User talk:Gatoclass/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive for October to December 2010

Neuilly sa mère ! DYK

Hey Gato, I found a new source so I think I've addressed your request at the DYK nom. Thanks, by the way, for the push! Otherwise I probably would not have done any extra work on the lede. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Teacher's Bookshop

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gaza Baptist Church

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK

I'm troubled by your statement here. Not the comment about the interpretation of Bowman's episcopal career -- I feel it's still somewhat ambiguous, and I've asked for a comment from the user who created the article -- but with your comment about my behavior.

Typically, when I've removed hooks, it is because of questions of appropriateness -- largely because of the question of fiction, which is a point that I've already conceded. This, however, was a question of factual accuracy. I do not think you mean to imply that factual errors (or potential factual errors; the phrasing has been addressed and you have stated that you don't feel it's misleading or inaccurate, so okay) should be left on display for procedural reasons or because they were not addressed soon enough. DS (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I might have initially supported less restrictive measures in regards to your hook removals, but your repeated failure to address concerns raised by multiple users about those removals has changed my mind. Until you clearly indicate that you understand what is being asked of you, I will support my colleagues in their call for a full ban for you from DYK queues and the current DYK update. But even if you were to indicate fully that you get it now, I think a temporary ban at least would still be desirable at this point in order to let the dust settle. Gatoclass (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's see. As I've already stated, there's the issue of "appropriate", which is a point I've already conceded multiple times. There's the issue of my sidestepping procedure, which is inherently linked to the issue of "appropriate"; however, given that I've already conceded that point, this issue would only come up in instances where there's a serious problem in another aspect such as factual accuracy (about which I had a genuine concern, which has since been assuaged) or BLP violations. Plus there's tweaks to sentence structure, punctuation, wording, etc. Aside from this, there's the issue of people who become upset when articles which they had hoped to list on DYK do not in fact appear there. And there's the issue of the extent that I'm arguing about this, when it would be so much simpler if I just admitted error (which I've already done, repeatedly) and took my punishment (which I strongly reject). Is there anything else? DS (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Look, I haven't done an in-depth analysis of your edits at T:DYK or T:DYK/Q. My impression is that you've made some worthwhile contributions in those areas, in regards to say, grammar, syntax, rephrasing and so on. The issue is your unilateral pulling of hooks from those pages without prior discussion. If you look through WT:DYK, you will see numerous concerns such as those you have raised about various hooks discussed there. You are simply being asked to follow the same procedure, rather than just pull the hooks, because there is a questionmark over your judgement in that regard. Unnecessary hook pulling just pisses people off because it makes for more work.
So the first thing you would need to do is demonstrate that you actually fully understand what is being asked of you. Until you've done that, obviously no-one is going to trust that you will do the right thing. But even if you do that now, people are still going to be disinclined to trust you because of the difficulty in communicating the problem to you in the first place. So I have my doubts the ban could be prevented at this point. Perhaps in a week or two, when feelings have settled down, you might successfully apply for a review, but I would doubt your chances at this point. Gatoclass (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Given that you haven't actually done an "in-depth analysis", could I politely ask on what grounds you feel qualified to voice an opinion (especially given that I've already conceded the point)? DS (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I have voiced an opinion in regards to your hook removals, which are transparently problematic, not your copyediting, which as far as I can tell has been sound. Gatoclass (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification; aside from the issues of fiction (which is a point I have already conceded), and aside from the fact that I should have restored any such items to T:TDYK (oops), are there any incidents of hook removal with which you find fault? If so, which ones? May I explain them? DS (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Gatoclass, sorry about that, totally okay regarding [1], did not realize it was an edit conflict. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem :) Gatoclass (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Healthy DYK hook nom count

Thought you'd be especially interested in Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Healthy_DYK_hook_nom_count — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User page

I've always wondered why you don't have a photo of a Gato-class submarine on your page. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Input

Your thoughts invited here: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Thoughts_on_DYK_noms.2C_including_the_declining_rate. And you still need a photo of a submarine on your user page ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 17:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I know it looks as if my nic refers to the submarine, but that was never my intention and quite honestly I'm a bit embarrassed about it and would probably change it if not for the inconvenience. "Gato" is, I believe, Spanish for "cat", so my nic is really supposed to mean "classy cat", but few people seem to read it that way :/ Gatoclass (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me a good laugh! :) Shubinator (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Having been to sea on three submarines, it's the first thing I think of when I see "gato". The second is a type of fish. Since I don't speak Spanish, I'd never think of "classy cat". — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record: USS Gato (SS-212) was the namesake of the Gato-class of WWII subs. There was an Thresher-class sub named Gato too, see USS Gato. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

PS Chauncey Vibbard

Hi Gatoclass. You are off to such a great start on the article PS Chauncey Vibbard that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Ms. Citizen (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Submarine working group

Dear editor:
Would you like a chance to collaborate with other editors on a working group dedicated to submarines? Based on your contributions to submarine-related articles, we have determined that you probably have a interest in submarines. If you would like to join our working group, visit WP:ONAU. MessageDeliveryBot (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of ONAU at 07:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Good work

This diff is a splendid extension of the policy that I had proposed re: hooks on active political candidates. Wikipedia is based on the concept of building on each other's work, after all.

In all honesty, I rather doubt that any such all-candidates hook would also satisfy all the other criteria for hooks, but I'm willing to be surprised. DS (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for your matter-of-fact tone and logical and rational approach at WT:DYK. Your admirable demeanor there has helped to focus dialog in a constructive and productive manner. Most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, thankyou, but I wouldn't be too hasty in your congratulations. This debate is obviously still at a very early stage and I really have no idea where it's going to end up at this point :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, what a mess. It hurts to read the comments. There's more drama than a soap opera and you know that I like to avoid drama. Some people sure are hell bent to get rid of the whole process by making broad statements about everyone at DYK. I'm somewhat glad that I don't have as much discretionary time for Wikipedia. Royalbroil 05:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see it that way. I think it's healthy to have a philosophical discussion about broad directions from time to time. This one has been brewing for a long time and I think it had to happen sooner or later. There may be no immediate results from this, but down the track there may be some worthwhile ideas we can revisit when the time is right. Gatoclass (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you sure are level-headed and calm in the midst of a huge storm! I object to some of those broad statements which sure are condescending at the entire group of DYK people, calling everyone a bunch of plagiarists or at least close paraphrasers. I have a FAC almost ready, was just about ready to list it, but I'm nervous about what objects will be thrown at me. I wish I was oblivious and naive. Royalbroil 02:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your DYK suggestion

I don't think we promote enough articles to GA to fill an entire queue. However, if we threw B-class articles into that category I would strongly support your proposal. Marcus Qwertyus 21:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for USS General Taylor (153/3 DYKs)

The DYK project (nominate) 06:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

DKY talk: collapsed box adds everything new within it

Can you fix, please? Tony (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Fixed. Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: DYK nom for James C. Kent

I don't think so, but since he ruled on an important case he is of some notability. Regards, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:15am • 23:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem with subst:NewDYKnomination

Hi I have always used subst:NewDYKnomination but can't work out why the image on my nomination of Outline of canoeing and kayaking on the 13th hasn't worked properly. Please will you have a look when you have a moment and let me know what's wromg? Thank you Thruxton (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why it didn't work either but I've fixed it now. Basically, the filename itself was missing. Gatoclass (talk) 06:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Thruxton (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Information

I permit myself to bring your attention about the edits of user:Marokwitz (16 november) who is removing the name 1948 Palestine war from all the articles of wikipedia. What can be done ? Noisetier (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

At some time there are up to 6 modifications per minute. He used a bot to perform this. Is this permitted on wikipedia ? Noisetier (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder why you are slandering me across many user pages without contacting me first. I am not removing the name. This war consisted of two stages, the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine which lasted until May 14 1948, and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War after May 15, 1948. I'm just using the name of more specific campaign where applicable, instead of the broader name, in accordance to the sources. This is a simple matter of providing specific and accurate information. And if you have any problems with my edits, why not contact me? Marokwitz (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The revert of 500 internal links to the article 1948 Palestine war that you made last night is a pov-pushing. The way you justify you and the way you proceeded are not appropriate. I would add that in Hamas and the Taliban analogy, you collaborated a lot to the development of an Orignal Research. By essence, this is an exemple of pov-pushing.
You focus too much on the "letter of the right" to cover you. Wikipedia is also based on the 4th pillar (be civil) and such rules as WP:AGF that you just referred to. The is the "letter of the rule" and the "spirit of the rule".
In importing on wikipedia the israeli-palestinian conflict, you harm the image of Israel and the one of your community. I would advice you to read and think about Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. That would help you to improve the quality of your collaboration at the project in using simultaneously all our 5 pillars but more above all, that would increase your empathy for all sides of the I-P conflict.
Is there no article that you could *study* and *develop* on focusing both on reliable sources the content of which you don't like and on reliable sources you have sympathy for ?
Think about this. Noisetier (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
(see Marokwitz talk page for the follow up)
Hello, Gatoclass. You have new messages at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Culver_Aircraft_Company.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK reviewing guide

I know you're taking a bit of a break; have you started on this? If so, where is it, as I'd like to help, and if not, I'm going to start on it. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't started it yet, I don't seem to have the energy to do much writing at the moment. I do have some ideas about the general shape of the guide though. If you want to make a start, by all means go ahead - just post me a link if you wouldn't mind as I will probably want to have some input into the shape of it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting it in my sandbox at User:Cmadler/sandbox/DYKreviewguide. Feel free to jump in. cmadler (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Finally dawned on me

Hey. I read through this reply a few times with the feeling that something wasn't clicking and what it was finally dawned on me. I think everybody agrees that if editorA submits a 2-article hook, he can then review 2 one-article hooks or 1 two-article hook. But say there's a 15-article hook sitting there. Can editorA review 2 of the 15 articles? I'm sure there are a million arguments to be made on both sides, but it might be a point worth clearing up. I'm hesitant to stir things there up any more than they are — a !vote on whether the sun rises in the morning would surely turn into a 50%-50% screamathon morass. Cheers. HausTalk 07:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, as I said you can't just review some articles in a multi. I think most people will tacitly understand this without being told, so I don't see it as a problem. But in the unlikely event that someone actually tries that, it will probably be better dealt with at the time rather than spelled out in the rules. Gatoclass (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please remove outing

[2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Posts revealing my location, nationality, ethnicity at shukis talkpage and SPI. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Gatoclass, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Gatoclass/SB/Mao's Great Famine. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback's comment in Little Olive AE case

May I respectfully request, if you are allowed to do that, that you move Will Beback's comment out of the non involved admin section of Olive AE case. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, just noticed that you are taking a Wiki break. Since Will's comment was just after one of your comment, I thought it was natural to ask you. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm well aware that Will Beback is an involved user. I don't think his comment is doing any harm there right now - he's just asking for a little time to prepare his case. We can move it when he's done that. Gatoclass (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Saying that he can make a case is saying a lot. I thought it was exactly what the guideline says that he should not do. I must be missing something. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're referring to. When you open a thread at AE you are starting a case. Will has simply stated that he would like some more time to prepare his case. It's not unusual for users to ask for a little time to do so, and no reason why it shouldn't be granted. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
In any case, I have now moved his comment as you requested. Gatoclass (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I saw nothing wrong in Will's comment. On the contrary, I was saying that it was an important comment "saying a lot" and, therefore, the guideline must apply even more. Upsetting you is the last thing I wanted to do. When I wrote "I must be missing something", I absolutely meant it literally - it was not a way to argue - only a way to say that I am not insisting. I had given up on this request. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification please

Of all the comments posted on the recent AE, I found yours to be the most bewildering. I was expecting vitriol from others but not from you. We’ve crossed paths in the past and though our disagreements were sharp, we were always courteous and always managed to resolve our differences amicably, generally incorporating a fusion of both viewpoints. I therefore found your comments puzzling. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you have misread my comments. I wasn't trying to get you more harshly sanctioned, I was simply trying to prevent Nableezy from being more harshly sanctioned than I thought he deserved. In doing so, I did point out that some of your edits ought to be considered more objectionable than the ones that got N. into trouble, but I only did so as a means of trying to persuade the uninvolved admins that N. deserved no worse a ban than yourself.
In fact, I thought both of you got much worse sanctions than you warranted - indeed, I endorsed the views of the admin who said the offenses should be overlooked entirely, and said I thought a one month ban for either would be more than enough. Unfortunately, AE is currently in one of its sterner phases. That is the problem with AE - the sanctions that get handed out from one month to the next can vary greatly, depending entirely on the personal dynamics of those involved. I have tried to argue for a graded system of sanctions, but it's never had much support. I guess it wouldn't be that easy to achieve in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay thanks for the clarification. I was considering editing other articles that were not within the topic area such as the Vietnam War, Korean War and more obscure conflicts like the war in Biafra and the Chad/Lybian conflict but I think I'm going to step back for the three or (possibly) two months of my ban. I'm overdue for a break. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My new article

Hi Gatoclass, I am glad you liked my new article. ☺Don't understand how could I have forgotten to ask you to copy edit it ☺? Glad you found it anyway ☺. I'd like to ask you a question please. If after your copy-editing something will be left out of the article ☺, would you mind, if I am to promote you as a creator in the DYK nomination for the article? Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer Mbz, but I really don't think I've done enough on that article to merit a DYK credit. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. You know I have problems with English, and I really appreciate any copy edits performed on the articles I write. I would have gladly added you as a creator, but this is of course up to you, if you'd like to be added as a creator or you would not. If you would not, then of course nothing will prevent you from promoting it on DYK yourself ASAP (like today) I guess. ☺Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
If you done with your copy-edit could you please remove your opposition from DYK? There's no valid reason to oppose the article's promotion anymore.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Civilian casualty ratio

I have no objections to the article in its current form that exceed the usual disagreements between editors. I think it should go to DYK. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I have added a DYKmake for you for this article, as I think the work you have done has more than earned it. I have also given a DYKtick for the article. Well done on all your work. EdChem (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please remove your opposition

Gatoclass, may I please ask you to review criteria described in how to review the nomination. It states: "the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. " (highlighted by me). According to those criteria your opposition is illegitimate. May I please ask you yet another time to remove it?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Will you please stop hassling me about this? I said I still have some concerns about the article. I said I'm going to fix them. I have spent the last week fixing submissions to DYK relating to the I-P conflict. Right now, I'm sick of working on other people's articles, and am going to spend a day or two doing something I want to do before getting back to it. There are lots of people who are ahead of you in the queue who also want their articles promoted. Please exercise a little patience. Gatoclass (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The article was created on December 9. Today is December 15. It is already listed in the older nominations. Please remove your opposition. Is has no merits. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, the article seems to be stable now, so I gave it the go-ahead. Gatoclass (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding, right? Ready for review? Why in the world you did not promote it? And BTW it always was stable!--Mbz1 (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't promote it myself because I've worked on it. Somebody else will have to do it now. Gatoclass (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your opposition (2)

I am also not completely happy about your involvement in my nomination at DYK of Giovanni Gaetano Orsini (cardinal). Please let me put it this way, a bit more of a positive and helpful attitude would be appreciated. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in getting back to that one. I seem to have been distracted by one thing after another over the last couple of weeks. The hook is now verified. Gatoclass (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Civilian casualty ratio

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning you

A courtesy notification: you were discussed here.     ←   ZScarpia   03:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks for that :) Gatoclass (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
How would you feel about a discussion regarding limitations on you acting as an uninvolved admin in the topic area? To be completely on the level, I have heard misgivings off of Wikipedia and I have seen hints of political leanings in your discussions at AE. I assume this business at DYK could also come into play. I'm not saying I want to go collect a bunch of diffs and try to formulate some case at this time, I just want to know if you think it would have any merit.Cptnono (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Political leanings? Is that supposed to be some sort of charge? :)
Of course I have political leanings, who doesn't? And I've never pretended to be uninvolved in the I-P topic area, as a consequence of which I am already prohibited from exercising my admin powers there, so I can't imagine what "limitations" you have in mind. If you are referring to my activity at DYK, I have no special function or powers there at all. I'm just a joe who likes to contribute in that area.
As for whether such a "case" would have any merit - you can hardly expect me to answer in the affirmative to a question like that. Gatoclass (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes you can affirm that if you feel in any way that your personal beliefs are negatively impacting your impartiality. I am only seeing if you have any thoughts on it since I am considering bringing it up but it seemed like good form to bring it to you first.Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Follow-up: I did not realize the actual wording: "...an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict."[3] So I believe your two content disputes with Mbz1 in the content area would prevent you from commenting in th uninvolved admins section. I could be reading it wrong and that might only apply to the admin's pulling the trigger on the sanction. I doubt that is the intent though. "Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions." so that might be the next step. If you would refrain from adding comments to the uninvolved admin section in the future it won't be necessary to deal with any stuff like that.Cptnono (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You have no special power? So anybody could remove a promoted hook from a Queue, and got away with it? Really?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Really really. I once pulled 3 hooks in less than an hour. (And yes, we totally "get away" with "irreversibly maiming" the encyclopedia.) Shubinator (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid you have no idea what all this is regarding. I cannot comment on the hooks you pulled out because I have no knowledge of the situation, but IMO you should not have come here like you did because you have no knowledge of the situation in question either. Your comment was unhelpful. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid you have no idea how much time I do or don't spend each day following DYK-related activities (and this incident definitely falls under that umbrella). Don't ask a question ("So anybody could remove a promoted hook from a Queue...?") if you don't like the answer ("yes"). Shubinator (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
No, it is wrong. Not "anybody could remove a promoted hook from a Queue". I, for example, cannot even edit that page, a Queue that is. So I guess yours "anybody" means anybody, but me. lol. And what I was trying to say is that an administrator, who is in content dispute with an editor, should never use his administrative tools to remove promoted hook (BTW promoted by another administrator, who is truly uninvolved in the topic) from a Queue. Once again your comment was unhelpful. Please review who is allowed and who is not allowed to edit a Queue before claiming that "anybody" could.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I had assumed that "anybody" in this context was "any administrator". It would be unwise to leave the queues unprotected since they are in essence an extension of the Main Page. Your hint of wheel-warring doesn't follow; many administrators take a casual glance at a set before promoting it. Just about all administrators would be happy to have other admins improve the DYK set after promotion to the queue. And FYI, you might want to take a look at WT:DYK; your opinion is in the minority. Shubinator (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I have never said an extension of the Main page should go unprotected. Of course it should be protected with only sysops allowing to change it. What I said that Gatoclass should not have removed the hook from a Queue in one particular situation because he was in content dispute with me about this very article. By removing the hook he misused his administrative tools, and with this I believe we both should leave this talk page alone. If you have something else to add to the subject, please come to my own talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

James Blyth at DYK

If you're around could you have another look at the nomination for the James Blyth article? I've changed the hook but as you made the first comment I don't think anyone else wants to look at it. Richerman (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Richerman (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gatoclass/Archive_14&oldid=1139990658"