Misplaced Pages

User talk:Gatoclass: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:16, 4 May 2013 editApteva (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,591 edits →AE← Previous edit Revision as of 13:50, 5 May 2013 edit undoApteva (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,591 edits →AENext edit →
Line 836: Line 836:
With regards to Apteva, you should consider my statement and Johnuniq's statement as that can give you some idea of the problem with that editor's conduct.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 00:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC) With regards to Apteva, you should consider my statement and Johnuniq's statement as that can give you some idea of the problem with that editor's conduct.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 00:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
:Filing a bogus RFC/U is not an excuse for improper behavior on talk pages. The RFC/U and AN, ANI occupied 134 pages and 500,000 bytes of wasted editors time that could have been accomplished with two words "back off", which I had already agreed to, and have adhered to as well. ] (]) 01:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC) :Filing a bogus RFC/U is not an excuse for improper behavior on talk pages. The RFC/U and AN, ANI occupied 134 pages and 500,000 bytes of wasted editors time that could have been accomplished with two words "back off", which I had already agreed to, and have adhered to as well. ] (]) 01:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

With regards to sanctions against me, they are already totally bogus. Removing them would be the way to go, not increasing them. When you are right you are right. I only have to say it once. I have learned that and do not keep repeating myself as I once did. ] (]) 13:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:50, 5 May 2013


Thursday 16 January07:59 UTC
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online

Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
Archiving icon
Archives

Cold lava

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Gatoclass! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Otium

This is my latest article. Feel free to make any improvements. --Doug Coldwell 18:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Expanded article. Any ideas for a DYK hook?--Doug Coldwell 11:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I am going to try to turn this into a Good Article. Any suggestions or ideas?--Doug Coldwell 13:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 
You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wgfinley's talk page.

Roberta Black

Thanks for reviewing my efforts. Not everything I write is correct, and I enjoy the chance to get some well-thought-out feedback. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll over at DYK

Hey there, there is a straw poll going on at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know about whether or not to enact technical changes to DYK tools. Your input would be much appreciated. P.s. I am sending you this message based on your heavy involvement in DYK, rather than at random. I hope this is ok. Panyd 17:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Erratic?

I'm not sure where you are coming from. I don't rush into enforcement decisions, and always evaluate the evidence carefully before taking a decision. I won't speak at greater length or in more specific terms because you reverted your edit, but, with respect, it is wrong to state that an administrator's judgement is erratic without justification. Thank you for your comment, in any case. Regards, AGK 10:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, I figured it would be opening a can of worms, and I can really do without teh dramaz right now - as I'm sure you can! Maybe sometime I can get around to a few specifics, if you really want to hear them. In the meantime, if you do get the job, I look forward to you proving my apprehension completely misplaced ;) Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK behavior

What exactly was the point of this remark that you addressed to User:Plot Spoiler at Template:Did you know nominations/TAT Technologies? I'm asking because I'm genuinely at a loss as to how you thought it was a constructive contribution to the DYK discussion.—Biosketch (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought my point was self-evident: users involved in a contentious topic area are not supposed to approve the articles of their political bedfellows, per rule H2. There has been far too much of that sort of thing occur at DYK in the past, which is why the rule was added. I simply reminded Plot Spoiler (since he appeared not to know or to have forgotten) of the existence of the rule.
However, I'm glad to see you have returned to the discussion. What do you think of the alt hook? I think it's fine, but as the nominator I would like to have your endorsement. Gatoclass (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
But that's not what H2 says. H2 specifically refers to "DYK novices." Seeing as you yourself acknowledged that Plot Spoiler isn't a novice in the DYK arena, I'm still not understanding how you thought your comment was applicable or helpful there.—Biosketch (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the second clause which states: as are editors active in those areas. Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why he ticked the DYK nom in the first place, since another editor already did before him. If your comment was an earnest reminder that he shouldn't be confirming I/P DYKs generally, I can see how that makes sense. But given that his tick was in essence gratuitous, the real substance of his contribution was his comment regarding a modified hook. And it sounded – not just to me, evidently – like your remark was aimed at invalidating his contribution to the discussion. If that wasn't the case, then ok, I suppose it could have been a misunderstanding.—Biosketch (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Otium

See User talk:Panyd#DYK for Otium. Can you take care of this. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell 19:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. I appreciate it!--Doug Coldwell 22:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparent explanation of admin's refusal to address misuse of sources

Hi, Gatoclass. I noticed you took exception previously at AE to admin WGFinley's remarks that included the statement, "We shouldn't be drawn into their content disputes by analyzing sources in taking action." I just noticed a statement on his main user page that may help elucidate his philosophy on that score. He writes there,

"During discussion of a block or a ban, particularly in general sanction areas the call of "didn't you read my edit, how could you not support that!" or something along those lines is heard. I can honestly say "no". Why? I don't analyze content in areas where I'm serving in an admin capacity for one ..."

If he's not reading diffs that are presented as potential misrepresentation of sources, then of course he's not going to be interested in sanctioning anyone on that basis. From these and other remarks he's made, it's my impression that it's all about form and protocol for him, and that he just really doesn't care much at all about the actual content of edits. Perhaps he sees that as a more efficient use of his time here. Anyway, I thought this might be helpful to you in trying to understand his perspective.

I've informed him about this comment, btw, in case he'd like to clarify in any way. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I won't comment on the specific incident, but it's bad form to make assumptions about WGFinley's motives. Has anybody asked him what his view is on the issue of source misrepresentation? Whilst I may have overlooked one thread or another, it seems that the only person who has consulted WGFinley is Nableezy—and WGF would be entitled (don't necessarily read: correct) to ignore that exchange, considering the tone of Nableezy's comments. I believe it is more than appropriate to challenge an administrator if his decision was wrong, but I don't like the idea of you or another user chasing up other editors and speculating about his views without directly asking for clarification. That's not genuine scrutiny, but an inquisition. Just my two pence, AGK 15:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
AGK, all due respect, but my tone only became heated after repeated failures by WGFinley to answer basic questions about continual factually incorrect comments he made. An admin is required to justify their actions, and in this case WGFinley refused to do so. Look at the threads at AE, see where I repeatedly, and politely, raised the fact that he was saying things that were plainly false. He never responded. After being ignored by an admin seeking to either a. sanction me for reverting socks of banned users, and then b. ignoring the repeated lying about sources to push a fringe POV, my tone admittedly grew harsher. That does not, in any way, justify an admin refusing to rectify basic errors that raise serious questions of competency and whether or not he should be involved in administering, or even commenting, the topic area. If I were to say that I do not think WGFinley is competent to be an administrator I would be assuming his good faith, otherwise I have to believe that he understood that a user was lying about sources to push a fringe POV and refused to allow him to be sanctioned because of his sympathy with the user and that POV. If the admin had simply responded and shown that he understood the issue neither assumption would be necessary and my tone would have remained mild. nableezy - 17:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's for a second assume Nableezy used a harsh tone (which I think was justified after repeated attempts to get WGFinley to address the matter at hand), would that explain WGFinley not answering the same question posed by other editors? It is obvious to see either a) the dude made a mistake and was not willing to suck it up and admit a error in his original judgement or b) he does indeed sympathize with POV of the user who was being reported. Effectively, T Canens and Ed were calling for a topic ban based on the fact that JJG blatantly misrepresented a source, but WGFinley filibustered the matter by refusing to even look at the point. -asad (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is all really simple. Nableezy's first attempt to discuss my position on this issue on my talk page was this missive. When you start out with "You simply do not know what you are talking about" and then insult me about counting on my fingers, that's a clear personal attack and not something I'm going to respond well to. I never said what JJG did was right, I said I didn't find it sanctionable, there's a difference. Since I was stating my point of view and not taking action I don't owe an explanation, particularly after a direct personal attack. --WGFinley (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
You may have read the counting fingers comment as a personal attack but it didn't read that way to me or I might have said something myself. IMO it was just his way of emphasizing the point that dispute resolution is not such a simple exercise. So I think you are misreading that comment.
With regard to the wider issue, I'm aware that your reading of policy is not without foundation, if that were not the case, we would probably have ironed out the problems with dispute resolution long ago. My point to you is that your comments were out of step with prevailing practice at AE, where the most experienced admins have long been taking into account issues like questionable sourcing, misrepresentation of sources etc. in coming to their conclusions. Gatoclass (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
That actually wasnt my first attempt to discuss that issue with you. That diff was in relation to your arguing that I should be sanctioned due to the number of times I reverted socks of banned editors in a different AE thread. The first time I attempted to raise this issue with you, after repeated ignored requests at AE, was this. To which you responded with this where you, once again, completely ignored the point. You still have not told me why you said on AE what you claimed was the sole thing that Jiujitsuguy did, you still have not told me that you read the diff that shows him lying about a source, and you still have not answered why you dont treat the deliberate distortion of a source as being more serious than Nableezy's tone. I still welcome you to answer those questions. nableezy - 06:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
asad in particular, and Nableezy and Gatoclass have a point. WGFinley's sympathies are manifest when he can say (presumably, with a straight face) that he is "... aware of the type of behavior JJG gets drawn in to...". Should we include falsifying sources in the list of acceptable behaviour now? Really? As Gatoclass points out, WGFinley's comments are completely out of step with the current practice at AE. Indeed, while the Nableezy and Jiujitsuguy requests were open, there was a request for Pantherskin on the same page; notice the closing action and comment, I'll repeat it here (emphasis mine) "Pantherskin indefinitely blocked due to evidence that that the cited book does not contain the material that he stated." How is that any different from JJG's actions? It has nothing to do with the quality of the sources he used, it is all about deliberate misrepresentation of sources and introducing factual errors in to an encyclopaedia. Timotheus Canens has now been hounded from the encyclopaedia and we're left with WGFinley, who steadfastly refuses to answer reasonable questions about his comments, admit when he is wrong and is out of step with the current AE process. The P-I topic area and AE are the worse for it, and the encyclopaedia is all the worse for loosing another editor over it. 86.174.1.16 (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I just noticed he requested his adminship be taken away two minutes after he closed the JJG thread by saying, "Clearly no admin consensus to do anything". I think we all know what that means, WGFinley. -asad (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

req for opinion

Hello Gatoclass. Do you feel the events outlined here are grounds for an RFC/U? nableezy - 01:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think they are sufficient grounds for an RFC/U. I think you are not paying sufficient attention to the fact that different people can have genuinely different views about the same facts. To begin with, though JJG's edits misstated the sources, you ought to have some appreciation of the fact that when someone has a particular bias, he is going to have a tendency to see those aspects that support his POV while missing those that don't. This has happened to me when interpreting sources as I'm sure it has to everyone. My point is that while JJG was certainly careless in his reading of those sources, I think it not impossible to AGF that JJG did not deliberately set out to misrepresent them. Against that, of course, is his record of misrepresenting sources, which should also be taken into account in an AE case. However, considered separately, as you have done in your draft RFC/U, I don't find it to be such a persuasive case.
Given the above, I have to conclude that it was therefore not altogether unreasonable for WGF to take the view that the evidence was not strong enough to take action against JJG. This is especially the case given that WGF has stated on his user page that as a matter of principle he pays minimal attention to the content of edits in his adjudications but prefers to focus on procedural breaches. His responses to you are, I think, consistent with that position. So in summary I think this RFC/U is weak and unlikely to achieve anything useful.
With regard to the broader question of WGF's attitude to you personally, I am increasingly of the opinion that it is problematic. However, that is not the thrust of your proposed RFC. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
My problem isnt with the judgment that JJG didnt in fact misrepresent the source (though I have to say, using a source that says Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria. and writing that The summit of Mount Hermon straddles the borders of Lebanon, Israel and Syria is a pretty clear cut case), though WGF doesnt appear to have even addressed the issue much less make a judgment on it, my problem was with him saying I don't see what he did on Mount Hermon other than to point out there's a ski resort there and added a travel guide as source for information on that. when none of the diffs showed any content about a ski resort at all. The refusal to back up the statement or admit the error is what upset me. He made a statement on the content of a diff, and that statement is false. None of the diffs is about the location of a ski resort, but WGF never, despite repeated requests that he do so, explain why he wrote that was what he thought the content of the diff was. I dont know, maybe the is more trivial than it seems to me, but I cannot get around that sequence. nableezy - 05:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you that JJG's edits were factually incorrect; the summit straddles two borders according to the sources, not three. However, JJG did find a source which described Mt Hermon as "famous as Israel's highest mountain" and this was obviously sufficient justification in his mind for adding "Israel" to the mix. But I think you should consider that, from the POV of someone who is not terribly interested in the topic area, like WGF, issues like whether or not a source is factually accurate in its description of Mt Hermon as "Israel's highest mountain", or whether "the summit" of a mountain straddles a border or it is just, perhaps, the lower slopes that straddle it, are nuances unlikely to leave much of an impression as clear examples of POV pushing - especially on an admin with a stated reluctance to look at such evidence in the first place. Gatoclass (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Unique attack transports

Category:Unique attack transports, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Gatoclass,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Misplaced Pages administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Undue paragraph or section

Would be nice to get a clarification to your concern. Jaakobou 22:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Partisan Pigs.

Hi. You mentioned a while back that you were going to look at the sources of this "conspiracy" on the zoological conspiracy theory page. I have withdrawn from editing the page, but I would be very grateful if someone would have a look at the basis for this claim. Specifically, how can the story be a conspiracy "propagated by the Arab media and Arabic language websites" when the allegation was reported credibly by CNN in the context of confirmed settler violence and harassment of a Palestinian village. Thanks Dlv999 (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Donna Eden

Hi, I noticed you removed the delete-proposal tags from this page. I'm not sure why this page was retained, however in it's current form this page is a stub on a non-notable topic. Any suggestions how I might escalate this since I do not think anybody is willing (or can) make this article worthy of wp. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The article passed an AFD some time ago so there was consensus that the topic was notable. I haven't looked at the article for a long time but IIRC there were some sources around which were sufficient to establish notability. However, since you've made the request, I will try to find time to have another look around for sources over the next week or so. Gatoclass (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding suggestions that I cherry-picked quotes or used Eden's quotes out of context, please permit me to provide a rationale:

The quote from Seattle Times was the only quote from Eden in the entire article. All the other quotes were attributed to different individuals. The article was about "Offbeat" health-practicioners - it was clearly the journalist's intent to highlight what was offbeat about each of the article's subjects.

The quote I used from the Ashland newspaper was actually the first line of the article, I can only assume that the author put it first because it succinctly outlines the basis for Ms Eden's beliefs. Once again the suggestions of cherry picking and use out of context do not stack up.

I'd respectuflly request once again that you withdraw any suggestions from the talk & afd pages which might be construed as an allegation of bad-faith editing.

Finally, I share your concern that quoting Eden might present her as "a crank", however I think almost any close reading of her published works would lead us to conclude that her beliefs are fringe. I think your issue is with the sources of myself, rather than my selection of quotes from the sources. As a compromise I'd propose that we could remove both of these sources entirely from the article. Perhaps we could also work together to find reviews of her work which are more neutral in tone? --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

AFD

While I disagree with your analysis of the available sourcing at that AFD, I would like to commend you for making reasonable policy-based arguments and for remaining polite. Your efforts strengthen the community and the encyclopedia. Happy editing, - 2/0 (cont.) 04:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Your request at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification

Regarding your request for the thread to be closed, it would be a clerk and not a bureaucrat who does that. It is common for Clarifications to sit for quite a while. If you really want a closure, ask an Arbcom clerk to see what they can do. In the meantime, nothing prevents you from adding your own comments in the AE thread that you asked about, just add it there as 'Statement by Gatoclass.' My suggestion would be just not to act as a *closer* of the AE unless your Clarification ends with a definite result. If you had asked me (and not Arbcom) I would say there was no involvement unless you had been actually editing within AA. DIGWUREN is best reserved for 'typical Eastern European disputes,' which can include Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, the former Soviet Union and the Baltic states. Very often these disputes have something to do with WWII.

That is my definition, anyway. I suppose that Armenia and Azerbaijan were part of the former Soviet Union but I don't think there is any precedent for use of DIGWUREN in that specific conflict. As another example, ARBMAC might be considered to overlap with DIGWUREN but ARBMAC is more specific, so it is always used whenever it applies. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You've decided to drop the idea of participating in this AE. I had been hoping that more people would show up to help with the analysis. But speaking hypothetically, and not necessarily for this specific request, what would you think of a 500-edit minimum requirement that might be imposed on a troubled article as a discretionary sanction? This would exclude most socks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping someone else would contribute too, but I guess after I put up my request to wait until the request for clarification had been closed, others probably decided not to bother. I felt I had to bow out though because I would need to review the evidence all over again at this point, and I just don't have time to do that right now.
Regarding the notion of a 500-edit minimum requirement, I guess it might help reduce sockpuppetry, but it may also alienate potential good faith new contributors. I suspect determined socks could probably run up 500 edits pretty quickly if they really wanted to anyhow. But in some circumstances I suppose it might be worth a try. With regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh case BTW, it might be a bit stale to impose sanctions, I haven't had time to review the talk page but at least the contributors don't seem to be edit warring over that massive 30k addition anymore, which is what brought the page to AE in the first place. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Just now I saw you had proposed '500 mainspace edits outside the topic area' as a criterion in this edit to the AE. Since a minimum-edit requirement could be the most efficient way of shutting down sock editing, I've also taken this proposal to T. Canens' talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you think you could have a look at this?

Hello, Gatoclass. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know#The Voice UK.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— M. Mario (T/C) 10:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Gatoclass. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 11:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

siddha yoga crisis

Hi , there are two articles on the subjects siddha yoga and siddhayoga, while the one i was removing links the article is much like a private business in India siddha yoga , where some preachers open their own Ashrams and continue to get donations and sell articles , the siddha yoga does not have other official source other than there own website and self published sources , so i am a good intention editor . now how to deal with this mess ? Shrikanthv (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Caucasian Albania

Hi. Thanks for closing the request on C. Albania at AE, it was there forever. I think the new remedy should also be logged here: Regards, Grandmaster 17:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, done. Gatoclass (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible Queue 6 late substitution or addition

You an administrator who is quite active at WP:DYK, so I wanted to call your attention to a particularly timely hook for the next queue Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Possible_Queue_6_late_substitution_or_addition. You may want to make a late addition or substitution.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Kundalini page

As an admin, why would you delete the only material in the article that comes from actual PhD's in ancient studies?Atiyogafan (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

please discuss on the talk page of the article. Atiyogafan (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK

Is it possible to nominate the same article with two DYK or more? I already have a DYK veryfied and approved for Yuderqui Contreras, but I have other two of them on mind, should I submitted? ... that 2012 Olympian Yuderqui Contreras have been six times Weightlifter of the Year? Osplace 01:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Misplaced Pages email:

  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Kundalini

Well, the ANI thread archived off again, but RTO is a confirmed sock of Fatehji (who was almost banned). I'd posted the relevant links on the ANI thread before it archived. I've also asked EdJohnston to take a look as he'd filed the SPI earlier. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed... "cheers". It's nice to see how you two are communicating and colluding together, as you clearly have for years... I have explained in the talk pages long ago this was no "sock" as this was not for purposes of masking myself. This was over a year ago due to a password loss and I never used the account again. Case closed.
So.. the glaring open response is why would you not answer the question above? It looks really bad for you now when you delete PhD of studies material and never offer any explanations... One of these days you will have to make a choice... Take interest in the subject and make constructive adjustments, or move on. Harassing editors and PhDs and deleting stuff you don't personally like makes you look very ugly. A wise man once said: the better man is the first to say sorry. So, I offer my hand in truce to shake and work together... But if not, then you must move on to other things that interest you... It's up to you... RogerThatOne72 (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for cognitive vulnerability

Greetings. I found you from the DYK main page. I was wondering if you can add your two cents to this nomination. Your help is greatly appreciated.Khyati Gupta (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Ellen Southard at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the nomination & hook. Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

T.J. Southard ref

Take a look at this for some more information about his business and family. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I already found that reference along with several more :) IMO there is not a lot I can use in that particular reference for the Southard article, but if you've yet to take a close look at it, I think you will find some useful info about the Ellen Southard - namely the division of ownership, and a number of voyages she appears to have made to the captured Union port of New Orleans in 1863.
Naturally I regret that we were not able to collaborate more effectively on the Ellen Southard article, but perhaps it is for the best as the time I have available for pursuit of my wikihobby is at present quite limited. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Re-opening polls anytime?

You halted two limit proposals that I started, so I must discuss first. However, I don't know what to say about DYK/GA, especially with drama in WT:DYK. I don't fully support GA-promotion as a criterion for DYK, but I believe that another consensus may concur with Erasurehead's closing rationale. If so, shall these polls be re-opened? --George Ho (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK/BLP Hook

Hi, I was going to drop a sternish reminder at DYK that content should be more than just rubber stamped for the main page. They should be looking at the content to make sure it doesnt violate the wider WP policies. Can I confirm what you deleted/edited the material under? I would have gone with WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:NPF, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPNAME all of which apply (or applied since you have done a decent cleanup job!) to the offending material. Thanks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited T. J. Southard, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mersey River and Virginia reel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

Ah Boys to Men

Hi there Gatoclass, would you mind if I were to ask you to review Template:Did you know nominations/Ah Boys to Men? Cos I saw your nice name on the list of admins active in the dyk process. Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lawrence & Foulks, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Albany, Newburgh and Tender (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gatoclass. You have new messages at ].
Message added 22:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AARON• 22:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

Another look

Hi Gatoclass. You passed on Template:Did you know nominations/Ginger: The Life and Death of Albert Goodwin due to lack of coverage, but we've done a bit of a refocus/rewrite. Would you be able to take another look? Regards, The Interior (Talk) 06:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A hook

Hello. Can you please explain this hook change? — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Matthew Arundell

Hi Gatoclass. After you reviewed the DYK nomination of Matthew Arundell and posted some careful comparisons, I said I would do some reworking of the article, and this is what I've done. Moonraker (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for T. J. Southard

Updated DYK queryOn 2 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article T. J. Southard, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that it was said of Richmond, Maine, shipbuilder T. J. Southard that there was scarcely an "institution in town he hasn't a corner in"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/T. J. Southard. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Help

help me if possible I have this problem so well

Gatoclass

{{{Infobox polygon}}} in english

from left to right I think the Template is incorrect click here to see in somali --abshir (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm totally unfamiliar with that template, I suggest you inquire at WP:HELPDESK. Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The notoriuos wiki troll ( Iaaasi) returned

Hello!

The well known chauvinist romanian wiki-troll User:Iaaasi returned (with a new croatian fake identity) He is now active alias user: Irji2012 He is often active in Hungarian-related aricles, he enjoy edit-warring deleting good sources and sentences from important articles, and he like to break the rules of wiki even 3 revert rule. Can you arrange about this notorious wiki-troll? Thank you! Peter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.49.97 (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Promontory Forts of Cornwall

Have the recent edits to this article addressed your concerns? If so, probably time for the next step; if not, something needs to happen. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

PS Commonwealth

Hello there. I wanted to let you know that I really enjoyed your article on PS Commonwealth and that next week I'm hoping to be able to add/correct some of the information in the "Models" section. The model that Tiffany & Co. took to be exhibited in Paris is the model that was presented to Captain Jerome W. Williams and is currently owned by The Mariners' Museum. It's such a wonderfully written article that I felt awkward about working on it without letting you know first. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Neochichiri11 (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that's fine, you are welcome to add or correct any info in the article so long as it is adequately sourced. And thanks for the other comments, glad you enjoyed it :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WT:DYK#Lead hooks

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion after your switch in Prep 4 of my choice for a lead hook with your own. There are principles involved that you may not have considered, or felt important, but I wanted you and the DYK community at large to be aware of another perspective. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Human rights movement

Gatoclass, I've tried to jumpstart the discussion of this DYK submission. As you were the one who removed it from the queue in early December, I imagine you'll want to contribute your thoughts. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Template:Did you know/Queue/1

I noticed that you replaced one lead hook with another. I wonder if you can fix the "(pictured)" thing and remove credentials of the replaced hook from queue, and I wonder if the replaced hook can be placed into one prep area. --George Ho (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Give me a chance please, I'm not through organizing the queues yet. Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Some DYK issues

Gatoclass, I wanted to be very sure that you realized that the current lead hook in Queue 6, Italian Hall, has "today" in its wording. That means it should run during the US daytime on December 24, the day it is commemorating. Since it was put in the special holding area almost a month ago, it deserves to run in the US daytime queue, whatever that ends up being.

Poeticbent seems to think that running Italian Hall in the same set as Pasterka—especially as the lead hook—is insulting to Catholics. I don't see it, but if the two can't appear together, I think Pasterka ought to have the earlier slot and Italian Hall the later because of the time zone issues, if they're both going to be lead slots, and at this point I don't think it's fair to demote Italian Hall.

Of the others, the Sri Lankan sports/Christmas hook should run in the first Christmas slot (the one with India at 05:30), and the US ones should go in the second. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to the view that hooks should be run during daytime in particular countries, especially for US hooks since there's so many of them, indeed this was a strategy that was rejected multiple times in discussion when I was contributing on a more regular basis here. Moreover, I have an objection to such a negative hook running as a lead on Christmas Eve, and it's only acceptable to me as a lead if it runs earlier in the day (UTC) rather than later, which is why I put it into that particular queue. Gatoclass (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
But the hook text is wrong if it runs then. If you aren't going to move it, then you need to fix the text. I suggest that "today" becomes "on December 24". Otherwise, most of the people in the US who read it will assume the event happened 99 years ago on December 23, because that's when they'll see it, and we shouldn't run hooks with wording that we know will be misleading due to when they're being run. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
See my response at WT:DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I did. Thanks. Technically true, but less reader friendly for the US audience. I'll leave it now. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Anantashayana Vishnu

The above article is still under DYK Prep area 4, but I just got a message, under your signature, on my user page stating that it is posted on the DYK Main Page. It is not there in the Main Page. It does not even have the text of the DYK. There is some confusion. Can you kindly check" to rectify the issue. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 12:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Template:Did you know/Queue/6

Is there a point on protecting Queue 6? If so, we are experience low activity nowadays, especially with 100 verified hooks left. --George Ho (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Devil's Tower Road

I haven't yet thanked you for starting this AfD (I'm not bothered by the close). I'm actually glad to see someone following up on a DYK concern--I am hesitant to nominate articles for deletion that in my opinion qualify for it, and this (as you noted, and as the close also confirmed) was certainly no obvious candidate for deletion. It's still languishing at DYK, where I just opined (I have a big mouth, I know) that it needs two reviews still to pass. Anyway, thanks--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I've mentioned you here. Prioryman (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

DYK? Nomination

I responded to your latest comments here -- Template:Did you know nominations/Disarmament of Libya. Please check out my response whenever you'll have some time. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I already responded to you again in the same place. Futurist110 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I have already responded to you yet again. Futurist110 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Disarmament of Libya

I made an additional comment there, if you're interested. I'm not sure if you've noticed (my guess is that you did), but I also proposed a hook earlier on, which I would consider to be accurate and backed by the source in the article.

By the way, I'm sorry if I've already given everyone the impression that I'm an incompetent DYK reviewer. That was my first shot at it and I tried to make sure everything was in order. Apparently I didn't do a very good job. Is it a typical occurrence for a DYK hook to be pulled from the queue if someone raises an objection? Kurtis 17:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied on the nomination page. Gatoclass (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, and I've responded there as well. =) Kurtis 18:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I have already responded to your proposed hook as well. Futurist110 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I have already responded to you yet again. Futurist110 (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

DYK tracking

I like what you are doing to organize things with the nominations. I think you can help me, through your table, with a problem I haven't resolved. Right now the nominations go into a pending category, and they stay pending until they archive when they generally go into category:passed or :failed or an occasional :withdrawn. I'm trying to trigger a switch from category:pending, into category:under review, from when the nomination has received its first review comment. There are obvious benefits, in my opinion.—My76Strat • talk • email 15:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not really up with every aspect of the current organization of DYK, because I only recently returned to editing in this area. You would probably have to canvas your idea at WT:DYK and explain clearly what you wanted to do and why. Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Re. Capital punishment in Yemen DYK

Just to let you know, I've responded to your concerns at the DYK nomination page.

I hope my proposal satisfies your concerns. =) Kurtis 21:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

Left a reply

At Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_December_14. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

Template:Did you know nominations/Jon Santacana Maiztegui

I have addressed your concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Jon Santacana Maiztegui. Please review the proposed althook. --LauraHale (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added another source. Please take another look. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests

Hi, I'm contacting you because you have recently contributed as a reviewing administrator to WP:AE. I've made a suggestion relating to the management of that page at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests#Structural improvements to AE threads, and would appreciate your input. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User talk:SMcCandlish's talk page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 22:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification/correction needed

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User talk:SMcCandlish's talk page. The notice of the restriction you left on my talk page is missing the "With regard to pages or discussions related to WP:MOS..." scope that is in the original at AE. Also seems kinda gameable, but perhaps you can clarify why it won't be. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 10:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Re-replied at my talk page; short version: If restrictions from Sandstein are taken to apply even within DR forums like AE, why wouldn't yours? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 12:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the further responses. I don't agree with your perception of such a unified voice at that AE request (the complaints and suggested remedies were in fact all over the map, and confused policy matters – many unproven – with personal peeves, plus meta-complaints about my responses at AE itself), but I guess that's not a big deal. Your remedies are certainly more sensible than Sandstein's, are ones I don't have any issue with, and weren't you parroting Sandstein, of course. My concern wasn't that you weren't exercising your own judgement but rather giving Sandstein too much of a back-pat for a job well done, when it wasn't.  :-/ I think there's also a bigger picture that you're not seeing (it becomes clearer the more you look at who Sandstein "warned" (falsely accused) on what basis, how they related to previous efforts to silence Noetica and others on related topics, who has acted on his "warnings" since then and in what ways against whom, with whose backing, etc.), but your or my talk page isn't the place to get into it in detail. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 11:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

General sanctions clean up

Hi, could you take a look at User:Timotheus Canens/GS draft and leave comments on the talk page? Thanks a lot. T. Canens (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

When a request for enforcement against a particular user is brought, what are the notification expectations? I notice that exclusively hostile editors seem to have found their way to the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hgilbert discussion. I wonder how they, but not sympathetic editors, knew about it? (I have just placed a notice about it on the Waldorf education page; nobody had done this before.) Is this a usual part of the process? hgilbert (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's probably okay to leave a note on the article talk page, but I would strongly advise you not to canvass other editors, as it will likely be seen as an abuse of process. You should not make any bad faith assumptions about the fact that a number of your opponents happened to turn up to the AE request; they may simply have been more alert than other involved editors. Gatoclass (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

Reply

Re: your note at User_talk:SMcCandlish (I decided to check and see if I'd been blocked for a year or some other extremist nonsense simply for expressing frustration at Sandstein, and saw your note): I'd be willing to discuss your suggestion to drop it, in e-mail or otherwise off-wiki. I can be e-mailed from my user page. 24.23.163.55 (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC) (SMcCandlish)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

Borderline personal attack

Please refrain from maligning me in public again, as you clearly did here, unprovoked and without cause. Your claim that my "approach to discussion tends to alienate other users" has never been demonstrated in any AE, RFARB, AN, ANI, RFC/U or otherwise. You are simply parroting unproven, self-serving claims by SarekOfVulcan (which AE rejected) and Sandstein (for which there was no consensus, so he unrecused himself to declare himself dictatorialy correct). The only users on this system who have claimed that my behavior has "alienated" them (or something similar - "intimidated", "put them off", etc.) are:

  1. a very small number of consistently good editors like Peter coxhead who have chosen to pit themselves against me (and, usually, various other editors), month after month, year after year, on some esoteric issue about which they are no less argumentative and certain than I am, just in the other direction ("It takes two to argue", and they have a vested interest, whether it consciously motivates them or not, of making me out to be the bad guy and their own approach seem to be more reasonable); and
  2. a considerably larger number of consistently problematic editors who have repeatedly been sanctioned via one of the above-mentioned forums/processes and in most cases have long block logs for persistent patterns of blatantly disruptive editing. Like many editors, I "police" WP:CIVILPOV and other problem editors the way others police vandals and other disruptive editing; this is a perfectly legitimate activity here, and like being an active admin, it results in a lot of acrimony directed at one from those being reined in.

Your finger-pointing at me broadly for allegedly alienating other Wikipedians, in general, borders on a personal attack and is not just an assumption but an outright accusation of bad faith. I would think that after months of concerted, continual verbal abuse, harassment and attempted censorship of me, by one admin who has resigned under a cloud and another that is bound for RFARB (if not by me, then by someone else; I know of at least a dozen editors who want to see it happen), that you'd get off my back just for a little while, and find some other dog to kick. Sandstein's topic ban was a crock, from both a process and a rationale perspective, and you know it. After taking some time off, I was just going to let it slide in the interests of collegiality, but now that you're citing it as if actually evidentiary or exemplary of something supposedly disruptive or problematic (other than Sandstein's grossly inappropriate personal involvement and failure of judgement), I feel I have no choice now but to appeal his childish ban. Good job stirring up...<ahem> hornets for no reason. Maybe I'm not the only one who's needed a wikibreak. I was enjoying mine until someone e-mailed me about your rather character-assassinating post.

PS: I strongly resent, by the way, being compared to Doncram in particular. Did you even read WP:AE#Statement by Orlady, etc.? I show nothing even vaguely similar to those patterns of alleged paranoid conspiracy mongering, filibustering pretense to not understand simple propositions, megalomaniacal assertion of expertise that somehow requires others to seek dispute resolution in order to disagree, attempts at WP:OWNership of articles, or other weird nonsense. I'm gruff and opinionated, but I'm not any of that. I would not have a clean block log after seven years of almost non-stop editing, plenty of it in hotbeds of controversy, if I were. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 21:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Fyi, the above post maligns no fewer than four editors, while complaining about being maligned in public. I thoroughly agree with the poster that it is never appropriate to call attention to the actions of another editor by naming them. A diff or link would have been helpful though. Instead of "This request reminds me somewhat of the recent case", how about "This request reminds me somewhat of the {{diff|recent case}}" or recent case Apteva (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I strongly object to the unsupported description of my behaviour on Misplaced Pages which SMcCandlish has made above. It is a quite unwarranted attack on me. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
@ SmcCandlish: I'm sorry to hear you feel "maligned", but it is, after all, only a month ago that multiple users including at least five admins cited problems with your talk page conduct that resulted in you being specifically prohibited from making bad faith assumptions and also advised to avoid commenting on contributor etc. on MOS-related pages, so I saw my comment as nothing more than a reference to an established finding. Perhaps the comment could have been better expressed, but I was focussed on the issue at hand, which was how to deal with doncram. And I want to emphasize that the point I was trying to make, which you seem to have overlooked, was that both you and doncram appear to be users whose value to the project is generally acknowledged, and for whom I therefore believe sanctions should be a last resort. Moreover, there was no attempt to "compare" you with doncram - I simply noted a similarity in one particular respect. I am not in a position to make a comparative judgement about your respective contribution histories.
Having said that, it does bother me a tad that your attitude here indicates you are yet to acknowledge any issues with regard to your approach to talk pages, in spite of having been so recently advised with regard to it. I hope this doesn't mean you have no intention of modifying your approach, because that would be a mistake IMO. Perhaps I should add that I am not exactly pleased with your accusation of a "bad faith assumption" on my part either. Saying that someone "tends to alienate" other users with certain talk page habits may or may not be factually accurate, but it can hardly be termed a bad faith assumption since it makes no assertions with regard to your motives.
@Apteva - you are probably correct to suggest it would be more diplomatic to add a diff rather than a username, but I have my doubts that doing so would have made much difference. Gatoclass (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
It would make a huge difference. See above where someone has taken objection to the above malignment, one of the four named. Had the poster instead just stopped with the first sentence that would be ideal, but if they are going to include the sentence "a very small number of consistently good editors like who have chosen to pit themselves against me", adding like someone adds absolutely nothing. The sentence would have been better simply as "a very small number of consistently good editors who have chosen to pit themselves against me", and if they wanted to include specifics, diffs should have been used, not names. We really need to clean up our act by eliminating these WP:FOC violations. Apteva (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

Admin needed within 4 hours

You are listed as an actively involved adminiatrator at Misplaced Pages:Did you know#Administrators. There are about four hours left to correct a DYK scheduling request that was messed up by manual updating. See Wikipedia_talk:Did you know#7 hours left to fix date request.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

Template:Did you know nominations/A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush

Gatoclass, now that this hook is back in review, do you think you could take over the reviewing? Chiswick Chap has just suggested an ALT1, and the affect seems much the same, though it is directly sourced. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Arctic (SP-1158), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington State and Eagle Harbor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

Template:Did you know nominations/A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush

Thanks for reviewing this DYK. I've provided a new hook of the plainest kind, with link in the nomination. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request

Hi Gatoclass. This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the clarification request you submitted regarding procedural issues at WP:AE has been archived to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests#Request for clarification (March 2013): Procedural issues at WP:AE. The Arbitration Committee has indicated that they intend to review Arbitration Enforcement and Discretionary Sanctions during May 2013. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination International Conference on Hollywoodism

On April 18, you stated on Template:Did you know nominations/International Conference on Hollywoodism: "The article still contains a few statements that look to be a bit of a concern. I will take a closer look at this tomorrow to ensure that it conforms with the sources." We haven't heard from you since. Can you please return to the nomination and provide some more detailed suggestions? —♦♦ AMBER 06:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm wondering how your review of this article is coming along. I'm trying to get all the DYK's from March either passed or rejected before the first of May, in order to be able to claim a small victory in my war against the DYK backlog ;).—♦♦ AMBER 11:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh heck, sorry, completely forgot about it, I haven't had much time to work on Misplaced Pages at all over the last few days. I won't be able to do anything Monday, but I'll try to finish my tweaks by Wednesday. Gatoclass (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

Bobrayner AE

You've mispelled the username twice now, so I thought I should tell you. --Joy (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I commented also in the ae, please notice it. Thanks, be well. --WhiteWriter 15:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this, what's that about? I initially noticed their revert-warring at + - that's not a 3rr violation, and it's a reaction to a tendentious section heading by bobrayner, but the reference to Reuters is fine and should have been kept. --Joy (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I agree the reverting of the Reuters source looks careless, but nobody brought this to my attention previously. The reason I rescinded the advisement for 23 editor is because I misread the diffs at, I think it was the Republika Srpska page, where I thought he had edit warred over incorrect content after FkpCascais, but after checking the diffs realized he hadn't. In that circumstance I thought it only fair to rescind the advisement. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought I had mentioned it, but I see now that I left it implicit. Did you check the links about 23 editor posted by bobrayner? Two more bland reverts because of that Serbian settlements map (still nothing on Talk there!), another one at the Kosovo War massacres article, canvassing WhiteWriter to "help him stop" bobrayner's "POV pushing"? Sure, it can be said that it's just a few problematic bits here and there, but it's a developing pattern and it merits a warning. I'd certainly prefer warnings before things escalate, as opposed to bans after. --Joy (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I did look at the content diffs posted by Bobrayner, but didn't bother with the "canvassing" diff (since one diff isn't much evidence of canvassing). Users are entitled to a revert here and there, that is not evidence of revert warring. Regarding the content edits, they might arguably be regarded as somewhat POV-ish but taken in isolation I didn't think them sufficient to justify action. Regardless, I think it's a bit belated to be making these arguments now, it would have been more useful to mention these concerns at the time. In any case, 23 editor has already received a warning, from RichWales on 22 February (and was probably fortunate on that occasion to get no more than a warning) so there didn't seem much point in giving him another, as he will already be facing potential sanctions for future misconduct. Gatoclass (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
O, great, we has warned. Again. That will definitively stop such behaviour.... Lucky we. I will send each and every POv pushing in the future to your address then. --WhiteWriter 22:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

AE

I am up against the 500 word limit, so will reply here. As to "IMO they might at most merit a reminder", I would have agreed with this last year when I began reminding the editor in question, to no avail. They even asked me if I was still trying to drag that cow out of the ditch, whatever that was supposed to mean. Reminders have had absolutely zero effect. It is clearly a long term behavioral issue that has not been corrected when reminded ad nauseum. I just looked at some edits from 2008, and half of the talk page edits that I checked were problematic. Apteva (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In looking at the editor's talk page I found this gem from the article Christmas. I am not going to comment on our understanding of how collaborative editing is done or what WP:Talk looked like then, but at some point along the way this pattern was developed, and never corrected. Apteva (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

With regards to Apteva, you should consider my statement and Johnuniq's statement as that can give you some idea of the problem with that editor's conduct.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Filing a bogus RFC/U is not an excuse for improper behavior on talk pages. The RFC/U and AN, ANI occupied 134 pages and 500,000 bytes of wasted editors time that could have been accomplished with two words "back off", which I had already agreed to, and have adhered to as well. Apteva (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

With regards to sanctions against me, they are already totally bogus. Removing them would be the way to go, not increasing them. When you are right you are right. I only have to say it once. I have learned that and do not keep repeating myself as I once did. Apteva (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)