whipping-boy entertainment for people. A restriction intended to prevent battlegrounding that just reverses the direction of it and increases it isn't preventative of anything, but effectively punitive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , you have complained several times now of being unfairly sanctioned due to unintended effects of the original AE sanction. Perhaps if you provided me with some diffs to the discussions where you were sanctioned, I would be able to get a better idea of the nature of the alleged problem, because right now you are effectively asking me to act on nothing more than a series of assertions. Gatoclass (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results
WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is. All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. , a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to. Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:


 * wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
 * wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
 * wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
 * wins the prize for fourth place
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
 * wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
 * wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

, and  18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy Diwali

 * Ah, so that's why my Indian neighbour has been drawing pretty patterns by his front door and lighting candles there! I was going to ask him about that. Thank you, and a happy and prosperous Diwali to you too :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Haha! Yeah... Those pretty patterns are Rangoli I suppose. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would think so :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Novelty Iron Works
Hi Gato,

I noticed this image appear at Commons recently. It might be of interest to you for your article at User:Gatoclass/SB/Novelty Iron Works.

Have you thought about buffing this up a bit and taking it live? I know how the backlog of "interesting topics to work on" can be though! It looks like a pretty good article even as far as it is already. Not a topic I know anything about, I only know of them through this particular Gothic beam engine. I did put some redlinks in place last night though. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice find, ! Yes, I will see if I can find a place to add that image.


 * Regarding taking it live - I have a lot of articles right now in semi-finished state. There's a multitude of reasons for that, one of which is that I had to almost quit Wikipedia a few years ago due to increased family responsibilities, at which time a lot got dropped by the wayside. I have more free time now and am looking forward to getting some of these articles into mainspace. Hopefully not too much longer now :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK queue fix needed
Gatoclass, I notice that you just shuffled the order of the hooks in Queue 2, and when looking at what you did, I noticed that there is an issue with the queue in the Credits section completely unconnected to the changes you made: the DYKmake for Marie Lebour does not start on a new line, and I'm afraid the bot won't be smart enough to find it when promoting the queue since it doesn't start a new line with its own bullet and template and such. Can you please fix this when you get the chance? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Gatoclass (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks again! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

About garage rock article
I've been working on a big expansion on the garage rock article...and it just went GA! It is now a mammoth article covering a vast musical genre. I nominated it for DYK, and was wondering if it would be a good candidate to make it into the queue? Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , every nomination that is approved will eventually be promoted to the queue, so you will just have to wait for somebody to get around to it. It might be right away, or it may be a week or two, you just have to exercise a little patience. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that I didn't see your message here (I've been a busy bee lately), but I got your message on the DYK talk page. I actually took the thing about the "plug" as a compliment--maybe I should try radio or TV advertising!  I just want you to know that I will be patient, and I appreciate the re-assuring thoughts in your two messages.  I made a recommendation for Wiki's DYK process on the DYK talk page, that perhaps they could consider to alleviate any future accidental DYK misunderstandings. Thanks and cheers! Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, I noticed that they have put the article into the queue. I just want to say many thanks to you and all of the DYK administrators!  Cheers! Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikiclaus Cheer !

 * - thank you Michael, and a happy Christmas to you too :) Gatoclass (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Gatoclass: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 20:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message


 * - thank you, and a happy holiday season to you too :) Gatoclass (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Sinatra Christmas Collection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Christmas. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, and the same to you! Gatoclass (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Frank Sinatra Christmas Collection
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)