Jump to content

User talk:Gatoclass/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20
Archive for April to June 2011

Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran

After Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran was noted on the DYK talk page, I followed your edits. Wikipedia needs folks who are even-handed and willing to get in the middle of the emotionally-charged debates. You handled the matter with diplomacy and balance. Good work. Cbl62 (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cbl :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that you cleaned-up/copyedited quite a few small errors I introduced in my last round of edits something like 18 hours ago. Thanks for that; I suppose I must have been a little sleepy. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: WT:DYK Rebecca Black hook - the situation was confusing from my side, partly because both your threads were started around my logout time. Thus most action occurred during the offline time, and those 14 hours were short, after which I saw a note that you fixed the article. Second time, I did consider withdrawing - surely your voice was a reason good enough for that - and then saw an edit by Mbz1 with a summary "changed as requested by gato", and left it undecided. Can't express it in few words, but something was missing in the air for a rapid reaction, perhaps a clear-cut formulation of the POV problem and why is it serious. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear. Under "POV content" User:Gatoclass meant that I added to the article two exact quotes from 2 RS New York Times and The Globe and Mail, the quotes that are supported by at least CNN; Associated Press and USA Today. The only way to respond such claims was to ignore the request, and ignored it was. At least I am glad Gato learned his lesson. With Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) he pulled the hook out himself. Now he asked for one to be pulled out.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the only reason I didn't pull the hook myself is because of the possible wikidrama it would lead to after Sandstein unwisely and quite incorrectly in my opinion cautioned me to avoid such actions. Your own behaviour in that instance was so far beyond DYK's normal bounds that I felt justified in simply dropping the hook, and I still feel my action was defensible. But you shouldn't imagine by my actions that I have in any way conceded the point, and I reserve the right to pull such hooks in future should I feel it to be necessary.
Other than that, this wasn't a discussion about the merits of your edits or mine. It was a discussion about process, and for the moment at least, it's been resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, the difference between Sandstein and you is that Sandstein is uninvolved and you are. Even forgetting that Sandstein advised you "unwisely and quite incorrectly", if you pulled the hook out yourself, it would have meant that you used (or rather misused) your administrative tools while editing in the area you are involved in. It was very wise of you do not pool this hook out yourself.
Ok, let's talk about different matters, shall we. Have you seen that the hook you came up for the article I wrote generated more than 22,000 hits? Thanks again for helping me out with that hook.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, well I'm pleased that hook was promoted, and on April Fool's, because if I say so myself, I thought that was a pretty good hook, and I think the page hits confirm that :)
As for the other matter - you are in error to claim that I misused my administrative tools in that instance as I dropped the hook from Prep, not from the Queue itself. You don't need admin tools to edit Prep, anyone can do it. Gatoclass (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm well aware that your hours of "duty" were not conducive to a response to my request matsci. You are probably the last admin I would want to hold responsible for this SNAFU. My initial comment was not intended as a criticism of you in particular, it's just that your response to the Black request acted as a catalyst for my complaint. And you are probably right that I should have expressed my original request more firmly. But please, don't for a moment think I want preferential treatment - I make mistakes like everybody else, and you are fully entitled to question my actions (which is why I struck part of my last comment as inappropriate). So don't hesitate to question any future such request I make if you need to - I can assure you I won't hold it against you. It was only the lack of response I got to my requests that I found upsetting, because it left me totally in the dark as to why they were ignored. So thanks once again for your response - I really do appreciate it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Its true that WT:DYK is quite passive on making decisions these days - perhaps because the old-timers are mostly elsewhere (me included), and new reviewers are hesitant to delve in controversies. I guess a few more little events of this kind might trigger me to return to the past DYK activity :-). You made a good point that we (I) should request clarification in such cases instead of staying silent. I should keep it in mind in the future. Materialscientist (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you are right about that, I feel quite redundant at DYK since the establishment of Quid Pro Quo. That's something else to blame you for. Just kidding - it's worked fantastically well, and kudos to you for coming up with it ;) Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Strange, for me the Quid Pro Quo was never a factor, maybe because I don't hesitate to get involved in an on-going review if I feel something is odd or can be improved there. We also know who can be trusted (more or less :) and who should be checked, thus there should be plenty of work for you at any time at T:TDYK :) Materialscientist (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't had as much time to put into DYK recently. But it's great to be able to walk away from it and not see it all fall apart. And QPQ is a major part of that, so either way you still get a brownie point. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A favor?

Hi Gato, Could you please fix the hook "... that Clubfoot George was executed by vigilantes because they believed that he was innocent?" here, and remove the wikilink to the word "innocent". It is April 1 hook. There's no reason to disclose what "innocent" means in the hook itself. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if that's the right idea, it looks like most of the hooks we have up now do sort of clue the reader in with a wikilink-like how Africa and Titanic are linked. Qrsdogg (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I would not have linked Africa, but Titanic is the main article. It should have been linked.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Suez Crisis

Unfortunately your edit to the introduction of the article on the Suez Crisis removed the main reason why Israel inavded Egypt (in order to prevent the attack expected in 1957). This information is vital to the article and has been reinstated. (92.7.15.220 (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC))

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Thanks!

I'd like to thank you for avoiding requesting to topic ban me. It was a fair and a kind thing to do. Maybe even more fair would have been to say that you see no reason for prolonged topic ban for me, but... anyway...Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I decided not to add to the evidence against you on the basis that you have usually been co-operative in working to improve your DYK submissions. Generally speaking, you have been far from the worst editor I have encountered in the topic area in question. That doesn't mean that I myself do not have serious concerns about some of your editing though. In fact, only a few days ago I was mulling starting a full arbcom case against you myself, after your changes to the Koby Mandell article just an hour or so before it was due for main page exposure. I decided not to do so on that occasion on the basis that your explanation for the late reverts was not unreasonable given your typical editing pattern - but it was still an unduly aggressive edit in my opinion.
I'll refrain from giving voice to my other concerns regarding your editing at this time, since you are in the middle of an AE case, but suffice it to say that, regrettably, they have been sufficient to deter me from adding a word in your favour, which I otherwise might have done. Gatoclass (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
No worries, user:passionless added the link to your arbcom comment to AE request. So in the end you did add evidences against me without actually adding those directly to AE :-)
I wish you took me to arbcom. I am more than sure the case would have been declined.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

My very last article

Here it is. I liked what I saw from this film, and wanted to write an article about this for quite some time. Now I have no more time left. Tomorrow I will be topic banned and I would no longer be allowed to work on such articles.I tried to do my best with it, but I am so tired of that AE thing. If you have a time, could you please take a look at it? Maybe you could fix my English, remove POV, if any, and to add something to it? If you have no time, that's fine too. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

1660 Safed Massacre

Thanks for your clear and calm edits to (and move of) 1660 Safed Massacre. I assume you have the page watch-listed but wanted to alert you that (following your removal of the inappropriate Dolan book) I made an edit identifying the two remaining sources for "near total destruction" as Zionist. Jacob de Haas actually served on the Zionist Organization propaganda commitee and Theodore Herzl Foundation self identifies as such on its web site. I also could not verify that de Haas actually asserts a Safed massacre, as Google Book won't give me the relevant snippet if its there. More details on the Talk page. I would welcome your involvement in the debate/revert cycle that will probably now occur. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think those sources are bad, you should have a look at Safed Plunder. The history section is so poorly sourced and inaccurate I was going to delete it outright, but that would leave the article with no topic so for the moment I've tagged it instead. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, can you please elaborate (preferably on the article's Discussion page) which sources you perceive to be problematic and why? Thanks.—Biosketch (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure, just give me a few minutes. Gatoclass (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for USRC Wayanda

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pawtuxet class cutter (160/3 DYKs)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for USRC Kankakee

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for USRC Pawtuxet

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for USRC Levi Woodbury

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

DYK review

Hi Gatoclass. I just noticed that you reviewed my DYK nomination for Wharton Reef Light. Indeed I forgot to cite the relevant source inline. I added it now so the nomination should be fine. I'd appreciate it if you had a look. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

New article

Hello Gatoclass, I wrote a new article Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle.I did add some negative reviews of the book, but I was not able to add some others because adding those would have been a violation of my topic ban. So, I promised I would let you know about the article, in case you'd like to add some more negative reviews. The sources is there already. You'd see them in references. You only need to add something in, if you would like to do it.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that article is a violation of your ARBPIA ban. One cannot discuss Israel's "economic miracle" without discussion of the I-P conflict, as you yourself tacitly admit by this very post of yours. If you've nominated this at DYK I will oppose its promotion on those grounds. Gatoclass (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you please read here, and also, if you are to read most reviews, you'd see there is no ban violation on my part, and besides, if you believe there was a ban violation, please file AE on me, and have me blocked and article deleted, DYK is not the right place to punish an editor.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm glad to see you at least had the sense to consult with someone before moving the article into mainspace. However, I believe user 2/0 has erred in approving this article for mainspace in contravention of your ban, and I don't believe a more experienced AE admin would have allowed you to do so.
I don't want to have to haul you to AE over this as I already stated that I thought the article was probably created in good faith; however, your expectation that I add all the bits pertaining to the I-P conflict so you can skirt your ban is not acceptable to me, least of all as a DYK nomination. If you insist on taking this forward at DYK I will have little choice but to initiate an AE case. Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I insist on DYK. As I and btw another editor said DYK is not the right place to punish an editor. By declining a valid DYK you are declining the knowledge,you are punishing wikipedia's readers, not me.I have never said the article is one-sided. It does represent all reasonable views of all notable reviewers with no violation of my ban. I'll send you email in a sec. --Mbz1 (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
A ban is a ban. It doesn't mean you get to go on writing articles pertaining to the topic area and nominating them at DYK in the expectation that other users are going to add the missing content. That would just make a total mockery of your ban. I have no intention of being party to such gamesmanship, and if you insist on the nomination, this will in all likelihood end up at AE. Gatoclass (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Gato, I have done nothing wrong. I insist on the DYK nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I will request a ruling on this at AE. But it will have to wait until tomorrow now. Gatoclass (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
May I please ask for a personal favor? Tomorrow is the last day of Passover. Could you wait until the day after tomorrow please? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure, not a problem. Just let me know when it's over and I'll follow it up then. Gatoclass (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
It is kind of you. Thanks. The day after tomorrow at about this time would be find.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned you here.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
So are you going to proceed, if I may ask please?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm mulling it over. I could without the drama, but on the other hand, I don't want to be presented with the same sort of problem a week or two down the track. If you were to agree not to do this sort of thing again, or perhaps to consult me first if you have doubts about a topic, I'd probably be just as happy to forget about it. If not, then I guess I will have to ask for a clarification. Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(intend)I agree up to the end of my topic ban to consult you first, if I have doubts about the topic, but only, if you please remove your opposition for my hook now. There is no valid reason to decline the hook.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, but I will want to make a few tweaks to the article first, as you originally suggested. It might take me a day or two to get around to it as I'm a bit busy right now. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, but could you please replace your "delete vote" with "possible vote" and specify at the nomination's that you request a few days to "make a few tweaks to the article" before it is promoted.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, I'll do that in a few minutes. Gatoclass (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, the only thing that is bothering me now is my absolutely beautiful defense that I spent a few hours to prepare, and that nobody is going to see it now :-) I guess it shout wait until the next time :-) ,no worries, just kidding, as I promised I will consult you first, if I have doubts about the topic, and I definitely will respect your suggestions. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vladimir Velichko

Hello! Your submission of Vladimir Velichko at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC) This hook is currently in DYK Queue 5 and has an error. I am notifying you because you were the last administrator to comment on the article. PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

As promiced

Hi Gato, As promised I'd like to ask you, if you would mind me writing an article about so called Israeli emergency bandages that is a medical bandage that is used to stop bleeding. If it is OK with you I will write the article in my user space, and notify you before moving it to main space. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Was it invented from experiences with, say, treating victims of terrorist attacks, or of soldiers in wartime? Has it notably been used for such victims? If so, I believe it would be an infringement of your ban. Gatoclass (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
If I am to write this article, there will not be a single word about the I/P conflict at all. As I said I was going to write it in my user space for you to see, and if you say "no", I will not move it to the main space.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little sceptical that an article on such a topic could reasonably avoid discussion of the I-P conflict. Can you post me a list of sources? It might give me a better idea of what the topic entails. Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I emailed you the source.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Well if you're sure none of the other sources you propose to use mention the conflict, I don't see a problem with it. However, someone may question the notability of the product, based on that piece, as it seems to be a startup company and there are countless startups with a good product. Gatoclass (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Gato, I am sure about the other sources. They mention no I/P conflict. If the article is nominated on deletion I will neither vote nor comment on this AfD.I guess I still have to clear it up with my banning administrator. Listen, I do appreciate the time you're spending on my articles and me.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Clara Clarita

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Pervukhin DYK

It is referenced, but not in the lead. --TIAYN (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Deputy CHairman of the Council of People's Commissars is Deputy PRemier. --TIAYN (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this really what ArbCom had in mind?

Hi, Gatoclass.

I can't wait to see what the DYK for Encyclopedia of Pleasure is going to look like. Possibly this:

These last two DYks are purely speculative, of course, but I find it hard to believe that this is what ArbCom had in mind. That is, I find it hard to believe that they intended Mbz1 should just go on creating "Jew/Israeli good, smart, entrepreneurial AND Muslim/Arab bad ... or gay, or people who became pirates "to avenge themselves on the Christian enemy", or treacherous killers of Jews, and getting them exposure on the Main page via DYKs. Is it really okay for her to keep singing the same old song provided she doesn't mention any Muslim/Jew conflict that happened after 1948?  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Gato knows what the hook for Orphans' Decree was because, guess what, he was the one who suggested it
About Sayyida al Hurra, are you against me writing articles on Muslim heritage using the sources that were written by Muslims? Any people should be proud to have such queens as Sayyida al Hurra was. BTW you might be interested to know I wrote an article about Jewish pirates too.
About Encyclopedia of Pleasure,do you have a problem with lesbians and gays, OhioStandard? Are you, OhioStandard, a homophobic by any chance? Do you believe that gays and lesbians are bad people? You made a homophobic statement "AND Muslim/Arab bad ... or gay".
I would appreciate you to stop hounding my contributions, and exercise at least some dignity, if you have any left of course. Your conduct is very low.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Yawn.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that Gatoclass is well able to decide if there is a problem or not; and he has put a lot of effort into trying to prevent problems in this area, so he does not deserve to be harangued over it.
(I love haranguing people, but I need to do it elsewhere.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Ohio, I quite agree with you that some of the content proposed by Mbz and others is questionable; however, I simply don't have the time to research every line of questionable content submitted to DYK. If you have concerns about Mbz's submissions, you are more than welcome to voice them at T:TDYK, or to help improve the articles yourself. Gatoclass (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that's a reasonable answer; thanks. As far as improving the articles myself, though, I've spent a great deal of time on just two of her articles, all the time I could afford. I spent what I estimate was probably 15 -20 times longer learning about Richard Wagner than the creator of the now-deleted Richard Wagner's First Love article did by creating a copy-and-paste article from hopelessly flawed expired-copyright sources, and I believe I've examined the sources quite recently, and in the recent past, too, for another of her articles far more carefully than she ever did, and improved that article correspondingly, as a result. It's my opinion that that kind of very basic research and NPOV review should be done before an article hits mainspace, though, and shouldn't be imposed on the community. But you're of course perfectly right that it's not your obligation or role in life to have to prevent that from happening.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
OS, your suggested DYK nominations are interesting and inventive. What would be wrong with them? - BorisG (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
OS is suggesting that I wrote an article about Sayyida al Hurra, who lived in the early 16th century to demonstrate that "Arab became pirates "to avenge themselves on the Christian enemy" , when in reality I wrote an article about one amazing and brave woman using books written by Muslim writers as the sources. The hook was used for April 1, April Fools' Day, and was scrutinized more than hooks that are used in other days.
OS is suggesting that I wrote Encyclopedia of Pleasure to talk about "Muslim/Arab bad ... or gay", when in reality I wrote this article as a tribute to both medieval Islamic writer who wrote the book, and an Arab, Muslim sculptor, Ghada Amer, who made an installations using the book's quotations.
For some unknown to me reasons OS stopped short from claiming that I wrote Liar paradox in early Islamic tradition to demonstrate that Muslims are liars :-)
@Gato, I am really disappointed with your response to OS. You know quite well that even before I was unfairly topic-banned I was asking you to look at my articles on certain subjects. What you suggested to OS was to continue hound my contributions, and it is wrong approach, Gato.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Um, no, I'm not inviting anyone to "hound" you or anybody else. I basically gave Ohio my stock response to anyone who thinks DYK is not being run effectively, which was to invite him to get involved. If you feel Ohio has been wikihounding you, that is an issue I am not aware of and there are appropriate venues for handling such disputes. Gatoclass (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Boris, thanks for your kind words, but I'd have two problems with those hooks, or even with seeing that article on the main page at all. First, I haven't researched the issue to see whether the claims would stand up to scrutiny, and my experience doesn't encourage me to rely on the article's principal author to determine that. Second, the assertions, whether true or not, would be very likely to gravely offend a large percentage of conservative Muslims.
Now I have no problem with presenting very provocative or inflammatory statements about any religion, political group, race, or whatever, even statements that make accusations of a monumental cover-up (as the article in question does) provided they're researched to extremely painstaking standards. But I want to be able to be proud of this place and I want our main page, especially, to support that pride rather than being used primarily as a vehicle to wave one's own figurative flag or dishonor someone else's based on inadequately-researched or POV-driven premises.
And even if some very provocative or offensive statement does hold up to painstaking research, I don't think Wikipedia's main page is the place to present such information. I'd prefer that the main page seem welcoming to readers regardless of their religion. I'd prefer we welcome readers via our main page before we insult their deeply-held beliefs in our articles, that is. ( If we insult them first, we might not get the chance ;-) YMMV in all good faith. Now, I believe, in deference to our host, I'll invite anyone who wants to continue this discussion to post a response to my talk, unless Gatoclass pipes up and says he wants it to continue here. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

<--I think the question of whether provocative links likely to offend a particular nationality or religion should be promoted so regularly at DYK should be discussed at WP talk for DYK, not here and not in the context of Mbz1, who is by no means the only creator of articles and hooks that serve as WP:COATRACK opportunities to the zealous -- see for example a recent DYK for Itamar attack to an author who has now submitted a new DYK for Hamas school bus attack. I would like to see a general consensus NOT limited to Mbz1 and NOT limited to P/I issues that people trying to use DYK as a weapon in propaganda warfare for or against any political cause should be prevented from misusing the front page of Wikipedia in this way. betsythedevine (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll use just a few more lines of Gato's real-estate here to reply to Betsy, by saying I agree entirely that the DYK process has been appropriated for political motives in recent months, at least, and that the scope of the problem is larger than the context that started this thread.
I'm not sure Wikipedia talk:Did you know is necessarily the best place to proceed, though, since a significant percentage of the regulars there seem, based on my initial impression, to be part of the problem. An RfC, maybe, to generate wider comment? Also, participating in the DYK process is pretty daunting, at first glance: Even an otherwise experienced editor can't just show up and take part without doing a considerable amount of reading, first. I suppose I'll undertake that, although I imagine that's off-putting for many people who would otherwise be willing to contribute. But what about this issue of the misuse of the DYK process to further a political agenda?
Gato, do you have any ideas about how to most productively address this?  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I tend to disagree here, I tend to think that bringing new articles about politics or religion to DYK often helps to get POV issues dealt with by bringing the article to the attention of a lot more editors than would otherwise see it. Some of the more biased articles at DYK would probably be able to "fly under the radar" otherwise. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I put what I had to say here at WT:DYK. Q, nobody says articles "about" politics or religion are inappropriate for DYK. The DYK selection criteria strongly discourage articles and hooks " which promote one side of any ongoing dispute". But in practice, it is a lot of thankless trouble to stand up for WP:NPOV against any determined DYK regular and his/her friends. betsythedevine (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Changes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines

Gato, I've made the changes discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. Since the change doesn't entirely chime with your last comment, I think it's only fair to let you know here. You can see the detail in this edit and my reasoning at the talk page. Suffice it to say that I wouldn't deliberately irritate you; I'm just trying to follow the spirit of WP:BEGINNING with some consistency. Yours, Shem (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Take a look?

Hi again, Gatoclass. I didn't realize you were working on the bus attack article, as I just learned from its talk page. I know we can't use wp:or in an article, of course, but would you have a look at this (permalink) please? It's certainly possible I'm wrong in my speculation about Hamas' motive, but based on the very open nature of the terrain I find it impossible to believe that they couldn't have hit the bus 50 metres earlier in its journey, while it was still full of school kids, if they'd wanted to, and I can't think of any other explanation for their actions that makes sense.

For other editors and assorted watchlisters who will no doubt see this as well, I'm going to reiterate that I understand our wp:or policy as well as any of you, so please don't bother trying to tell me about it. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I read that statement yesterday, and as you yourself say, it's pure speculation and we can't shape articles based on such. I think there's been an argument made that Hamas must have known it was a school bus because it was yellow. I have no idea how a Kornet rocket works but I think I read somewhere that the bus was attacked from a range of 3 1/2 km, if so that might account for why the missile arrived moments after the bus started moving again, but at that range the attackers may also have had trouble identifying the target. Gatoclass (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I know multiple sources speak of the missile arriving "moments" after the kids were dropped off, but the word gives a mistaken impression, as I see it, as does your statement that the missile arrived "moments after the bus started moving again".
When I first encountered that "moments" description in one of the sources my mental image was of a stationary bus with a group of maybe 10 or 15 kids right outside, just having exited. That's not the way it was, of course. The bus was half a football field away from where the kids were dropped off when it was hit, and since it was a laser-guided weapon, and light generally travels in a straight line last time I checked, the man who fired it would have had line-of-sight visual contact.
Further, I'm sure Hamas is smart enough to know where the kibbutz the kids were dropped off at was located, and they certainly could have hit the bus while it was stationary ( it would have been much easier to do so, I expect ) or before it stopped, if they'd wanted to. I think if we're going to include the "moments after" description in the article, that we also need to make it explicit that it was 50 metres down the road, as well.
The idea that Hamas evidently put forth that the shooter didn't know it was a school bus does seem pretty ridiculous to me, though.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, also, would you look at the documentation for the second photo on Commons? Like the first photo, it appears to have been uploaded by a certain editor who's very active in the I/P area, and also like the first photo, it's tagged with the statement, "This image was originally posted to Flickr by paffairs_sanfrancisco at (this link). It was reviewed on 08:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC) by the FlickreviewR robot and confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-sa-2.0." I did a little investigating, and all or nearly all of the photos I saw that had been uploaded by that editor carry the same tag, which is confusing to me. I'm not familiar with the photo upload or licensing process, but the flikr account that is identified in the tag doesn't currently contain those photos, and the links for the second photo are broken.
Based on having seen a photo very similar to the first one in news stories and on the linked-to Israeli government site, I concluded that the first photo is authentic. The second one probably is, too; my only concern is that the Internet Archive did seem to indicate that the second photo with the broken "source" links wasn't actually present on the web site for Israel's Canberra embassy anytime recently (could be mistaken, though) and that there was a photo of a ten-year-old injured boy on the flikr web page in 2009, although only its description is archived, not the actual photo. But in any case, there do seem to be some questions re the licensing of both photos that need sorting. If you don't know how to address this, or don't want to be troubled to do so, let me know, and I'll try to figure out another way to clear up the confusion. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
With respect, user talk pages are not really the right venue for discussion of article content. I suggest you continue any such discussion at the talk page of the article in question. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Certainly. I posted about content here because I understood from one of your comments that you were engaged in a re-write, and I see you have a copy in your userspace that I presume represents a work-in-progress. I mention that only to explain my motivation, not to argue in favor of discussion here, of course. I don't know how to proceed to try to clear up the apparent (?) copyright issue re the photos, though, but I'll try to figure that out on my own.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

DYK for Wedding dress of Kate Middleton

Superb; and whilst slightly slower than ideal (see the AfD), it's quite good timing; the BBC (rolling news, and news reports) is running about a 5 min long part about the dress, today, so I am indeed optimistic that it might attract attention and new editors - particularly, perhaps, the type that might not normally fit our typical demographic. Thanks for your help - both Gatoclass and Materialscientist, the latter I shall point over here to avoid duplication. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  12:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The stats are not too shabby. Shame it was held back by AfD; note the additional 39,000 views on the day of the wedding itself.  Chzz  ►  08:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Gatoclass. I thought you should know, but I have seen solid evidence that mbz1 has emailed "Broccolo" the following regarding a specific DYK nomination:

Please say:

*[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] Date, size and hook are verified. I like Alt1 the best. Good to go.-~~~~

This happened on December 20th. The next edit "Broccolo" made was this. I dont think anything will happen with this, but I thought you should know that there is a reason it looks like certain people are colluding, it is because they are. nableezy - 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If by "solid evidence" you are referring to the apparent evidence Sol Goldstone obtained by hacking Mbz's email account, I've already seen it, I have no way of verifying its authenticity, and the other admins who saw it gave no indication that they thought such evidence would be actionable. Gatoclass (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
There are way too many "coincidences" in edits for those emails not to be real, in fact mbz1 confirmed the discussion she had with NoCal attempting to bait me into a block at the Egypt article was real. But I do not think the evidence is actionable, only useful in reminding one that the rules dont matter to, or for, certain people. nableezy - 13:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the point is that the evidence was obtained illegally. That obviously creates all sorts of problems for anyone trying to use it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh sure, no doubt. I was not trying to use it, wasnt aware you already knew. Apparently Im the last to know these things as I only recently saw them. nableezy - 13:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Gato, I have explained to Nab that discussing stolen emails is as dirty as to buy stolen goods. I strongly recommend you delete the thread.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
You are violating your topic ban by commenting on this topic. Your comment to Nableezy on his talk page was highly uncivil, but repeating such incivility on my talk page has only compounded the offence. I advise you to desist from this line of approach before your existing topic ban is extended. Gatoclass (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Topic ban? Where? Is there or at Nab's talk page I made a single comment concerning the topic? Uncivil? Have you read what nab's talk page states "Civility does not exist on this page. If you feel the need to say something uncivil to me feel free to do so." You are more than welcome to take me to AE for that "topic ban violation" Stop it, Gato. I really had a better opinion about you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversial DYK again!

Hi Gatoclass, yet another controversial DYK has sparked a dispute. Details here, I'd love if you could take a look at the article. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Unadilla class gunboat

Hello! Your submission of Unadilla class gunboat at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! OCNative (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Women in Vietnam

See my comment on the talk page. How did this ever get to DYK?BarkingMoon (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Problems about it should have been discussed at DYK suggestions so I could have addressed it there. Pulling it off is unfair and late. - AnakngAraw (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
For other articles, please post specific comments at their talks. I think the most constructive approach would be to quick-fix the obvious issues (the author is cooperative on that). It is hardly possible to make them fit their pretentious title, but perhaps we should appreciate the fact that those articles did not exist at all. Maybe start with Women in Armenia (I've delayed it in preps) and Women in Indonesia. Materialscientist (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Poor form

Malik is perfectly fine and I have welcomed his contribution[1] as I have yours (per "support your suggestion"[2], and [3]). MacMed can't be fully aware of how offensive suggestive anti-Israeli commentary -- such as "indeed, what evidence could there be for [Israeli brutality]?",[4] and "after fifty years ... [Palestinians] needed this image to confirm their experience"[5] -- is and I don't see a good reason where I should avoid asking you to tone it down. I also thought it was rude to dismiss my offense and respond by suggesting that asking you to stop being offensive could be sanctionable -- just imagine this would be someone's response to a generic suggestive commentary about "fifty years" of Palestinian violence towards Jews. That said, I am interested in moving the content concerns forward and have even made a good faith attempt.[6] I'd be happy if you join this attempt and bring a few sources to support your preferred rephrase.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 19:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Interpreting the discretionary sanction

Gatoclass, if it's ok I prefer to respond to your message at Nableezy (talk · contribs)'s Talk page here, because he's since explained his revert as asked and I consider the matter closed as far as he's concerned. Again, there's a message at Golan Heights alerting "All editors" to the application of discretionary sanctions and specifically instructing them that they "are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page." The pshat is that editors are required to discuss any content reversions, i.e. each and all, regardless of the circumstances. In this particular instance, though, the discussion in which Nableezy (talk · contribs) had been engaged prior to the revert addressed the reverted map specifically in the context of the infobox, for that is where its appearance was initially perceived as problematic. The editor who removed the map from the "Geography" section of the article did reply on the Discussion page under the "map in infobox" section, but the map was not in the infobox and therefore not subject to the same arguments that were going on earlier. Basically, whether one prefers a lenient or a strict interpretation of the discretionary sanctions message, it was still necessary for Nableezy (talk · contribs) to accompany his revert with an explanation – leniently because the discussion did not address the map in the "Geography" section, and strictly because the sanctions message says "any content reversions."—Biosketch (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Noticed your actions at DYK

I noticed your actions at DYK. I wish you'd made it clear that you expected me to make changes myself, rather than try to build consensus for them on the talk page, which turned out to be a forlorn hope, of course. I'm disappointed in your choice re DYK, although I understand it. I still think the tag belongs on the article. But since you and Betsy evidently disagree, I'll not reinstate it, if you choose to remove it.

Just do me one favor, please? Spend 60 seconds reading the executive summary section of this Milken Institute report on the status of the Israeli start-up scene in 2005. It's a download from a different page on a site used as a ref in our Start-up Nation article. You'll be inclined to wonder whether you're reading about the same country. ( The book encompasses 2001 through 2008 or 2009, recall. ) I'll have no more to say here on your page re the topic than this: I wasn't raising objections just to be difficult; it appears I was right to be so skeptical and to keep waving wp:redflags, even if no one appreciated my doing so. I'm going to stop waving them, though. My arms are tired.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

FYI

I mentioned you here. Could you please tell them you take my article and me under you rown responsobility :-) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A new low

In your list there are at least 2 articles that I not only have not written, but not even edited. There are some other DYK nominations that were not approved by Broccolo, but only commented on. Some other articles were nominated by Broccolo, not verified. Really you should not call whatever is left a "serial approval".After all I have at least 80 DYK. Please verify your own words before making a false accusations.Please have a nice day. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So there are what, two articles out a dozen that Broccolo verified that weren't yours? That hardly negates my point. In any case, it is not "my list", it's simply a list of his contributions to T:TDYK from his user contributions page. Gatoclass (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I emailed you the names of two articles that I have never ever even touched, but actually I now found the third one too. There are a few articles that were not verified, but only commented on, and at least one,but probably more, that was not verified, but nominated. So what is left?--Mbz1 (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Emailed you the third one that I have never ever even touched. So as you see your list is misleading to say the least. I really believe you should take it out.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Emailed you the fourth one that I've never touched. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
[7][8][9][10][11][12] [13][14][15][16] I think that makes the point well enough. Gatoclass (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid it does not. Have you even checked on what you added in? There are at least 5 links that simply refer to the history of the articles, and honestly I have not a slightest idea why you included such links. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I must have pasted the wrong links. But it's immaterial, as I checked all the articles concerned and they were all authored by you, nominated by you and verified by Broccolo. So your charge has no substance. Gatoclass (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh come on now, Gato, "I must have pasted the wrong links" :-) You should know better than that. There are at least two links that refer to the same article one to its history, the other one to DYK, and I have not checked them all, it is too boring. The other question is when was the last time Broccolo verified my DYK? I still believe that any you should remove misleading list from DYK talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right that this is all "too boring", since your charge that my list was "misleading" is plainly baseless. I counted at least ten articles written/expanded and nominated by you that were verified by Broccolo. That's more than enough to prove the point, so please stop wasting my time by claiming otherwise. Gatoclass (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, you counted wrong! Links #12 and #13 from your list point to the same article, and I have not checked all links. The only thing you proved is specified in the name of this thread. I wrote more than 80 DYK. The last time Broccolo verified one was a few months ago. Please stop making a false, unconfirmed accusations. Please review Wikipedia:Don't just say it, prove it.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I didn't "count wrong", as I said I checked the first ten articles, all I did was post the wrong links, so once again, please stop wasting my time with this nonsense. Gatoclass (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(intend) The links #12 and #13 pointing to the same article Sol Hachuel, and I have not checked all links. It is you who are wasting my time.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all the P/I articles Broccolo endorsed were by Mbz1, and not all of the Broccolo-supported articles by Mbz1 were in the P/I area, but the following edits represent a very large fraction of Broccolo's entire participation at DYK:
I hope this clarifies what Gatoclass is talking about and Mbz1 is objecting to. betsythedevine (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that makes the point more than adequately. Gatoclass (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, these edits were mentioned by Gatoclass only as an example when proposing a change in policy (Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_in_contentious_topic_areas): that DYKs on contentious subjects should wait in line until they are reviewed and endorsed by a neutral editor. The only reason I had my own list of these edits in the first place was an earlier challenge from Mbz1 to document "tag-team" endorsements at DYK. I am sure that both Mbz1 and Broccolo were acting in good faith to promote articles they think are good articles to the front page of Wikipedia via DYK. But what will benefit the project is a policy change carried forward with as little embarrassment as possible to anyone who has been acting in good faith. betsythedevine (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Hey Gatoclass, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on a suggestion I'm mulling over on this page. Cheers. ← George talk 02:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting idea, but I'd have to think about it. Quite frankly, I've never really understood what constitutes a "revert" in any case, since the definition provided at the policy page is not very helpful and doesn't always appear to be enforced according to the book. So what's the difference between 1RR and 0RR exactly? Does 0RR mean you can't alter anyone's edit, ever? If so, I don't think it would be very practical. Gatoclass (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that question has definitely come up before in previous discussions. If someone makes an edit, and you go in and click Undo, that's obviously a revert. If someone rephrases something that was added months earlier, it probably wouldn't be a revert. But the in-between is quite grey. We might have to define it on a case-by-case basis using common sense, or it's possible we could come up with a set of rules for what constitutes a revert, such as (a) removing content outright (excluding vandalism), without any addition or modification to take its place, (b) inserting previously removed content without modification to said content (i.e., adding the same thing again), or (c) the modification of content in such a way that returns the page to an earlier state. It's a complicated question we might have to think over some more. Thanks for the thought though. Cheers. ← George talk 00:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think a revert should just be defined as removing content you know is contested by another user or users. Gatoclass (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I like that definition. It's short, and straight to the point. It probably needs a slight tweak to cover other cases that I would also consider reverts (e.g., re-adding something that someone else removed). Maybe "adding, removing, or modifying content in a way that you know is contested by another user or users"? ← George talk 02:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Gatoclass a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 00:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, how about that. Thanks Armbrust :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Article

Gatoclass, as a result of my AE request I was allowed to write the article in my user space. The conditions stated by 2/0 include that the article should be reviewed by at least two uninvolved administrators. Although you are an involved administrator, but I promised to you I will present the article for your review. The article is here. May I please ask you to review it, when you have a time, and state your verdict either on the article's talk page or on my talk page? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your participation in AE request.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure you're watching the talk page of the article, but I responded you there.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gato, as I said at my talk page I will not move the article to the main space until you agree with the move because I promised to you to respect your suggestions, and I will. I've changed the article a little bit, but if you believe it breaches my ban, it will not me moved to main space, period. So could you please state at my talk page (it is the place where others are commenting) your agreement or disagreement on moving the article? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Hensley & Co

My bad – I never saw the review open up! Either I just missed it at the time on my watchlist or it's because the GABot came quickly and I exclude bot edits from my watchlist (something I've just changed the setting on). And sometimes I watchlist the GA1 page redlink, so that I'm sure I see it, but I didn't do that this time either. My apologies ... will start on responses right now. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've run out of time for this morning, but I'll finish up the changes this evening. Sorry again for the delay ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
No probs, I was just wondering what was going on :) Gatoclass (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Finished with the responses now. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

artnet.com linkspam

Hi Gato, I wanted to get some quick advice from you as an admin. It appears that a series of account associated with artnet.com have been systematically spamming articles with links over the last few years and also deleting links to competing sites. I found three related accounts so far (User:69.167.111.2; User:216.119.245.2; and User:Astyaj) and deleted the inserted links, but I suspect there are more. Are there any tools you'd suggest to find further overlapping accounts here, or any further action I should take? Or is it just not worth bothering? Khazar (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any such tools. Have you tried posting your concerns to WP:AN/I? Gatoclass (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
No, wasn't sure it quite qualified. But I'll do so. Thanks, Khazar (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Quoted & FYI

Hi to EdJohnston and Gatoclass, each on your respective talk pages. In this thread, I quoted you both here, beginning with "outdenting". You'll need to read the thread for the context, however. I infer from AGK's talk, and from his removal of my talkback, that he does not intend to accept my suggestion that he consult with you both to ask whether you favored closing with no action.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I was going to respond to this via email, but it appears you do not have email enabled. For the record, as I am an "involved" admin in the I/P topic area, I have no say in the closure of ARBPIA related AE cases. Since your complaint appears to be primarily concerning AGK's overriding of Ed's suggestion to close without action, it would probably be best if you took that up with Ed. Sorry I can't be of more assistance. Gatoclass (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I did take it up with Ed, here. He has no objection to the process by which AGK closed the request, which is his prerogative, of course. Thanks for letting me know of your self-recusal. I do have e-mail enabled, though; would you try again, just as a test?  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, that was my fault, I changed my email address a few days ago but never confirmed it, and it seems if you do that you lose the ability to email other wikipedians. I've fixed the problem now, but it's a bit late to send an email today so it will have to wait until tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Leaving for personnal reason - need some support

Hi Gatoclass,
I would like to leave wp:en for an undefinit time for personal reasons. Would you mind helping me ?
For some people such as me, that is hard to leave when you are not prevented to contribute :-(
Could you please block for un undefinite time my account and protect both my user page and my talk page ?
In the case in future, I would like to come back, I will leave you a message on this talk page.
Thank you very much and thank you for your understanding. Kind Regards, Noisetier (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've passed your request on to User:HJ Mitchell, who has more experience with this type of request. I suggest you take it up with him. Gatoclass (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Black Book of Communism

Hi! You've reverted my edit. Could you please explain why do you think it is wrong to have a link to an article with a good explanation of the subject discussed in that section - i.e. Holodomor denial? Thanks--vityok (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll reply on the article talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Manila hostage crisis

Hello there. You started the GA review of Manila hostage crisis a week ago, and the GA review page has been blank since then. Any update would be good. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Link rot is a big problem in any Wikipedia article about an event which was written from live news sources as the event unfolded. I've removed links to sources that are also printed, and replaced some other links. There are 2 online-only sources which I'm trying to find replacement for. Deryck C. 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Everything fixed so far, except for the image problem. The image is a rather complicated situation as it seems to be a genuine original work, but by a user who is blocked for sockpuppetry. Deryck C. 17:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

American International Shipbuilding

This is a redirect that you created, and links to the location where the shipyard stood. Having such a redirect creates the impression that an article exists where one does not. Per WP:REDLINK, redlinks can encourage article creation. Therefore, I'm minded to delete the redirect. Do you have any objections to this? Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's fine Mj, I was intending some time ago to write an article on the company myself and created the redirect in the meantime but then totally forgot about it, and it's way down my list of priorities right now, so you can go ahead and delete it if you like. Gatoclass (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, will delete it then. Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I've also zapped a couple more redirect with variants on the name. Mjroots (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gatoclass/Archive_16&oldid=1136186239"