User talk:Gatoclass/Archive 17

Empire Dynasty[edit]

I've replied at WT:DYK. Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello. You have a new message at Rjanag's talk page.

Review template[edit]

It looks like the discussion there has petered out without much input (and no input from Tony or OhConfucius, who seem to be the main supporters of the other checklist).

Regarding this question of yours, I'm not sure if you removed it because you realized the answer already, but anyway, for what it's worth: it would be quite easy to do this if people don't want signatures in the template (in fact, this is what the earliest version of the template did); but for anything requiring signatures or even just plain usernames to be left, something needs to be subst'ed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of frivolous AEs[edit]

"Another frivolous case initiated by Jaakobou - and unfortunately by Biosketch, who is rapidly establishing a similar pattern." I'm in no way insulted by your comment, but I do disagree with it and would appreciate if you could substantiate it. I think the AE against RolandR (talk · contribs) was only my third – possible fourth – AE. My first one, as I recall, resulted in an editor being banned from I/P for six months. The one further up the page will probably end in a warning or a short block. How then do you figure that I'm rapidly establishing a pattern of frivolous AEs?—Biosketch (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't spend all day hanging around AE counting cases or analyzing user conduct. I have seen you bring a couple of cases that I thought lacked merit. I have also seen you present evidence I thought was lacking in credibility. Additionally, I have seen you threaten to bring cases against users for what I consider to be fairly minor issues.

It's the combination of these factors which have led me to the impression that you are taking an overly litigious approach to dispute resolution. The kind of issues you make cases out of are the kind of things I choose to overlook on a daily basis when editing in the AE conflict area. I just think that in the long run it would be to your advantage to take a similar approach, for a number of reasons. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting away with it yet again?[edit]

Please avoid making irrelevant smear-intended commentary. See also poor form. To your statement, many editors whom I complained about for lack of ability to maintain relative objectivity -- PalestineRemembered, Nickhh, Nishidani, Pedrito and others -- had ended up with an indef ban despite ample defense from sympathizers (including yourself). The complaint I brought forth is not nonsense, but rather makes plenty of sense.[1] I implore you to find diffs which negate the content I presented as evidence, please.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC) more precise. 11:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC) +diff 11:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the review checklist[edit]

Hi Gato, before I put any more time into working on the review template (which it seems many people want but few other than you want to spend time giving me feedback about), would it be worthwhile to revisit the checklist issue entirely with a new discussion (I'm loathe to say "RfC" or "poll", although I guess that's what it'll have to be) to see if people really want one at all? As we all know, the "checklist RfC" was carried out hastily and opportunistically, in the middle of the DYK scrutiny that lots of people like to use to try to make drastic changes; many people commenting there weren't DYK regulars, many of the DYK regulars who did support it (including me) did so because we thought it wouldn't be a big change from the status quo, and I think few people thought about the ramifications of it. Now that it's been a few weeks and people are starting to get a better idea of what it actually means, maybe it's best to re-evaluate whether this is even wanted before I try making a new template to do something people don't want.

In particular, I'm thinking an alternative would just be to make a clear checklist outside of nomination pages, similar to WP:WIAFA and WP:GAC, that makes it clear what needs to be checked in a review but which doesn't need to be filled out every time. We already basically have such a checklist at WP:DYK#DYK rules, although that's geared more towards nominators than reviewers; a similar one can be made with some small changes (removing some of the details like the long paragraph about how to calculate prose size; breaking down the "within policy" rule into the main things that should be checked--NPOV, sources, plagiarism). rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting the checklist be made an optional guide as in the GAN system rather than something built in to the nom template? I guess that's a possibility, although the real concern, I think, is that QPQ reviewers are not reviewing thoroughly enough. Maybe what we could do is make it initially optional for now, given the current chaos at T:TDYK, and later perhaps, make it compulsory for QPQ reviewers only, and then see how that is working out. The important thing to do at this point, I think, is to slow down the rate of change, because so many new systems have been added to T:TDYK so quickly that it's led to a great deal of confusion and a lot of users just giving up in disgust. Gatoclass (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we also need to urgently sort out the archiving business BTW. Gatoclass (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment about the archiving thing back at WT:DYK. I'd be ok with getting rid of it and going back to the way it was before (everything on T:TDYK); as far as I know, the only person who wanted it was Sandy, and I never thought it was particularly useful anyway. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gato. I threw together a sample of what I have in mind at User:Rjanag/DYK review criteria. My idea was to write the criteria in a way that's focused on helping tell reviewers what they need to check (whereas WP:DYK#DYK rules is more focused on telling potential nominators how to make sure their article is eligible, and explains the reasons for the rules in more depth), and to make it concise enough to be useful as a regular guide for reviewing rather than just something to read hte first time they are trying to learn what DYK is (which is what I think WP:DYK#DYK rules is probably used as).

My idea was not to have it in the review itself, but somewhere prominent--for instance, in the edit notice, or linked from the edit notice. Of course, right now it's too big to go in an edit notice directly, so I think it would be best to either a) make an even more condensed version, similar to the horizontal table we've been working on; b) wrap it up in some sort of {{show}} or {{hat}} so that it's hidden by default, but can be easily viewed by the person who's actually doing the main review (and then doesn't have to be big and annoying every other time anyone wants to leave a comment on the subpage); or c) just link it from the editnotice. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not sure about this. Are you suggesting adding this to every nom? Sounds like overkill to me. I have been considering authoring a guideline for QPQ reviewers but haven't got around to it yet. IMO a link to such a page in the nom page would probably be sufficient. Gatoclass (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, can I delete the links intended for the archives at T:TDYK yet? Since we're not archiving them any more they don't seem to be serving any further purpose. Gatoclass (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your comment on the DYK issue (August 14). I think I got things straightened out. -- James26 (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template changes[edit]

You reverted some changes to the DYK Template that I made. The changes were made because I felt a need for quick ref to all the pages - the current linking/template did not meet the need. The new Reviewing Guidelines have no link to the rules etc. Similarly the Rules & Subsidiary rules need linking back for making things easier in navigation. Doing away with the links I added does not add functionality. I am interested to know as to why you think the links are not required. If you feel that these links are not required in the template, then how do we solve the problem? AshLin (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only removed the onepage link - I don't think it's necessary to include that in the template since there are links to it at the other pages. We don't want too much clutter in the template, it's only going to confuse people. I left your "Reviewing guide" link in there because I think that putting it in the template is at least defensible, given the complaints we have had about inadequate reviewing. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, saw your rearrangement. AshLin (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another DYK[edit]

Would you please review my DYK nomination at T:TDYK? It is the only August 14 nomination which hasn't even had a comment on it (yes, its been 5 days but to no avail). Regards, Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of DYKs, as we all ready with Template:Did you know nominations/Golden Domes? I haven't seen any comments in days. Will Beback talk 04:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, there are people who have been waiting to get their hooks reviewed since mid-July. I have spent a huge amount of time on DYK in the last month, I've made close to 300 posts at T:TDYK in that time in an attempt to help sort out the recent problems. In addition, I've had to start loading queues because of the shortage of manpower. I've also been doing reviews because of the shortage of reviewers. If you want to get your hooks reviewed faster, how about pitching in and doing a few reviews yourselves? The more hooks get reviewed, the more chance that yours will be the next to get reviewed. Gatoclass (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being impatient. I did another review. :) Will Beback talk 04:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nominations reviews[edit]

Hi Gatoclass,

I see that your an active reviewer of DYKs, would you mind taking a look at the two below. It would be much appreciated, not to worry if you can't. Thank you.

Kind regards, --Ratio:Scripta · ^{[ Talk ]} 18:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you Know help[edit]

Hello. I need some help with getting some recognition for article I've created. I would like to have Hawaii – Tahiti relations on the did you know page. But I'm not sure how the process works and I'm not sure if the article is worthy of one. Please help. Respond on my talk page because I probably won't check your talk page. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stuck on the hook. I'm not sure what to write for an article like this since I usually write bio articles.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made one up and now it's on Template:Did you know nominations/Hawaii – Tahiti relations but if you can think of a better one please assist.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Reasons[edit]

Hi! I asked for you to state a reason you disliked my proposal, please. Your answer might help us to write an improved DYK description. Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Palestinian rabbis[edit]

Can you check over DYK Palestinian rabbis as SOHA 24/09/11. I don't want to miss the deadline. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SOHA? What is that? Gatoclass (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special Occasion Holding Area. Chesdovi (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I fail to see what this article has to do with the Palestinian bid for statehood. AFAICT it is only related by locality, which doesn't seem much of a reason to coordinate it, unless I've missed something. Gatoclass (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is linked by fact of the failed Jewish-Palestinian bid for statehoood in the 1540s, as noted in the ALT 3. Chesdovi (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very tenuous link, I doubt that anyone is going to make the connection. However, I have no objection to its being promoted a couple of days after the Palestinian bid, I don't think it should be run on the same day because it will look like an attempt to delegitimize the Palestinian action. Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]