User talk:Allen3/Archive10

Albert Galaburda Page?

There was a page on Norman Geschwind, who was a famous neuroscientist. When I went to look for his student/collaborator Albert Galaburda, the page was deleted. One of Norman Geschwind's most famous theories is the Geschwind-Galaburda theory. That page should be reconstituted in some form. 173.73.128.231 (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Stuart Washington, PhD (sdw4@georgetown.edu)

The fact you left a message on my talk page indicates you saw the article's entry in the deletion log. You should also be aware the entry contained the entire contents of the article at the time of its deletion (i.e. "{{delete}}albert galaburda"). Of the two edits to the article, the first added the name and the second inserted the speedy deletion request template. As you are obviously more knowledgeable about Galaburda than myself any other Wikipedian who has been involved with the article, you would be the obvious candidate to create a new article about him. This can be done by either through Wikipedia:Articles for creation or by creating an account and following the directions at Wikipedia:Your first article. --Allen3 ^talk 00:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Albert C. Baker

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Mexican-American War

It was jsut for fun. So who do you think woulda won if the Cherokee/Haudenosaunee were involved? If the Cree/Ojibway weren't so backwards/retarded Mexico would be the U.S. 24.138.140.228 (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Unhexoctium

Thanks for the protection. Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for François Xavier Aubry

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Promoting hooks you yourself approve

I know you've been around DYK far longer than I have, but it's generally not a good idea to promote articles you have also reviewed and approved. It's even specifically mentioned in the rules, in N1 on Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage: "When possible, it is also best to avoid promoting the same article that you reviewed." Given that there are plenty of approved hooks available at present, many of them bios, it should be possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Special Thanks

Thank you for taking the effort to move the Gibraltar hook. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 14th Arizona Territorial Legislature

Hello! Your submission of 14th Arizona Territorial Legislature 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! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	people in law
	Thank you for quality articles about people in law, for Christmas, for your tireless work and reviewing around DYK, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (26 July 2010)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mulford Winsor

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 14th Arizona Territorial Legislature

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Elephant headed goddess

You promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Vinayaki to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 without the photo. Are you able to promote that with the photo? On another note, the nominator requested it for September 19. To get it for September 19 India time, it would need to be moved to Queue 6 or 1. Leaving it in Prep 1 would have it there during September 19 UTC, but it would still be nice if you were able to move some things around with the picture. Ryan Vesey 11:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 16th Arizona Territorial Legislature

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/John Angel (Sculptor)

Thanks for the review and promotion. Multiple DYKs sometimes move slowly through the system. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for the Roman d'Alexandre

Thanks for processing this! Really excited to get a new contributor's work up on DYK :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Brow monument and brow monument trail

Hi. i'm following a suggestion from pumpkinsky regarding the above article. I finally was able to figure out how to add the NRHP nomination reference to the article and i believe that it is now ready to be reviewed. It was suggested that i find the article in the DYK nom page WT:DYK and to notify you that way but, for the life of me, i could not find it there. hope this is ok to leave the message here. bill polkAbearfellow (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Promotion of Marcus A. Smith

Hello, Allen3. You have new messages at Mentoz86's talk page.
Message added 15:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Marcus A. Smith

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for William F. Fitzgerald

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 12th Arizona Territorial Legislature

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Alfred Franklin

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ridley Bottom, Tidenham

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Laymoor Quag

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Brow Monument and Brow Monument Trail

Brow Monument and Brow Monument Trail

Can you take another look at that DYK hook? Thanks.PumpkinSky talk 20:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fred G. Hughes hook

I've made another suggestion at WT:DYK. If you're still online, take a look. I'm reluctant to make the change myself without a go-ahead; I had similar concerns about the one you didn't like. But I'm off to bed soon, so another admin may have to act on it either way. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Fred G. Hughes

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 19th Arizona Territorial Legislature

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for William Augustus Hancock

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 18th Arizona Territorial Legislature

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK submission for Parable of the sunfish

Hi Allen,

Thanks again for reviewing my DYK submission. As I mentioned, this is my first made-from-scratch article and, as you've pointed out, there are many aspects of wikipedia house style that I haven't mastered yet.

I'm happy (and eager) to follow your recommendations on improving the article, but I'm not sure if this is a good use of your time or if DYK is the right venue for this. Is it acceptable for the submission to have another two or three (or four or five) rounds of review, or would it be best to withdraw and improve the article outside of the DYK process?

Thanks much,

GaramondLethe 00:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Allen,

Thank you for explaining the DYK process on my talk page. I hadn't realized that multiple review cycles were within the norm. Also, thank you for being such an attentive reader. Your reviews have been a huge help in educating me as to what is required for a high-quality article. These are definitely mistakes I won't be making again.

Best,

GaramondLethe 19:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

William Augustus Hancock

Hello, Allen3. You have new messages at Pigsonthewing's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for catching the VIAFbot bug

Thanks for catching that bug. If you look at VIAFbot's contribs you can see it normally editing the case where the metadata comment is in the first line properly. But in the [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ren%C3%A9_Victor_Pilhes&diff=prev&oldid=516678668 case you pointed out] the the difference is the in the whitespace between the "Persondata" and the comment, correct? Maximilianklein (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, I wanted to add an image to Template:Did you know nominations/Tara VanDerveer, forgot to do it when I created the nomination, didn't see how to add it after, meant to check with someone but got distracted. There's an ever-so-tiny story behind the picture—I had taken a picture of VanDerveer at a conference, but it wasn't a very good picture. I wrote to the athletic department, and told them if I could get a few pictures, (two of National Championship teams, and a better one of VanDerveer ) I would work on improving the article on her. They did, so I am.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for W. E. Biederwolf

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating a fact from W. E. Biederwolf. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Flat Bastion Magazine DYK promotion

I'm afraid we currently have two Gibraltar-related DYKs in the prep area at the moment - it's not your fault but I guess you didn't see that there was already a DYK in prep 3 (Rosia Water Tanks). In order to keep to the frequency of no more than one a day, I propose to take out Flat Bastion Magazine for now and replace it with something else, then re-add it to a different prep area tomorrow morning. Would you have any objection to that? Prioryman (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email. Please check it before plastering up my talk page again.  Volunteer Marek  19:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltar-related DYKs

Please be aware that your promotions of Gibraltar-related DYKs is coming in for some criticism from editors who did not participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options. There is currently a suggestion from those editors that a moratorium on Gibraltar-related DYKs should be imposed, overturning the earlier agreement. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Time-sensitive DYK nomination. Prioryman (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Kent, Jr.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Vanillotoxin

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Muhlenbergia pungens zapped

I am not sure the right way to proceed on this, or whether to do anything at all. Muhlenbergia pungens was, in this version, a short, technical description of a type of desert grass. User:Prioryman nominated it for DYK for some reason, and it went on the front page. User:Fjozk, who seems very new to the project, then quickly yanked it off as a copyvio. The information in the article, cobbled together from various sources, is extremely mundane and factual. "Ligules are 0.2 to 1 millimetre (0.0079 to 0.039 in) long, with lateral lobes" etc. I imagine all sources give much the same facts using similar words. The ligules are in fact that long, and do indeed have lateral lobes. Nobody is going to claim their copyright was violated. This is not an article I care much about, but the behavior of User:Fjozk seems disruptive. I don't want to get in a war over it. Advice? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• I asked for advice, then did not exactly follow it. I had to make the point that the article is just a collection of mundane facts. But I have unwatched it - a silly dispute. Oddly, behind User:Fjozk's rather aggressive language, I detect a sincere wish to ensure quality in this type of article. See Talk:Muhlenbergia pungens/Temp. Let's hope he follows through. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Andrew J. Doran

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Washington Bee

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Margaret Cousins

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Dyk for the bullet vanishes

Hi there Allen3. Erm, since you we're the ozone who moved my nom for The Bullet Vanishes to prep 3, I like to ask you something. I'm not sure how ya go about doing it, but could you change the hook to the alternate one proposed? Cos I feel the other alt version is more interesting, Coukd you help meh? Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, nevermind. Don't pull it out. :) Thanks anyway. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your tireless (and much-needed and appreciated) efforts at keeping the runnings at DYK as smooth as possible; especially at a time when it seems to be in a dire need of extra hands. Thanks! Yazan (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK Naylor TF 1700

Nice to see my article moving closer to DYK. If I wanted to change the wording (from "in" to "driving", as supported by citations already there) would it require starting over? If that's the case then never mind and I'd prefer to use the original hook. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Very kind, thank you. A better hook always helps.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ghost Ship of Northumberland Strait

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Reg Dean

According to WT:DYK#Reg Dean DYK? re-submission, fivefold expansion was made. I wonder if re-nomination is needed. --George Ho (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Indre Viskontas

Hello! Your submission of Indre Viskontas at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Downtown Community House

Allen3, I'm not sure how to do it myself: it looks like, though you meant to reject this one, you actually promoted it. (I noticed today because the Commons Delinker came through and pulled out the image that had been associated with the nomination.) Since it has the wrong category, is there anything you can do to get this listed as a rejection? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Indre Viskontas

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Smithsonian Gardens

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Beatrice Kerr

Hello! Your submission of Beatrice Kerr at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Allen3, it's up to you whether you want to address these issues or not. IgnorantArmies, the original author (who was also notified), doesn't care to. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest in performing the additional research and expansion needed to satisfy Agne27's wish list of improvements. It is a DYK nomination, not a Featured Article Candidate. --Allen3 ^talk 20:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hey Allen, is there any way that you could move the Loring hook to another area so that the image could be used? I don't mean to be a pain, but I was wondering if this could be done since the image contributes to the hook. If this is not possible, I completely understand, and I hope that you have a wonderful Saturday. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK review

Hi there, a few weeks ago you started a review of Template:Did you know nominations/Phil Cronan, pointing out that the quote wasn't actually quoted in the reference. I've re-worded that section, so I would appreciate it if you could take another look at it. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK issue

Hello! Please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Problematic hook. Thanks! —David Levy 03:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that you also promoted this item, which contained an accidental link to an irrelevant article (as reported on the main page error page and unfortunately never corrected). Are non-bold links not routinely checked? —David Levy 10:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sucrose gap

Hi, I just realised I made a spelling mistake in the hook for this DYK that you promoted. Robert Stempfli is actually Robert Stämpfli. I would have corrected this myself but not sure how to correct the DYK that has been promoted. Could you either correct it, or give me instructions on how to fix it. Thanks very much, and sorry for the bother. Illia Connell (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Forgotten DYK?

Hi Allen, my submission of King's Chapel, Gibraltar was approved several weeks ago but seems to have been forgotten about (see Template:Did you know nominations/King's Chapel, Gibraltar). Is there any chance of adding it to a prep area any time soon? Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This has been resolved now, so don't worry about it. Prioryman (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Panyarring

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Disposition Matrix

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Prep 3

Sorry! Only saw the edit notice when I saved the set. Miyagawa (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No problems. --Allen3 ^talk 11:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Beatrice Kerr

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou

Oh, thanks! Didn't realise I'd forgotten that one. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

I very much appreciate you promoting that for DYK! Greengreengreenred 23:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John G. Campbell

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hiram Sanford Stevens

Hello! Your submission of Hiram Sanford Stevens at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cambalachero (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John Y. T. Smith

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Furcifer polleni, Furcifer willsii

Allen3, I had just finished writing a very long paragraph explaining why Choess's proposed ALT 2 hook—written as part of the approval of the nomination and therefore not approved along with it—was highly problematic and therefore ineligible for promotion, and you come along three minutes later and promote the very hook I've just said was no good. Do you want to choose a different hook, or shall I do it? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've pulled this one back. ALT1, the only other hook that survives, is "are both endemic to islands in the Indian Ocean", yet the very next double Furcifer nomination, listed immediately after it that same day, Template:Did you know nominations/Furcifer angeli, Furcifer balteatus, has had its hook declared uninteresting and ineligible, when it reads "are both endemic to Madagascar". As it was Sasata who made this objection there, I imagine Sasata will also object to ALT1 here (after previously objecting to the original hook, which was even less interesting). BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 17th Arizona Territorial Legislature

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Philip Slier

I question the promotion of this DYK as written, as I believe the hook is unclear. While the meaing is indicated, it is confusingly presented using the term "with parallel stories""? There were three ALT offered, but not discussed. I believe it should be re-written b4 publication Djflem (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hook swapped with an alternate. --Allen3 ^talk 09:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 20th Arizona Territorial Legislature

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hiram Sanford Stevens

Hello! Your submission of Hiram Sanford Stevens at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested an alternative hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Hiram Sanford Stevens

(X! · talk)  · @954  ·  12:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltar restrictions still in force

Allen3, I just had to remove the Prep 2 lead hook because it did not have the two review approvals still required for all Gibraltar hooks. (It's why the hook was in the "not fully reviewed" Gibraltar section. 19:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)) While the matter is under discussion in WT:DYK#Ending the Gibraltar restrictions and the two-review requirement is almost certain to be lifted later this week, the discussion has not yet closed, and I feel very strongly that all the proper steps be followed when it comes to Gibraltar. I've been the only person promoting fully reviewed Gibraltar hooks during your absence—there are two fully reviewed ones ready to go, and I promoted one to Prep 4 yesterday (William Green), so if you want Gibraltar there now, you have a couple of options for the lead, though admitted neither has as nice an image. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Category Barnstar
		For properly removing an inappropriate category from the Rush Limbaugh article, I would like to present you with this barnstar. Please keep up the good work! RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Samuel C. Hughes

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Progress over at Today's articles for improvement

I was reading an old conversation you participated in, and I thought I'd mention how much progress has gone on over at Today's articles for improvement. If you missed it, an RFC was held and concensus was established that the TAFI content should be placed below the DYK content. We will be launching the feature on the Main Page shortly, and the Main Page sandbox shows it will look. Participation on the talk page is always welcome. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to implement TAFI that affects OTD

Discussion is ongoing about how to implement Today's articles for improvement on the Main Page. A proposal is being worked on with general community support, where TAFI is put it on the left hand side, below the DYK content. In order to balance the Main Page, part of this proposal involves increasing the OTD content by one item per day. Since you are an editor involved in the process, I would ask if you could comment on the proposal. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Miss Calypso

DYK: the lady is supposed to be held for her birthday on 4 April? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Allen3 ^talk 18:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK hook for Hilde Levi

Hi, looks like you are an admin working on DYK at the moment! I have posted this on Crisco's talk page but perhaps you might want to look at it?

The hook for Hilde Levi currently in Queue 2 reads:

...that Hilde Levi helped develop the develop radiocarbon dating equipment used to date the Grauballe Man?

That is how it is worded in the nomination but shouldn't the second 'develop' be removed? Or am I reading something incorrectly? Sorry to bother you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The second "develop" has been removed. --Allen3 ^talk 19:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/National colours of Canada

I don't think this nomination should have been closed already. I still have an outstanding QPQ review to complete. Moreover, I was considering requesting the DYK to be displayed on Canada Day (July 1), which I didn't think to do when I originally submitted the nomination. Mindmatrix 14:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK question

Hi. I was you are an active member of DYK and I have a doubt. I and Calvin999 are expanding the article Run (Snow Patrol song). We started the expansion five days ago, but the article is not complete (there is too much information about it). The article is right now almost the halve of prose it should have for a 5x expansion and I was wondering if the article should be added to the DYK queue incomplete, and ask for another week, the time I estimate we would take to complete it. I read at WP:DYKSG rule D9 that ""Five days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks. Otherwise nominated article may still be approved if it was created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations." The oldest article is from January 25, but I don't know if there is any backlog or if when we finish it still a valid nomination. Thanks in advance for the answer. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, we made that mistake. At least I thought there wouldn't be that much information. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Dick Wick Hall

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Allen3. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK queue

I moved the Ready for Love hook 2 slots later to coincide with it airing. I was also curious what your rationale was for not using the Washington image on the main page. Given the rate at which you were moving hooks (14 in a 21 minute span), I doubt you looked very closely at the data I presented in the discussion regarding the likelihood that this would be about a 10K pageview hook as the LEAD hook.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Beverly Hills Women's Club

Hello. You deleted Beverly Hills Women's Club in 2006. Do you remember why? It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles County, California, and I would like to create a new page if I can find enough referenced info to add. Please reply on my talkpage. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings, Allen3/Archive10! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2009 Mediterranean Games medal table

Hi Allen3,

Miyagawa approved the original hook. — Bill william compton^Talk 16:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Did I ever claim that Miyagawa did not approved the original hook? This is far from your first DYK, so I would normally assume you are familiar with the various steps in moving a hook to the Main page after a nomination is approved. Unless you are confusing the approval and promotion steps, I am unable to determine the reason for your message or why I am being involved in this discussion. --Allen3 ^talk 17:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I just want to know why the alternative hook was chosen over the original one? — Bill william compton^Talk 17:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The alternate hook was chosen because it is shorter and I found the wording of the original hook slightly confusing. It should also be noted that Miyagawa did not specify a preference for either hook or give any restrictions as to which hook(s) were approved. --Allen3 ^talk 17:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't express a preference because I wanted to leave it up to whoever moved it to prep. I merely wanted to allow that person the option of using either, and had the referencing not been pointed out then the first hook would have needed to be struck out. Miyagawa (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies! Now I've got it. — Bill william compton^Talk 03:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK Andrew Gleason

Unless we are running low on DYK hooks ready for promotion, please give consideration to my request at the end of this post. I've gone to great lengths to find a photo we can use, including writing to his widow, and I don't why this hook can't be held in abeyance until that's borne fruit. Thanks. EEng (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Regarding this [1]; Please re-check the contributions to the article -expansion. I believe it was based on a misunderstanding to include 3 contributors here, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for educating me! I´m still a bit clueless to the processes...after all these years ;) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Queue 4 DYK hook

Hi, sorry to be a pest but I just noticed the hook currently in Queue 4 for "Of Mice and Men".

Shouldn't it read:

that the John Steinbeck play adaptation Of Mice and Men debuted on Broadway while the novel of the same name was still on the best seller lists?

Adding the word 'the' and looks like Broadway is a re-direct? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing word added. Not sure why you mention the redirect as it is WP:NOTBROKEN. --Allen3 ^talk 10:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for changing that. For some reason I had it in my head that there shouldn't be re-directs in the hook (but I do tend to get myself muddled up!). SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thankyou for the time you spend on running and contributing to DYK!! A thankless job which you do wonderfully!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Allen3 ^talk 17:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ascents of James

Sockpuppet article, deleted. Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The article, that is, I don't know what can be done about the DYK promoted today. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/World Series ring

Hi, just wondering what you'd think of going with File:Champ Ring cropped.jpg as the cropped image for World Series ring. It's not often that an image of jewelry makes the DYK section. I probably should've cropped the image before promotion; the four of them were too much. If you don't want to use the image, no worries. Thanks for your consideration! – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 FA Cup Final DYK

Hi, I just noticed that you promoted 2013 FA Cup Final DYK to the prep areas however, I have noticed there is an error as the entry in the area is missing co-authors as it just has one of the 3 who made it for credits. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Allen3 ^talk 12:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Prometheus (1998 film) DYK hook typo

Hi Allen. Sorry about that but since I am not seeing any action on the typo reported at ERRORS, can you please check Q4 per this? Thanks again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Userspace edits

Hi Allen, I apologise for editing your userspace articles, I was only trying to help. The number of people who have 'draft' articles in there userspace that has not been touched for ages is amazing. I will in the future try to remember to leave your articles alone. For future information I am not using any type of automated tools, I occasionaly use AWB but always double check these. All the articles I edit are in Category:Persondata templates without short description parameter, I don't know if there is any way of including a persondata template without the short description parameter and keep it out of this category, again I am sorry and will try to remember to leave your articles alone. Waacstats (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK? Nomination

I responded to your comments and addressed your concerns for this DYK? nomination of mine--Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Alexander Early. Please respond back to me whenever you are able to. Futurist110 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my DYK nomination

Thanks a lot for promoting my DYK nomination of Kerala Seaplane. I have made another DYK nomination which you can see at this link. The article with the name Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi Memorial Lecture was reviewed by Solomon7968 as good work but with some problems. Those problems were later solved by me. But he later on my talk page expressed his inability to promote my DYK nomination since he was new at DYK and he didn't know all these processes. So, I would be a lot grateful to you if you would promote my his article also (after having your own review of it, of course). Please feel free to leave me a message. Once again thanks. Regards. - Jayadevp13 07:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Also request from me to review the DYK. Solomon7968 07:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not good

Closing as per Wikipedia:Drama#Responding to drama. Issue has been repeatedly discussed on other, more appropriate forums. Nothing is gained by using this talk page to re-litigating the issue yet again.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Regarding your publishing the DYK for the Wikipediocracy article (the DYK discussion is here: Template:Did you know nominations/Wikipediocracy), I'm sure you're aware that: There's an open RfC on whether the DYK should be published. It's an open question and remains an open question. (It's here: Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RfC: Should a DYK for Wikipediocracy be published?.) For good measure, since some folks expressed the opinion that RfC don't affect DYK's, there's an open CENT RfC on whether they do. It's an open question and remains an open question. (It's here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RfC on validity of RfC on main page items.) In addition to which, there are a lot of good arguments for not publishing the article, expressed by be several editors, in various places including the RfC. You may not agree with them, but they're good arguments. There's good arguments for publishing the article, too (as well as some not so good ones). I don't see consensus to publish the article. You did it anyway, and unlike most edits on the Wikipedia, this can't be undone. That's a big problem, I think. I'm seriously angry about this. Should I not be? I expect the people who have taken the time to participate in the RfC would rightly feel ill used and made fools of. Should they not? It certainly looks like a naked power play to create a fait accompli, for whatever motive. You didn't provide any reason for your action, leaving us in the dark. This was not, in my opinion, a smart move at all. The DYK folks are already under a lot of criticism. I think you shouldn't have done this. Why did you? Herostratus (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC) At the RfC itself, I noted that the item had been published anyway (something I thought is germane to that discussion, the the two posts below where made there. I've copied them here since this is a more appropriate forum I think. Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Don't heap all the blame on one editor. I passed the article, as can be clearly seen from the nomination page; and because of the nature of the DYK process, it takes multiple editors to promote an article (one to pass it, one to move it from the nomination page to a prep page, and another to move it from its prep page to a queue). When making my decision I took this RfC into account, weighed both sides' arguments, and explained the rationale behind my decision at length. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC) (diff here I too was aware of this RFC at the time the hook was promoted. At that time, this RFC had been open for four weeks and was well below the level of support needed to prevent the article from receiving normal treatment. Furthermore, the strongest argument to block the article from appearing is that it fails WP:GNG, an argument that had been made twice at WP:AFD and rejected by the community (since the article's appearance on DYK the Wikipedia community has rejected a third attempt to delete the article). Given these facts, and because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there was no reason to further delay the inevitable. --Allen3 talk 12:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC) (diff here Well, thank you for responding. There's some bit of stuff of to chew over here. This'll be difficult, because in some ways we're not even in the same frame of reference, so that some of what you say is, to my mind, not even wrong -- not to insult, but to describe how daunting the gulf between us seems to me. But if we work together I'm confident that we can make some progress on understanding each other. This may take a little time, but I'm patient. Let's work this through together. This'll be long, but I'm not ranting or (I hope) overly repeating, but rather working through some points step by step. First of, I'll lay out my understanding of how a contentious RfC like the one is question is properly closed. It's long and (I think) fairly obvious, so I'll collapse it, and you can probably just quick-scan it if you want How RfC of this type are properly decided OK, let's think about how a contentious and contended discussion is closed, when there is a binary choice needing a GO/NOGO decision, in an RfC. I think there are four reasons to make a decision. Keep in mind that a properly formed RfC for a binary decision is usually presented as a proposition (e.g., "Shall we X? Yes or no.") 1) There is a legal angle, or WP:OFFICE requirements, or something of that nature, of such that only one of the two choices is possible (for instance, we can't suborn felonies and so on, even if there was a consensus to do so). 2) Absent #1, everyone or practically everyone (after, perhaps, some compromised material such as contributions from single-purpose-accounts and trolls and so on are discounted) agrees on a course of action, or any objection are desultory. 3) Absent #1 or #2, there's a clear preponderance of merit to the arguments of one side, such that practically any honest, informed, and disinterested reasonable man would avow that the arguments for that action were markedly superior. 4) Absent #1 or #2 or #3, there's possibly a supermajority in play. This gets a little into sketchy territory, since headcounts are generally deprecated (at least in theory), and many comments are nuanced or bound with conditions, and so hard to categorize. However, as a practical matter, people deciding XfD and RfC and so on do take headcount into consideration, and probably rightly so, provided common sense controls are used. "Supermajority" itself is not clearly defined, but as a practical matter, I think that most folks would agree anything over 75% fits the definition, and anything below 60% (and probably even a bit above) definitely doesn't, with the territory between being debatable. (Also, there's a great deal more to headcounting than a simple mechanical tally, but we won't get into that here.) I left out WP:IAR from the four possible decision drivers, since IAR (which I support generally) should never ever be invoked to make a decision out of a contentious discussion where none of the above four conditions are met. If none of the four decision drivers described above apply, then the proposition fails (the discussion is closed as "No consensus") and the status quo obtains. OK? Does this seem right? Is this a fundamentally correct understanding of how consensus or its functional equivalent is achieved so as to decide a contended binary proposition? I want us to be more or less on the same page, so if there's something basically wrong in my understand, I'm willing to be instructed. If not, we're moving together, and we'll move on. OK, taking User:Rjanag first, you said "[B]ecause of the nature of the DYK process, it takes multiple editors to promote an article... Well, this is good to know, as the process is a bit opaque to me (which is fine and I'm not necessarily complaining; it's a well-oiled machine I'm sure and needn't be transparent). My understanding that the various milestones were being checked off to ensure smooth sailing if and when the community decided to publish the item. I got a little bit nervous about this as I wasn't able to get a clear answer about that, which is understandable because there's no one "boss" to go to, but I calmed myself with the thought that of course the item wouldn't be published unless the community wanted it to be. But I was wrong. I learned a useful lesson, and now the task is for us to work together to see that this never happens again. Be that as it may, surely there must have been one person who made the final action causing the item to be published on the main page. I realize that one doesn't physically open the main page in an editor to manually type or copy in each DYK. But there must be some place, some page, where the item is placed such that, through the routine operation of some program or script, the DYK will automatically appear on the main page at some specified time. Yes? Then some person must have made that final action. My question is: who? This is the editor whom I wish to address. (I thought it was Allen3, based on this edit, but perhaps not?) Also you wrote "I took this RfC into account, weighed both sides' arguments, and explained the rationale behind my decision at length." Well, first of all, where? I only see one contribution by you at Template:Did you know nominations/Wikipediocracy (diff) and none at the RfC, so ??? Second of all, no, that is not how RfC works, at all! Active RfC are not a mere data point, they're a controlling authority! It's really important to understand this, so I've included an extended demonstration using an example, collapsed below. How open RfC are handled Let's suppose there's an article Perpignan, and an editor changes all instance of (the French) "Perpignan" to (the Catalan) "Perpinyà", and an editor reverts this per WP:BRD, and this goes to the talk page, and ultimately devolves to an RfC on the proposition "Shall we change all instances of 'Perpignan' to 'Perpinyà'?". Suppose the RfC remains open. Well, there are several ways for editors to deal with that. One way would be to go like "I took the RfC into account, weighed both sides' arguments, and explained the rationale behind my decision (which is that the city is historically Catalan, or that Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalonia prefers this usage, or whatever) at length. so I've nonetheless changed all instances of 'Perpignan' to 'Perpinyà' But that's not how it works! The RfC has to be ended (closed) first! Otherwise there would be chaos. You should read Wikipedia:Requests for comment and particularly Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. There is a place (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for requesting closing of RfC that have reached the end of their useful life (defaults to one month, but in this case there were several comments on June 21, so an extension'd probably be in order). Individual editors, or even a group of editors in a project, don't decide to make actions in the face of an open RfC. An RfC is designed to (among other things) calm the waters while the matter is discussed. Until then the status quo is in effect. But getting back to our Cataloniaphile editor, if this happens, it's no big deal. The edits can be reverted and the editor gently reminded to await until and if the RfC is closed in favor of that, and of course if the editor remains obstreperous we move through the various processes for dealing with those kind of situations. But, you know, for items that are published on the main page, it is a big deal, because the edits can't be reverted -- not unless one has a time machine. So it's really really important to get this right! Do you understand this now, about Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? OK? It's alright of you weren't aware of these -- there's a lot of stuff on the Wikipedia, it's not possible to know it all. But... this is really important, and it's important to get this right, and this is fairly basic stuff, so I'm not entirely pleased. But nevermind, if we're on board together on this, we can move on to making whatever technical or information-dissemination changes to ensure that this mistake never happens again. Or on the other hand if you have some disagreement with Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs such that you're not able to feel constrained by it, then we can talk about that instead. OK, now User:Allen3, we have some real work to do here, because we don't seem to even be on the same wavelength, at all. "[T]his RFC had been open for four weeks and was well below the level of support needed to prevent the article from receiving normal treatment" Well, if it by "four weeks" you mean "reached the end of its useful life", that's dubious (there were several posts only a few days old), and anyway, that doesn't mean anything if it's still open. You also would benefit from being aware Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure The proposition was "Should we publish this DYK?" and FWIW the headcount was 6-6, or possibly 6-5 in favor if you discount the first "vote". The proposition was not "Should we not publish this DYK?" You see the difference? It's a big difference! And "normal treatment" for an article is not to appear on the main page. Most articles never appear on the main page. It's a special honor. "Furthermore, the strongest argument to block the article from appearing is that it fails WP:GNG" This is where we really don't seem to be talking about the same things. Well of course it meets the GNG, otherwise the article would probably not even exist. There are plenty of much stronger arguments, such as: it promotes an entity and is so intended, and that's very contentious; it's insulting to many Wikipedia editors; it's arguably objectively harmful to the Wikipedia; and others. All those are lots stronger than whether if meets the GNG. Some commentors agreed with these points, some didn't. It seems as if you don't disagree with these points but simply can't process them because they aren't part of the set, rigid DYK criteria. Well fine, I understand that -- you're busy, and you're a specialist. that is why I asked the larger community to weigh in. "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" We agree! But it is DYK that is run like a bureaucracy -- which is fine and good (as far as it goes) because it is a bureau of the Wikipedia so to speak. It is DYK which has a specific process which must strictly followed for the system to work, a rigid set of of rules and criteria, a set of various queues, and so on -- everything except forms in triplicate! This is fine! DYK has to work like a bureau and can't be like "Eh, the hook is three times the normal length long but it's really interesting, I'll pass it". That would break the main page. So fine. I understand that you're busy. It's hard work. You do fine. But it's only human to get too close to the machine, and I am -- rather, was -- trying to bring a breath of fresh air and reality and community discussion into this. For my part, I'm willing to be instructed also. To a certain extent, limited by the reality of the stunt you guys just pulled, which puts us in a unequal power relationship. That makes hearing hard. But I'll try. Maybe you can fill in these blanks for me, or if the statements themselves are malformed then explain in some other way: DYK should ignore issues beyond the requirements of the technical criteria it has developed because _____. DYK should ignore open RfC and the needs and desires of the Wikipedia and the Wikipedia editor community in general because _____. DYK should not care if an article's appearance is intended to promote a product, because ________. DYK should not care if an article's appearance is contentious and would (or might) make many Wikipedia editors sad or angry because ______. DYK should not care if an article's appearance might lead to an unfriendly expose in the LA Times or wherever because ______. (Keeping in mind that, except in a nebulous general sense, Wikipedia rules such as NPOV and Not Censored etc apply to articles but not to the main page.) There may be good things to put in those blanks! "We're frankly too busy and overstretched to do anything differently." "We want to keep politics strictly out of it". "We've always done it this way and it works pretty well overall." Those are all reasonable things to say (not that I would accept or agree with them, but they're reasonable). (There are unreasonable things to say also, such as "I enjoy it better when I don't have to deal with these other issues which are complicated and nebulous" or "I don't like anyone restricting my freedom of action" or whatever; I know you wouldn't say these out loud, but you might want to listen to your internal voices, and if you hear these things, cogitate on whether you want to be mediocre or excellent.) You know, Prioryman said "In all honesty, as a DYK regular myself I have to say you have a point. It's self-evident that this particular DYK nomination is hugely controversial (which in itself may be a good reason not to run it). In the ordinary scheme of things, it only requires one person to review a DYK for it to be accepted. In the case of an exceptionally controversial DYK it could be a good thing to have a wider perspective from the community." (diff) which was big of him I think, and if he's like me he was excited and happy to grow like that. If y'all could come around to to that point of view, it'd be big of you too. However, and as long I'm confident that this will never happen again, for my part I'll be satisfied. Herostratus (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Trouts all around

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

• See User talk:Gatoclass#I_think_we_both_need_this — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Allen3

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)