User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2021/November

Excess of person lead images
Theleekycauldron, I notice that you just promoted a person to be the lead hook of Prep 7, following a Prep 6 (and before that Preps 4 and 3) with people in the hooks. This is just too frequent for people images. Every third image is a better ratio, given all the buildings, flora and fauna, ships, paintings, places, and so on. Having two people in a row should be a rare thing, not a regular one. If I'd been around, I would have moved the Prep 6 image to Prep 7 and put a non-person image in Prep 6; now, we're stuck. We also don't want to do every other Prep, since that means people end up running in the same 12-hour slot every day. Something to keep in mind as things go forward. Thanks for all your work on building prep sets. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, that's my bad. I'm going to depromote Saxelby's hook and put EpicGenius's hook there instead. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Take away the picture, not depromote theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It would have been nice for Saxelby to have had her photo on DYK as she recently died. Thriley (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought so too, I apologize that it didn't work out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you possibly put her in a later day so her photo can be displayed? Thriley (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * possibly—competition for images is pretty strong, but if I think I have room to, I will theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I really appreciate it. I don’t usually do DYK with images so I was excited with this one. Thriley (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Lefty's
Do you think that after the closure of WP:Articles for deletion/Lefty's, the notability template still belongs on the page? I suppose there's always the option of merging it to Pier 39 later but that would seem strange because it's already been discussed. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd say no, the fact that it survived AfD means you can probably remove the tag for now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Reformation
Reize hook: I am a great friend of reformation (first item on my user page) and the Reformation, but I don't think we need to teach our audience twice when that was within a few days (we did yesterday). I think Bach is more recognizable than Thomaskantor. Perhaps include him (short name!), but drop the 500 years? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure—my impression of the main page is that our number of repeat readers on any two days is low, although that's just my guess. It'd be worth repeating how long ago the reformation was, in my opinion. Bach is more recognizable, but I don't think it sparks as much interest in the bolded article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree, sorry. This is about a musician, not about how long ago the reformation was (which some readers hopefully know already - and if not the article will probably not serve them). He will do mostly Bach music. Also, "18th" in a succession implies already a long duration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * not so long—the 18th President of the United States took office only 80 years after the first. Gerda, I'm not inclined to revert my changes, given that they are only a minor, and I think interesting, modification on your ALT1 in a way that makes it only more interesting. You know I only have respect for you and your work, so if you take it to WT:DYK and there's some kind of consensus that I'm wrong, I'll of course listen. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Going to DYKtalk It's exactly what I want to avoid. Sorry, I don't believe in Wikipedias's "consensus". I've seen too many discussions that didn't promote kindness, on top of a waste of time of everyone involved. I know when to go to a noticeboard and when not, and will always prefer the individual conversation. I believe this particular hook should be about Reize, not how long ago Reformation was, which was a topic not only in the Telemann hook but also OTD in Main Page history/2021 October 31. The hook would be more to the point if we could just say "first Catholic" but then what about the three centuries before the Reformation? Were those even "Catholic", unless in the word's broad meaning? Trying to compromise:
 * ... that the Swiss conductor Andreas Reize became the 18th Thomaskantor after Bach, as the first foreigner, and the first Catholic (after the Reformation)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * seems that's resolved, then theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

NAC of Articles for deletion/Lilandra Neramani
I question your evaluation of this discussion, since you list me as having given a case for keeping. I did not; in fact I made it quite clear that I did not favor keeping. This could either be that you meant to mention another editor or that you misinterpreted the discussion. I would like to hear why you wrote that as part of your close. Thank you in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I meant Haleth, my mistake—my assessment is the same, but yeah. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 15:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you for clarifying and updating the closure. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As talk page lurker, I would urge caution and restraint when considering performing non-admin closes with No Consensus outcomes. WP:BADNAC#2 suggests avoiding processes where there's "a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial". WP:NACPIT#1 says "With the understanding that the closure may be reversed, non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions..." I'm not saying don't do it; you are a capable editor and are learning subtleties rapidly. I'm saying two poor "no consensus" NACs doomed my first run for admin, and I'd hate to see such a demonstrably fine editor suffer undue consequences for taking such risks. BusterD (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd make the same recommendation. It's not that a non-admin can't be just as skilled at closing non consensus outcomes, but such closings tend to get more scrutiny, which isn't good for anyone. —valereee (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * advice noted and heeded, although I will state for the record that it's annoying that people look at you funny if you fall in the river while learning to boat. I wrote an essay a while back on it being okay to make mistakes (the writing isn't fantastic)—i wish it were more true. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't we all. I'm sure User:Valereee and I have a similar interest (in preventing you from stepping on any rakes). 1) You seem self-aware and willing to adapt. 2) You don't take yourself too seriously. 3) You allow yourself grace. 4) You are a solid composer of pagespace. 5) Your work at DYK has been exemplary. Consider this post an inline barnstar. I have high hopes for you as a fellow wikipedian and enjoy your wiki-company. BusterD (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto. This isn't a warning that you've done something wrong. It's more an acknowledgement that life isn't fair. —valereee (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ah, i gotcha, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the words of encouragement :) and for the rake-early-warning-radar, your guidance has been really important for me. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Excuse any stereotype when I say, you have a future in show business. Nicely written. Humor and recognition make people want to laugh and be recognized. Your youthful enthusiasm is an attractive quality. BusterD (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why thank you :) the closing summary says The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete, so if merge is preferable, I do encourage the discussion to continue on the talk page. Isn't that a little self-contradictory? I'm not complaining or anything, but it doesn't seem like the closer found a consensus to keep. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * also me: shhhhhhh you'll jinx it theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Here we have illustrated for us the difficulty with loaded phrases like "no consensus". An ordinary editor like yourself is reasonably questioning that conclusion. If you were to come to this news with a preconception, you might disagree and even raise the temperature. Don't we agree there didn't seem to be any demonstrated love for the delete outcome? So that's a default to keep, and in the view of the closer, any decision to merge can be handled out of process. Unlikely this will go to DRV. It's a wise close. Leaves the eventual outcome in the hands of editors who care about the page. BusterD (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A clever close indeed—that's impressive! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Osman Çakmak DYK nomination
Hi! First of all, thank you very much indeed for your re-review and approval. I guess the former reviewer can meanwhile notice how simple and easy can be to review a DYK-nom.

Sorry about having shocked you. I am neither unprofessional nor professional, just an amateur Wikipedian. I might have been somehow harsh in this case, because I have not experienced such a case in my entire WP history. . Please let me explain the point I think you might have missed. Normally, reviews of DYK-noms are focused on checking of criteria listed. In this case, there were weeks long demands about the hook, neglecting all other criteria. After a "maybe satisfactory" ALT-hook was offered, another demand emerged to create another article and a DYK-nom related to that. One month after the first review post, a copyedit was requested. You may know that copyediting by the Guild takes around one month. That rquest by the reviewer could have been made right in the beginning. Fortunately, the Guild editor did it exceptionally in a very short time. When the reviewer complained a "space before a comm" I understood that there was no cooperative action. Such tiny typos are oftern fixed by cooperative reviewers. I don't think at all there is a "vendetta", but unserious handling and unnecessary demands.

I am very happy that a vast majory of Wikipedians, if not all with exceptions, are positive-minded, everytime helpful and cooperative. Have a nice day! CeeGee 11:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * thanks for reaching out! I definitely hear your side of the story, and maybe this episode carries some important notes on how to handle situations like these—diplomacy and boundaries usually gets faster results than a fight. By professionalism, by the way, I wasn't commenting on the quality of your work, or whether you were paid to do it—i used "professionalism" to mean conduct in a working environment. The review did drag on for a little bit longer than it should have, and I agree that NLH5 could have been a bit more upfront with the more important requests. But I think there are ways you could have handled this better, so let's take a look.
 * NLH5 said Would you be able to write an article for the European Amputee Football Championship and add it as a second bolded link for ALT3? Now, if you had said "No, that's not something I have the capacity to do at the moment, so let's move on," that would have been the end of that and we could have moved to the copyedit much earlier. NLH5 said as much in their last message on the page: If you had just said several days ago that you wouldn't be able to make one that would meet DYK standards, I would have approved the nomination then and there.
 * Your job as the nominator is effectively communicate your wants and abilities throughout the nomination process, something you failed at spectacularly. Instead of flat-out refusing to make the extra page in a clear manner, you jumped to conclusions on why they were suggesting another article (they were trying to help you make a better nomination) without any evidence and resorted to personal attacks. And the most important point, which is how you spoke to NLH5: the idea that they made up fake issues or otherwise intentionally attempted to delay your nomination is flat out wrong and offensive, and you should apologize to Narutolovehinata5 quietly on their talk page.
 * Look, I understand what you wanted here—a clean nomination, a quick tick, and that's it. No bells and whistles. But the reason that the nomination dragged on much longer than you wanted it to is not because NLH5 was unreasonable or roundabout. It was because you failed to be straightforward and civil. Straightforwardness and civility would have cut this nomination's turnaround time in half. You can see that throughout the thread that NLH5 is just trying to figure out whether you'll write the nomination or not. They didn't say that you had to in order for them to approve the nomination, you just never said that you would or wouldn't, causing them to be stuck. I think that should be what you take with you for future nominations: communicate what you want. You don't need to be peppy, or bubbly, or upbeat. But you need to be clear, civil, and upfront, which you did not do in this thread. Miscommunications happen; when they do, it's imperative that you be the calm one to go "back up—how did we get here?" That's what speeds your nominations up, much more than lashing out. Take care, CeeGee—i know this didn't quite go the way you wanted, and maybe there's a way we can prevent this from happening again. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * CeeGee, I'm not ripping on you—you're a talented, dedicated editor with a long tenure and a record of general civility. At the same time, however, this is something you might need to hone in on. Not every nomination is going to go exactly the way you want, and it's important to know how to push your interests when that happens. I'm not trying to tone police you as much as I'm trying to help you push your nominations through as fast as possible. Diplomacy is generally the best way to do that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Request on 09:56:20, 5 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Antfarmalta
Dear Theleekycauldron,

I do not think that my article about the strongman Tony Farrugia should be declined as it has ample sources and references many more than other known sports people from Malta. Also other performing strongmen such as the Jewish strongman the Mighty Atom Joe Greenstein has a page that has far less sources and references than this one. This is Greenstein's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Greenstein I was hoping to continue contributing to Wikipedia by writing articles about a number of performing strongmen from Malta. You must understand that I am from a tiny country where the sources will be much different that in the USA or UK. Thanks I hope you can reconsider.

Antfarmalta (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * hi there! I'm open to reconsidering, but the article is going to need some work first, because the article in its current state is not ready to be moved to mainspace. The first step is showing that the subject is notable—to do that, we need multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject that provide significant, in-depth coverage. If you had to pick three sources from the article that you think fulfill this requirement, what would they be? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 15:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think these would be some of the best references for the Tony Farrugia page but there are a lot of others too:
 * http://www.vida.mt/reallifesupermen/
 * https://lovinmalta.com/malta/is-this-maltas-strongest-man/
 * https://www.guidememalta.com/en/watch-omg-this-maltese-dude-pulled-two-trucks-just-by-using-his-body-strength
 * There are many others in the Maltese language as well. Antfarmalta (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for providing sources! The first one is an interview, and while interviews can be helpful in finding basic information about the person, they don't necessarily establish notability. The second source doesn't seem to be the most reliable to me, and I'm on the fence on whether the third source is reliable or not.

Gerd Ruge
In the very short hook about Gerd Ruge, I feel that we should hint at how unlikely such a friendship of a German journalist and a Russian author was at the time of the Cold War. It has no time and no nationality to give a clue. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * it didn't mention that Pasternak was russian in the hook, I missed that—happy to put it back in. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * when was Boris Ruge born? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * born 1962 (German wiki: Boris Ruge) Grimes2 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * if we're going this route, then, it should be mentioned in the article before it can be put in the hook theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Late to this: I hope everybody knows Pasternak, but the approved hooks said that Ruge was German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * i'm not understanding what you mean? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought you wanted to put in the hook that Pasternak was Russian, but I believe it's more important to say that Ruge was German. See nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * if we're going that route, we should put both in—expecting our readers to think or deduce that is asking a bit much, sadly. If we give them both nationalities and the date, some of the more astute will pick it up. If we give only one nationality and no date, that's hopeless. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You think that readers wouldn't know that Boris is a Russian name? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you put your average reader in a room and had them stare at the hook, sure, I think they could piece it together. But I don't think enough people are paying close enough attention that if you wrote "Boris" and "German" in different parts of the hook, they'd focus long enough to find it significant. Especially considering that the approved hook did not specify that it was in the Cold War. Look, if something is interesting, there's no reason to wash it in subtlety. The other hooks we're putting through are always going to at least reach for "shock and awe", and not hide their interestingness under deduction. If you've got something you want the readers to know, Gerda, spell it out :)! If it takes too many letters, then maybe it doesn't fit, but there's no reason to make things non-obvious when you don't have to. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest for now, you put in an approved hook, and we take it from there. More transparent than 3 people talking here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think I see a good reason to do that just yet. Once the other pieces are in place (the facts you want to mention significant, i.e. the birthdate) and cited inline, then we can discuss adding the nationalities and date in, but until then, adding nationalities and occupations doesn't make the hook better. We've got lots of time; no reason to rush. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my nom, I didn't make the hooks, I just noticed that from nom to prep it got less meaningful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mrs. Landingham
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mrs. Landingham you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pamzeis -- Pamzeis (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Cwmhiraeth
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * hehehe theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Citizens Square
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Leek, if I hadn't already given you a humor barnstar... ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2,051 views... my disappointment in the deductive skills of our readers is immeasurable. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's any comfort, I'm sure many more people saw it on the main page and got a good laugh. This particular hook is pretty in-your-face, which might be why so few readers felt the need to click through?
 * To help ensure my link joke is received well, I should offer a content warning for the piped link above: explicit topic and image. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * a content warning—for shame, ezlev, what ever happened to wp:notcensored? I'm not all that worked up about it, ya live and ya learn :) even making some thousand people laugh is such an underrated honour. could you imagine telling a joke that a thousand of people in a room laughed at? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

April 1st DYK suggestion
Hey Cauldron! I have some ideas for April 1 DYK hooks, but the articles need some work before they can be verified. I'm letting you know beforehand because you seem to be active in the field, and would like to know your thoughts on which ones would work before I proceed. My main objective was to mess with the beginning "... that" part and for them to trail off into sensical nonsense.


 * ... that that that is is that that is not is not is that it it is?
 * ... that, that, um, that you had, uh, that you had to, you could, you do, you wit, you wa, you could do so, you do you could, you want, you wanted him to do you so much you could do anything?

April 1st articles need to follow the same criteria as regular DYKs do, correct? Panini! 🥪 15:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, Panini!  The first hook is absolutely incredible—if you can expand the article 5x (not a small task, it's at 800B, but you got it) that would at the very least make an excellent quirky hook. I'm not sure about the second hook—i was an avid consumer of Goodnight Moon in my sunrise years, long ago, but I'm not sure what the hook might be referring to. April 1 DYKs do need to meet the same criteria, yep—if you make a nomination for either article, and you want to have input on whether it's suitable for April Fools' Day (and I'm leaning towards possibly not), you might want to ping Gatoclass after you've made the nomination. Best of luck, I'd love to promote that hook! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Video adaptation is what this is referring to. Ever seen that one internet meme of that kid in a red shirt stuttering for 45 seconds in front of a starry background if that rings a bell at all? I do prefer the first one, though, so I'll see what I can do. Panini! 🥪 18:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, i gotcha. I don't think that'd fly as a DYK hook, unfortunately, but that is interesting. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I wish you luck
... on the spoken TFA, but I won't be participating further because it just doesn't interest me enough. EEng 03:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Understood—thanks for all your help thus far! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mrs. Landingham
The article Mrs. Landingham you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mrs. Landingham for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pamzeis -- Pamzeis (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Triple Crown

 * May they indeed, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Congrats, you spirit of DYK. Today 3 DYK, Brahms depicted + sadly Aga Mikolaj (listen!). May the roads that we travel make us meet again! Where do you want comments on your FAC-to-be? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, gerda! I'm sorry, I meant to get back to you—i'd be so grateful if you could leave comments on the article's talk page :) I quite like Möge die Straße uns zusammenführen, I listened to the YouTube recording—very peaceful, but also solemn. Nice work on the article!
 * p.s.—gerda, i had the most fantastic time at a showcase of arias put on by my colleagues. I was blown away, they all sounded so fantastic, their voices were clear and powerful. I thought I didn't like to listen to classical music regularly (although i do enjoy performing it), but the songs are truly magical when they resonate throughout the hall so clearly. I was thinking of you while I listened—i really got to understand why you love the genre and its history so much. anyways, just wanted to say that it was a good concert and that i appreciate your spirit :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! As for FAC and beyond (where?), thank you for the reminder. You may see that I'm behind in FA reviewing, one more to come before your candidate ;) - I also am in the process of translating Stockhausen compositions to German, - that's less visible here. While that is productive, I feel I'm wasting time in DYK discussions (Litta, Blanc). The latest argument is that the linked articles are in no good shape: a wonderful woman organ teacher, a Notre-Dame organist, - it's a shame that the articles are not better (and competition articles missing), and I wish I could ask LouisAlain instead of doing it myself ... - long version of: patience will be needed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)j
 * happy to wait as long as you need! We can reconvene whenever you're ready. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanksgiving music - and Alkan tomorrow! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * and here I was thinking thanksgiving music is just a choir of turks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ... as in Die Entführung aus dem Serail? ... different opera tonight. - Can't believe that Langsamer Satz has no article. First: 2 more who died, one (again) created by LouisAlain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Today: the memory of SlimVirgin is pictured again, in the context about my dangerous thoughts about arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * no love for arbcom, i'm assuming—was this one incident or many or just everything? I'm a little behind the times (although I've seen SlimVirgin's memorial page) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * oops, forgot to ping you... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * short version of little respect: in 2013, there was a case infoboxes, my first ever, and I found disappointing that the looking of arbs into facts was as bad as: one of them voted to ban a prolific content editor citing a diff in which that one had uncollapsed an infobox (no more!!), and none of the colleagues noticed or protested, and that vote was the majority for a ban. I realised that arbcom includes a lot of hot air, too many words and kafkaesque procedures. I was sentenced to restrictions, and from then on treated as an infobox warrior, while the worst thing I did in that battle was restoring the better version weeks after an edit war (on Sparrow Mass). In 2021, we had the case against my friend RexxS which is in the Signpost, and I clarified today. I believe that Wikipedia would be better if that case had not happened, and several editors I respect thought the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ... wow. Mostly speechless—there isn't much for me to add to the choir, other than that's a truly shocking case. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I said it wouldn't improve kindness, nor a single article, - Cassandre. (Further reading: User talk:Hammersoft, - we tried to tell the filer to withdraw, in vain.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/Stembridge Gun Rentals
Hi there! I did not count (pictured) as part of the 200 characters because WP:DYKHOOK states: "no more than about 200 characters (including spaces and the question mark, but not including the, the space immediately following the, or any  )." Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I really should check the guidelines before I flap my mouth sometimes—cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From Did you know/Supplementary guidelines: Do the 11 characters in " (pictured)" or the 27 characters in " (specific object pictured)" (i.e. including an introductory space) count towards the 200 character limit?
 * That's interesting. Consistent rules would be nice in this project. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * No worries! I, too, checked the supplementary guidelines first after you pinged me and got confused, before realizing that there might be something mentioned in the main rules page.  Thanks for everything you do for the DYK community! —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreement
"I firmly believe in the ability of younger editors to be positive and productive contributors to this project." - I agree with this statement. I started editing on Wikipedia when I was 15 years old although I left my first account with admin permission due to editors treating me badly. I then created this account (as Joe Chill) when I was 16 years old. Due to my RFA bombing early when I was 16 years old in 2010, it would be great to see an RFA of yours succeeding if you decide to go that route. SL93 (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if mentioning any of this bugged you. I’m sure I might regret posting the comment on your talk page just as I might regret editing my use page earlier. I truthfully feel kind of depressed right now and I can’t help thinking of things - part of why I brought up my failed RFA and the rude editors. SL93 (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, SL93—I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, wonderful messages like your agreement are ones where I like to mull my response over. I can't get myself to write when I'm all excited. You didn't bug me at all; in fact, I've had a rough day today and it really lifted my spirits. I'm glad we agree on this :) I see younger editors being condescended to and disrespected (such as in your RfA) all the time, and I thought I'd stand up a little bit. And I am planning to try an RfA! Not in the immediate future, probably mid-January—but i am excited. It's nice to meet another editor who knows the drawbacks of getting involved when you're younger.
 * Schuylar, I can see that you're writing from a tough place right now. It breaks my heart to read your story on your user page; a few of my closest friends are on the spectrum, and the way it affects every aspect of their lives as it seems to have yours is really saddening. The way we hurt children by ignoring their differences instead of recognizing and celebrating them has a lasting impact. And I can see it in your past RfA, too; it was difficult to read other people tone policing you because they don't understand your communication style, because they thought that you were being abrasive or blunt where you really weren't. From the time I've spent talking to you, you seem to be dedicated, accommodating, reasonable, and in your own way, kind, charitable, and understanding. I have nothing but respect for who you are and the obstacles you've overcome—to the extent that I know you, arms across the vague and vast internet, I'm proud of how far you've come and I'm proud to have worked with you. You should try another RfA some day (not now, wait until you're feeling a little better). It would undoubtedly be the easiest support !vote I've ever written. I think you will probably end up revising your user page when you're in a better place (I'm with you in spirit if you want to get oversight to revdel there, too), but I hope you don't regret leaving the messages you did. It was lovely to read, and it's okay to need someone to talk to—even if it's just about the smaller things like editing under the age of majority. Maybe you should find someone to talk to about the bigger stuff, too. You're a strong guy; you'll get through this okay.
 * Take care of yourself,
 * Claudia (they/them) 08:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I replaced it, but with something that screams nerd. SL93 (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * well it's a good thing we're all huge nerds, then, isn't it theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Fuchs Mizrachi School
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 2013 Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up
Hi there. Did you have any remaining questions with regard to my latest response to you at Template:Did you know nominations/NBA 75th Anniversary Team? Wasn't sure if it's resolved and just awaiting promotion, or perhaps there were still issues? Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * hi there! I'm pretty sure we're in the clear (i'll give it another once-over), but all the preps are full at the moment. My guess is that it'll probably be promoted sometime within the next few days :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No prob. I was more concerned there was still a technical issue and not so much worried on the promotion timing. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mrs. Landingham
The article Mrs. Landingham you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mrs. Landingham for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pamzeis -- Pamzeis (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * woooohoo! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 17 People
— Maile (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * thanks so much! and can i just say i think that's a fantastic system you've got going on at dykstats and you really put a bunch of work into the script and making the tables and it's all just such great work? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * aww, me? shucks, thank you :)! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * for those following along at home, just don't question it 🙃

Challenges
Hi, in response to these changes I'm glad to see a potential first winner for Calendar but would you mind asking people if they're happy to be added before listing them at the Challenges page (and doing so retroactively here)? — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * yep, probably should have done that first theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

thank you.
that was super interesting. i hope you had fun with the pompous idiots, you vandal. stay strong, and have a nice day. 37.7.96.81 (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * :)) these people, man, they just bring a smile to my face. god, i love it here sometimes theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

A note
Hi Theleekycauldron, I just wanted to reach out to you personally after what happened yesterday at Talk:Main Page. Even though I was angry at the GIF for reasons that are probably very personal, I wanted to express to you in no uncertain terms that I am grateful for the work that you do at DYK and that I absolutely did not think—and still don't think—for a second that this was your fault personally. I am aware that assembling prep areas is a difficult and highly visible task that requires a lot of subjective judgment and calls for bold choices. I am also aware that these templates go through a lot of filters before they make it to the front page. I have expressed my trust in your judgement a few weeks ago and would absolutely do so again in the future. Thanks again. JBchrch  talk  20:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you—trust is a fickle thing, and I appreciate that I still have yours :) I'm not beating myself up unnecessarily—i'm just one part of a process and a filtration system, to be sure, but this is causing me to introspect on how I select hooks when it comes to things like this, and that's okay. I hope others introspect on their role in the Main Page process as well. We live and we learn :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * p.s., thank you for bringing this to wider attention—it was worth the discussion and lesson, even if it ended up running the full twelve hours anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Jingle Cats
I'm rethinking having Template:Did you know nominations/Jingle Cats run on Christmas due to the potential of complaints that boil down to "how dare animals doing normal things be featured on Christmas" per "copulating". SL93 (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * this delphine episode is making us all introspect a little, I guess. I'm happy to remove or keep the s.o. hold, whatever you'd like. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to remove the hold. SL93 (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר וַֽיְהִי־אֽוֹר׃ (and God said, "let there be light", and there was light). in my case, I moved a nomination and left a note, but, y'know, equally important. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The delphine episode? What did I miss? —valereee (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh ... That Belle Delphine DYK with that gif on the main page created a lot of controversy! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh, just read it, thanks. Don't know how I missed that, lol! If I'd seen it I would have said I didn't find it offensive or sexist. I might have questioned the licensing. —valereee (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Alkan
Please put the composer back in for Alkan's cello sonata, with link or without - many cello sonatas were written at the time, and he deserves credit. Also a FA, so perhaps better with link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * done-dunino! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Similarly, for Frédéric Blanc, please find a way to add the key information that his church is not any church in Paris but has an organ by the organ builder of organ builders in the hook (which was in the caption, - or run it pictured), - shorten the prize description if necessary. Could be "an international organ improvisation prize in Paris", for example. If only LouisAlain could translate the competition article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * surprisingly, i didn't actually touch that one, although I'll take a look at that in a minute. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * oh, i see. interesting. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * oh, and then what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * changes made :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

yes actually, "winningest"
FYI - While not in common usage outside the United States, "winningest" is a real and proper word that is in common usage in the United States, particularly as applied to coaches and sporting teams, even in high-end publications like The New York Times. E.g., here, here, here, here, here. See also The Washington Post (here and here), The Boston Globe (here), Chicago Tribune (here), and Los Angeles Times (here). It's a useful word that serves the interest of brevity, allowing the use of one word where otherwise five or more words would be required to convey the same meaning. Cbl62 (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * it seems I was wrong, then; ya learn something new every day in this job! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Go for it (RfA)
As per my comments at WT:RfA (#redalert), and to FOARP, I definitely think you should stand for RfA, and right now. Don't wait. I definitely think you were given poor advice at the optional poll, and the reality is the current willingness of RfA to happily pass anyone who is demonstrably a good person with their head screwed on the right way is clear. And you fit the bill, easily. If anything, being seen to be willing to try and change who you really are on a fundamental level, just to pass RfA, and on the advice of only a handful of users (rather than the broad poll of an actual RfA), will probably be seen at RfA of today as still, if not a very good reason to oppose, then a least a reason to go looking for other signs you are there for the wrong reasons (the deadly hat collector vibe). Don't give people that reason to suspect your motivation. Present who you are, proudly. Although, and this might sound entirely at odds with that, sadly, you might have to seriously consider some practical way that you can more easily distinguish yourself from the other similarly named user, if only to completely avoid that instant negative reaction. I myself initially thought, woah, them, seriously? Trunk Master (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * (Wait for it, wait for it, wait for it, wait for it)
 * I'm not falling behind or running late
 * I'm not standing still
 * I am lying in wait
 * — Leslie Odom Jr. as Aaron Burr, in "Wait for It" from Hamilton
 * *sigh* hooooo boy. It's bad enough when the voices in my head encourage me to be hasty and tell me to throw caution to the winds. Some experienced non-admin editor seemingly creating an alt account just to tell me to do the same is not exactly what I'm looking for at the moment.
 * Trunk Master, I'm not changing who I am because I'm fond of hat collecting. After my disastrous blunder years from the ages of 9 to 14 where I wore a neon orange baseball cap literally wherever I went, I think I'm out of the hat business for a while (also, I grew out my hair since july 2020). In all seriousness, I don't want a title. If there were a way to promote DYK preps to queues without the adminship, I'd do that and never look back. As for your rationale for not waiting, I say put up. Find me a living body who thinks that I'm undermining my ability, judgement, capacity for wonder, sense of humour, chipper attitude, or any other part of my personality in pursuit of the adminship. Find them for me right now, I'll talk them through any concerns they've got. And if not, oh well. Can't please everyone.
 * I'm grateful for the advice BusterD and Ritchie333 gave me—I've grown a lot in the past month or so since the RfA poll. Really, my only takeaways from that RfA poll was that I needed 1. more experience and 2. a reputation for mature judgement instead of silly mistakes or juvenile conduct. Those are reasonable things to expect from an admin, and I'm more than happy to show my capability for both; and I'm also not opposed to putting more distance between me and some previous silliness before I place myself under a microscope for the community to ogle at. I am an experienced, personable, and sane editor, and i will be happy to stand for RfA when the time is right, but now is not that time. I have the potential to be an example to everyone of the judgement and abilities of the younger editors of the encyclopedia, and I am not throwing away my shot (wow, we're really mixing and matching hamilton references today) on an impulse. I can't let the widest community's first real exposure to me be that of an immature kid. That's a stain that doesn't come out with anything but time, much more time than just two months.
 * As for distinguishing myself from leaky caldron, I'm thinking that just a simple disambig works fine. Trunk Master, i appreciate you taking the time to reach out, and I certainly appreciate where you're coming from. But caution and maturation are virtues, not vices. And I'd like to make sure I have both in healthy supply. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 12:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Great reply, leeky. Just a note that Trunk Master has been indefinitely blocked (as a sock) by an admin, Blablubbs. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think at some point there may be a popular uproar from the community to promote either one or both of you nice and competent folks to the mop, whether you are 17 or 70. Until that time, both Theleekycauldron and Kavyansh.Singh should keep their powder dry and continue to produce intelligent and engaging work on culture and politics, continuing to demonstrate competence, imagination and reliability. You two should soldier on. There are over 400 West Wing episodes to bring to DYK, and so many more than that number in actual political campaigns. The two of you have plenty of material to shovel, so to speak. I am happy to see even the trolls appreciate you. BusterD (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just got free after writing Louis H. Bean, and read your reply. @, you made my day!! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * mine, too—it's always a lovely day when we hear from BusterD :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm feeling a need for fresh eyes. I closed a pretty ordinary afd a few weeks ago, but the resulting DRV relisted it and the fresh discussion has gone down a well, IMHO. I said some things I regretted and withdrew in copyedit, but I'd like one or both of you to look over my last comment there and critique me here without interacting with the discussion. Might be some reading involved. Help me see myself when I say something sounding less than fully mature. BusterD (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're fighting the wrong fight, BusterD, and I think you're doing it for the wrong reasons. This looks like it's been a frustrating AfD—not always much civility, lots of things moving around, Supermann being determined to screw things up. But I don't think the way you took out that frustration on Herostratus for a misunderstanding was acceptable. Yes, they were not aware of the way you used WP:DENY. Yes, their bad premise of assuming you deleted based on DENY served as a step towards the conclusion that you ignored the article, and that you acted alone/rashly, which you did not. But that's easy to clear up, no? Just explain how you're using the policy here, go through your reasoning a bit.
 * Then comes Herostratus, full of judgement but little curiosity. You go on a bit of a turn criticizing Herostratus for not involving themself with extensive fact-finding before voicing an opinion. I understand that dealing with people who don't have all the facts is frustrating, but you had your opportunity right there. You could have set them straight in a way that didn't put them on the defensive, because people will get defensive when they feel like they are being attacked. He didn't inquire on your talk about the DRV? I'd say to pretend that he just did with his previous comment, and lay out your thinking. It makes life a little easier for everyone.
 * Since then, I've just been watching you hang yourself, friend. Supermann is gone, which is what DGG would have liked to do but was just too personally kind to do. You have outed yourself. I'm watching women's college basketball with friends. Things could be worse. To me, this comes off as condescending and pseudo-unattached, as in "oh, I'm going to pretend to be too cool for school, but look at you go." And frankly, I don't see how that helps anyone.
 * Herostratus isn't innocent here, but honestly, your comment seems like overkill. This has been a rough and frustrating DRV and relist—particularly for you. I think you let that frustration get the better of you, and I'd suggest walking back a little. If I'm missing some evidence here, something they said that justifies it, feel free to tell me—but I'm not seeing much in the way of egregiously bad faith on Herostratus's part, that would merit this reply. Let me know what you think, I'm interested to hear your point of view as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am not the best person to give advice, especially to someone much more experienced on Wikipedia, but here is my two-cent — BusterD, you closed an AfD as a "delete", which was in my opinion the consensus at the time of deletion. Not all will understand your reasoning, and even many of those who understand will oppose it. A deletion review happened. The nomination was relisted. Frustrating–yes. But, when an AfD page is getting around 450 views per day immediately after the deletion review, there is some issue! What happened after the review was a clear split in the community as to whether "Keep" or "Delete". Without pointing out any particular user, one can agree that the environment there didn't have much civility. But, being civil in an environment of complete incivility is the role of an administrator ... I would not specify anything particular in your last comment, but it could have been phrased a little more polite. Often something you said in good faith would intentionally be mistreated by people as a personal attack (which otherwise it clearly wouldn't have been it). It seems that there has been a bit of hurry in replying on your part, much more on others, but it's always better to 'discuss' and 'communicate' than 'arguing' (not pointing anyone in particular). But that would not change until we all start considering it a "deletion discussion" than a "deletion debate". Thoughts? And apologies for any misunderstanding on my part in advance. We all are wrong in some way or other, aren't we? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Statistics
Your updates to the DYK statistics page has made me more interested in seeing if I could make better hooks for more views. Of course it's not just about views and it is not a competition, but I thought that Template:Did you know nominations/Mr. Bloom would be an interesting test. Thanks for your updates and the talk page messages are appreciated. SL93 (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * aww, of course! That's a pretty good hook you've got at Mr. Bloom, nicely done—and hey, if you ever want another pair of eyes on a hook, shoot me a ping. Or, more likely, i'm probably going to pop by anyway. It's how I show my appreciation for all the good work you do ;)
 * you gotta figure that neither of us are in the correct time zone to be justifiably awake right now... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, trying to figure this out, sorry for being obtuse. I don't know what 'go to any WP:Recent additions archive, there'll be a button at the top that reads "Get views!"' is referring to -- where am I finding "Get views!"? I went to the above page and searched on that term, am not finding it, so I think by 'any' you mean something besides that particular page? :D —valereee (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think installing the script is what makes the button show up. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the most intuitive tool—I'll make a documentation page :) And yes, ezlev is correct that the script needs to be installed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone should ask another editor to promote the Mr. Bloom article since we can't. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * SL93 fair enough, I'll ping Kavyansh when the next prep opens up; you're not the only one with a nomination I can't promote. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/ she? ) 00:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. SL93 (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Larry Smyth
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

he was a good dude, it seems theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 12:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dumpster fire
Hello! Your submission of Dumpster fire at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pamzeis (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * blushing :) thank you, victuallers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hook thoughts?
Hi, any hook ideas coming to mind for The Pooh Perplex? I'm not sure where to go. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * thanks for the request! My best shot, just based on hookiness, would be something like: (Did you know ...)
 * ... that The Pooh Perplex analyzes Winnie-the-Pooh through a Marxist lens?
 * "Marxist" could be switched out with "Freudian", but I honestly think "Marxist" is grabbier. Any ideas on how to build on that, or do you want to go down a different path? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I have an idea!
 * ... that a 1963 book created had a chilling effect on academic analysis of Winnie-the-Pooh?
 * You might have me beat, though, leek – Marxism does tend to be pretty grabby ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what nags me about dyk from time to time, ezlev—your hook is much more interesting to me, because it beckons of a three-hour wikipedia rabbit hole I would love to go down. But if I had to guess, I'd say my hook would get more views from the main page. A shame :l theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As a followup to the biggest turdus I'd suggest
 * ... that a 1963 book offers Marxist and psychoanalytic interpretations of Pooh?
 * EEng 05:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Time, Love, Memory DYK
Hi Theleekycauldron! Thanks for changing my hook, looks good. But maybe the image can be kept? I think it's nice, and it shows both "characters" of the book - Benzer and fly. What do you think? Artem.G (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, Artem.G! It is a nice image, I like it quite a lot, but there's a lot of competition for the image slot—it's particularly ruthless at the moment, so lots of small things adding up incline me to not wait and just promote a hook without the image. For one, your reviewer never actually approved the image while reviewing the hook. For another, I'm not quite sure that it's clear enough—between the black and white and its scale, I mistook it for an oblong microscope for a solid minute before I understood why it was interesting. I'm sorry I didn't have better news for you on this one—thank you for reaching out, though! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * you're probably right, thanks for detailed answer! let it be like it is, it's still nice :) Artem.G (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I reread the ALT you proposed "that Seymour Benzer explains in his book how Time, Love, [and] Memory became associated with specific fly genes?", but the problem is that it's not his book, it's a book about him and his studies. Sorry I didn't see it before, it was too early for me to understand the text properly. Artem.G (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * no need to ping me, we're on my talk page :) I'll fix the hook theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

May interest you
Did you know

... that?

(WIP.) Urve (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, i love this with all my heart—I'mna faint theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support. It was fun. I wonder if we'll see any fun error reports when it runs :) Urve (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There'll be quite some fun in the mild chaos :) shame on our readership, by the way, if that (heh) hook doesn't do absurdly well on the WP:DYKSTATS boards. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur Hathaway Hewitt
— Maile (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

dyk nomination of something or other i forgot
No, It is not going to get expanded further because I only had to add 500 words to itHARA0201 (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC).
 * Probably Template:Did you know nominations/Shepherds' Crusade (1320)? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * that would be the one, thanks theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * aww, thank you, Ktin! i'm tearing up a little :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha. No time to tear up. Lots to do. Chop! Chop! :) Have a nice thanksgiving! Ktin (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * aha :) happy thanksgiving! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

dyk talk archives
FWIW, DYK talk archives automatically after 14 days. Manual archiving only needs to be done when there's been a glitch, like an unsigned post. —valereee (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * yeah, but that's usually pretty slow, and I'd rather keep WT:DYK small because lots of important things happen on the page, and people should focus on the active. I made a mistake on the queues-to-preps discussion, sorry about that—i'll be more conservative with what i consider to be a wrapped-up discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 14 days is not slow. Many fast-moving discussion pages archive at 30. —valereee (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * pity they don't have a sixteen year old hopped up on adhd to whip them into shape /s theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, if I recall correctly, it used to be a seven-day archiving period—EEng changed it because there are manual archivers on the page anyway theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But there was at least one other very long discussion removed that had received posts just a few days before. Not everyone checks every talk page they're interested in daily. I can maybe see archiving something short and completely noncontroversial, like a simple request to fix a hook that then does get fixed, although even then I think those discussions are helpful to stay on the page because they let other editors see what is being questioned and fixed, which is educational. But long discussions shouldn't be archived early, especially if there's anything contentious in them at all. I don't think we should be deciding that shortening the page is more important than allowing others to see all discussions. —valereee (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but then I'm moving the archiving period back to seven days. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, but why? I mean, I don't necessarily object to that, but why is it better? —valereee (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Bi Wikipedians has been nominated for discussion
Category:Bi Wikipedians has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The West Wing task force
Hi there! If you're receiving this, it's because you like The West Wing—I happen to love the show, and I'm trying to set up a task force for it under WikiProject Television to improve its coverage on Wikipedia. If you'd like to join, please leave your name here—hope to see you there!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Above Znoneofthe
(originally posted at User talk:Ivanvector) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the notes and banners and such, but credit for this DYK belongs to you. I let it drop when I took a mental health break and you picked it up and did a great job with it. Cheers! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you, that means a lot to me! I'm glad you took some time off to take care of yourself, too :) I couldn't have pushed it through without you, of course, so how about we share the credit? Lots of DYK nominations give credit to more than one editor equally. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for hook updates, month summary, stats, and the lovely message for Yoninah! - Today: sharing symphonic music - happy listening! - I asked the arb cands if they'd listen, which is an art. - Listen to what de:Jerome Kohl wrote about Zeitmaße, premiered by Pierre Boulez. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Gerda! And thank you for knocking my head on straight when necessary :) I also appreciate that even when you're tabling arbcom candidates, you have a record of whether or not you gave them your precious award (puns!).
 * side note, the line "give us courage to listen" reminds me how important communication is in friendships of all kinds: in both having the courage to speak up and having the courage to just—listen and understand. It's vital, and sometimes overlooked. may the arbcom candidates have the courage to listen as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a history of arb cand questions, beginning in 2013 when I was on arbcoms receiving end. From the beginning I noted Precious, and when I liked answers I passed it right then. Alas, not this year. No Precious for those saying "the case had to be taken" when there was not enough talk beforehand. Sigh. (Little test: Try the first step of the 2013 question.) - Music is better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Back to DYK, thanks for good prep sets, and the stats, and the notes about stats! Sigh, I am not so happy with having two articles in one set (not even one day), after a week or so without any, but never mind if it fits diversity. More serious concern: I think that a young filmmaker who died deserves an image more than an Atari box, and people from Peru aren't pictures often in the DYK section anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I can swap one of your hooks in that set with one down the line in a couple of days, when new preps open up—that's no big deal :) As for the image, look—sentimentalism isn't a non-factor in choosing lead hooks, but for me, it usually doesn't overrule image quality. Catacora's face was not well-shaded in that picture, there were shadows in places you usually don't want in a well-lit shot. And (i think it's because this is a YouTube screenshot), the image is slightly pixelly itself—it's only 720x720, and for images as visually complex as people, we usually run something more in the thousands (or at least, I do—I wasn't planning on running Doreen Nabwire in the lead, but I didn't build that set so I deferred to the promoter's choice). I'm not indifferent to representing minorities in the image slot, but I'm also not inclined to run less visually clear and appealing hooks for that sake. The image of the Atari 810 is clear, sharp, and most importantly to me, super simple—the main page is often a lot of content, hitting you all at once, and the box's outer simplicity makes it seem like a good place to start when viewing the main page. I happen to like that tranquility; I see where you're coming from, I'm sorry if this wasn't what you wanted to hear, but I think I'm okay with the choice I've made for that slot. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/ she? ) 18:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I like all of your reply but "what you wanted to hear" ;) - I wanted to hear your reasoning, and understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * noted—I do always appreciate your open ears :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/ she? ) 21:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that you have two filmmakers in that slot ;) - Thank you for moving the mezzo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * vacation greetings from Munich, rich in culture, culinary events and meeting dear people. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ((: sounds like an excellent time! very pretty images, too theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I took more today, will upload later - today, an Italian opera, my second ever, as the TFA written by two dear people, and a park where I went with dear people, as pictured DYK --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * pics uploaded - no, ask BlueMoonset: I'm not supposed to touch my hook, not even move it to Special occasions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * well, gerda, time has shown that very few people care which rules I think are stupid. also, i see that the late GuillameTell contributed some to today's FA—may we never forget the contributions of those who've departed theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for the sentiment! - prep 7 is for 20 Dec, no? the hook should go to 19 Dec, - without image. When these nuns sing you don't see them (as the compose noted), - picturing a tourist destination isn't quite the mood ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Done-donino, my mistake! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, also for the stats updates, and even one for me ;) - on Beethoven's birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * today memories of singing Monteverdi, Handel, Rossini - a triple nod to Brian, an unsurpassed model of constant kindness and helpfulness coupled with competence! - We had a constant flow of Johnbod's Christmas cards since 2011, - please don't interrupt that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * look at this, i'm being lobbied ;) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm busy the next few weeks
but I'd like to learn what you folks at DYK go through. Can you send me a diff when you've begun assembling prep(s)? I want to see the basic moves without interruption or discussion, satisfy myself I understand the danger points, then perform some prep assembly under supervision. Could you bring me up to speed over the course of December/January? I have this bit I'm hardly using... BusterD (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to! We'll start with prep set building (closing noms and assembling the sets, although it doesn't require the bit), because 1. it's more fun and 2. it gives you a pretty good feel for DYK's backroom. I'll start working up some examples and guides, let me know when you're ready! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This was my error, not theirs. It was my review and after they agreed to the strikethrough, it was my responsibility to make certain the hook was copy and paste ready. I'm looking through your edit history in the various preps, is how I spotted your edit summary. I thought the hook was a bit on the un-punchy side but within the realm. If you come across Albruna you'll see there's likely a better more threatening hook somewhere inside but I couldn't find it. BusterD (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, my mistake—I'm sorry, DeCausa! It's no big deal, BusterD—that's a much easier problem to spot and fix than some others. Plus, we have Mandarax and Ravenpuff on the payroll at the prep sets, and they're eagled-eyed for these formatting mistakes. Albruna does probably have a better hook in there somewhere, but I'm going to let it go for the moment.
 * if you don't mind my asking, was there something in particular you were looking for in my edit history? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/ she? ) 00:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)