Wikipedia talk:Did you know.html
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 


Error reports
Please do not post error reports for specific template versions here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.


This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

Main
(T:DYK)
Rules (WP:DYK)
Suggestions (T:TDYK)
Next update (T:DYK/N)
Archive (WP:DYKA)
Discussion (WT:DYK)
List (WP:DYKLIST)
Best (WP:DYKBEST)

Contents


Template:Did you know/Next update updating etiquette

If a third-party independent editor has already reviewed someone's hook and marked it with verify with the tickmark as appropriate, is it okay for the hook-nominator to themselves then add their verified hook to Template:Did you know/Next update? Cirt (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not okay. Someone else needs to do it. Hooks from DYK regular admins/loaders sometimes wait a while. Other admins/loaders should be taking this into consideration when they load. Royalbroil 13:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I would think that if something has already been verified with {{DYKtick}}, by an independent reviewer, that means that an editor other than the nominator has reviewed that hook and signaled that it is ready to be moved to Template:Did you know/Next update. Cirt (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Cirt. Can you give us a good reason why it is not okay, Royalbroil? --BorgQueen (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If it is reasonable that a hook would have been added then anyway (ie. hooks above it have to be used instead) then I can't see why not; WP:BURO applies. I wouldn't advocate selecting it for the top pictured spot, but as an ordinary hook it shouldn't be a problem. Especially if a single editor is filling multiple queues, where articles created substantial periods of time after it would end up being used, and we hardly want to deter Cirt from keeping the bot happy. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Ameliorate! (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Cirt: That's technically true but we still in the past tended not to move our own hooks... it has in the past caused incidents where other folk thought it was bad form. Personally, I've recently been trying to pass/downcheck at least 5 hooks (usually quite a few more, actually) for every hook I myself nominate, but have stopped moving hooks. ++Lar: t/c 13:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Lar: I think the "in the past" you refer to was probably before we did reviews using {{DYKtick}} on the T:TDYK page with the current process we have now. Cirt (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes and no. However, in any case I still think there are those (including myself) who would just view it as not really good form unless there was a pressing reason. With the new system, time pressure is lessened, yes? ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Should we do away with the {{DYKtick}} system? Cirt (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Do away with the {{DYKtick}} system? !!! ??? !!! Absolutely not. It's highly useful, very efficient, fairly easy to use (I just can't remember the names of the things without a cheat sheet :) ) and adds a great deal of clarity compared with just using words to give readiness assessments... X means no ? means something to fix and V(check) means good to go. Whoever helped bring it about deserves shedfuls of thanks. Not moving your own hooks (or in other words, avoiding the appearance of impropriety) and not using DKYTick (or in other words, avoiding the use of a great system that reduces error and speeds things up) are two completely different topics, and should not be conflated. I'm confused as to why you think we should. Or why you think I think we should. We shouldn't. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not think we should. Under the old system before {{DYKtick}}, suggested hooks would simply remain on the T:TDYK page for five days, and if no one objected or commented on them, someone would look them over, check the hooks against the criteria, and move them one by one to the Next Update page. Now that we have the {{DYKtick}} process, the review process and discussion takes place on the T:TDYK page itself, and is not instead an independent evaluation by the person moving the hooks to the Next Update page. That is my thought process, that is what occurs, and that is why, once an independent reviewer has marked something as okay and confirmed using the {{DYKtick}} process, anyone should feel free to move that hook to the Next Update page, because that symbolizes it has been independently reviewed. The next step, moving hooks to the Next Update page, no longer itself constitutes a review (that is the {{DYKtick}} process) - it merely is stylistic and a way to populate the Next Update template with a variety of hooks, but it itself is not the review process - the {{DYKtick}} process is now. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
While not disagreeing with ANYTHING you say about the virtues of the tick system (is that at all unclear???) I disagree that we should pick our own noms.. There is still an element of "choice" in picking hooks, it's an art to pick several that go together well. Therefore I still think unless there is a dire emergency, we should avoid picking our own articles/noms. Avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. Sorry to belabor this point but I don't think you've yet gotten what I'm driving at. It's not at all about the tick system (except to praise it) ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought that we (consensus} had decided against it. I've passed over my hooks which had already been approved. I don't really care either way as long as others don't think that it is gaming the system. What about image selection - some might question if a person adds their own hook to the top spot with the picture. For instance, two weeks ago was the first time that I took a picture that appeared on the main page (FINALLY!) after many image noms. Had that option been available and within my discretion, it would have been tempting to add my own hook along with the image. Royalbroil 20:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the 'not even an appearance of a conflict of interest' school of thought. Also as Royalbroil points out, since many pictures end up getting dropped for lack of space moving hooks with images does actually constitute a choice and so could lead to contention. Anyway, do we lose much by avoiding it? Since there's a largish group of people involved in constructing updates, the worst that's likely to happen is that the hooks sits waiting for a few more hours than the week or so it's already been waiting. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
When Cirt is loading the entire queue, as she has done on two occasions now, I think it would be unreasonable to expect her to bypass her own hooks. I think the system we have now works fine - promotion of one's own hooks is discouraged, but not absolutely prohibited. If a problem arose whereby someone was continually promoting their own hooks in a questionable manner, we might have to review the rules, but that has never been the case. Possibly we could make a rule that promotion of one's own hook is not prohibited, but if you do it you are obliged to prepare the entire update. That would discourage drive-by promotion, and ensure that people promoting their own hooks were also making a larger contribution to the project. Gatoclass (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read these latest points by Lar (talk · contribs), Royalbroil (talk · contribs), Olaf Davis (talk · contribs), and Gatoclass (talk · contribs), and I have to say I agree with everything you have all said. But Gatoclass brings up a good point. Sometimes there is no one else around, or no one else actively preparing the next update, and there will be times where I have self-nom (and verified) hooks of my own sitting at T:TDYK, and I will, under this notion expressed above by Lar, have to pass over my self-nom hook(s), perhaps even looking ahead a few days, whilst in the process of filling the 5 Queues (because it is neat to see these all active and working quite well with this process established by Ameliorate! (talk · contribs)). If consensus is determined to oppose this, given this rationale as pointed out by Gatoclass, I will respect that and not object. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Ideally, each DYK step should be made by a different person to keep troubled article content from being linked from Main Page. Pressing need exception - However, if the hook-nominator has not made any edits to the article (has no vested interest in the article content), then it doesn't seem to be a conflict of interest if the hook-nominator adds the verified hook to Template:Did you know/Next update if the hooks is in expired noms, no one has picked it up, and Next update is in need of hooks. As for picking up the image as well, probably not. -- Suntag ☼ 20:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, sounds good. In the end, the more independent editors involved, the better. Thank you all for the comments. Cirt (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I haven't been paying attention lately and I missed this whole discussion, but I just wanted to add that, in addition to other reasons that have been given in favor of having separate people do the uploading, there is also the issue that the person verifying the hook maybe shouldn't have verified it, and having a third person do the uploading is a good way to guard against that. I'm not meaning to imply that reviewers suck...rather, for me at least, I often get involved in a situation where I'm negotiating a hook with the nominator for some time, exchanging messages and discussing things, and by the time that is over I still verify or reject it but I might be a little too much involved then for my verification to be as trustworthy as usual; in cases like that, it really benefits to have an outside person do the uploading, rather than letting the nominator do it, since the nom wasn't really verified by a "third-party independent editor" but by an editor who is only human and tries real hard but sometimes does stupid stuff anyway. —Politizer talk/contribs 04:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I really think we need to continue allowing self-promotion. Putting together updates can be hard work and when you're short of time it can be very convenient to use your own hook, saving you who knows how much time trying to find a suitable alternative. Also, sometimes your own hook just happens to be the one which contributes best to the update's overall balance. The last thing we want to do is discourage participation in DYK, and if Cirt or someone else is discouraged from preparing updates - or in Cirt's case, uploading the entire queue - because they can't promote their own hooks, then DYK as a whole will be the loser, and it just means more work for the rest of us. Gatoclass (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to put it to a vote

Let's just vote and move on with respect to the Mizuasa hook. Nrswanson suggests a vote. Accordingly, I propose that Wizardman's promotion of the following hook be reinstated, and that in so doing that it sets no precedent, and does not limit DYK discretion to reject future hooks if they are deemed to be crude or inappropriate. I deleted the word "pre-operative" in case anyone considers that objectionable.

  • ... that transsexual Miki Mizuasa was nominated for the Best Actress award at the 2007 Adult Broadcasting Awards even though she was born a male? Cbl62 (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Cbl62 (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Gen. Bedford his Forest 07:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose this vote. This conversation really should be postponed until a broader and organized discussion regarding adult content on the main page is discussed at either the village pump or centralized discussions. Going ahead without such a decision in place is only likely to cause further conflict in this area here at DYK and elsewhere. Let's do this the right way and get a difinitive policy set in place so we don't have to talk about this anymore. I don't think that DYK can reasonably make policy in this area since the main page involves the whole community. Until then, discretion is the better part of valor. My suggestion would be to hold this hook (and any similar ones), disreguard the time limmit, and wait for the outcome of a broader discussion.Nrswanson (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Less than two hours ago, you wrote, "I think we need an organized vote/poll to make a decision." See this diff. And four days ago, you wrote: "If we are talking about an internal 'DYK policy', I see no reason to take this to the village pump." See this diff Cbl62 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I know it. But as we have gotten further into this I've got a better picture of the scope of what we're doing here. We're basically making a decision for the whole encyclopedia without involving them. The main page is everyone's page. It's not DYK's page. I wasn't thinking about it that way four days ago. I've been pondering similar comments about the need for a broader discussion by others, and I didn't get it at first. I get it now. I know I personally would feel better about putting up controvercial material if I knew that the community was behind it. Also when I said an "organized poll" two hours ago look at the sentence before that which advocated a broader discussion. I meant a poll at the village pump or some other broader discussion. This is what I wrote: "I don't think DYK can reasonably place an article like this on the main page without getting a broader consensus at the village pump or centralized discussions because I think this issue is bigger than DYK. I think we need an organized vote/poll to make a decision." Seems I meant a poll in a bigger discussion than at DYK.Nrswanson (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support immediate restoration of the hook. WP is not censored, and the hook should not have been removed. If there were issues, they should have been discussed pre-promotion. GlassCobra 10:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - There is no reason for a policy or guideline about this to be implemented, as currently nothing prohibits it other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Each project that is given main page coverage creates its own policies and guidelines as to what to include, Raul who co-ordinates FA has decided not to include one particular article and it just happens that the subject of that article is an actress in the adult film industry. As he explained in the other section related to this, that was a personal decision by him to prevent "headaches" that he sees will arise from it, I agree to a point that having an article about a porn actress displayed prominently on the main page would cause issues, however a simple hook in DYK will probably not even garner attention; chances are no one will even notice. If we start rejecting hooks on the basis that they may offend or "common sense says no" then we are going to be rejecting a lot of hooks. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support on this occasion While I generally do agree that we shouldn't be crass on the main page, and I think the "not censored" argument doesn't apply as that relates more to whether we have an article on it or coverage of it on the encyclopaedia more broadly rather than whether we feature on the main page, this hook is not crass and is simply factual. Porn is an industry, people are transsexuals, neither are in and of themselves sexual in character. However we do need to think about how we are seen by the wider community, especially given the growing tendency towards religious or other censorship of the Internet by national authorities around the world (even in developed Western nations). Orderinchaos 11:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Hooks are promoted based on the judgement call of one admin. That's how this process works. I would not myself have picked this hook. But another admin did. I think removing it without first gaining consensus to do so was incorrect, and so, even though I would not have picked it myself (for my own reasons) I support putting it back, thus validating and affirming the decision of the admin who chose it. We're all working for a common goal here, let's not edit war. ++Lar: t/c 11:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Nrswanson makes a persuasive point about involving people at the VP or elsewhere, and in a more obviously controversial case I'd oppose the hook until that had happened. But the hook presented here seems so benign that, in my opinion, it falls within the area that DYK can reasonably make decisions about on its own. Perhaps a general discussion of the issue should be brought up at the VP for future cases, though. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I have to agree with Ameliorate here. Even if we bring up a rule saying that pornography related articles shouldn't be displayed in DYK (which was the problem we had recently, I believe), I don't see how that would apply here (striked out - that was a stupid comment..) I think articles like this are OK, since they're not exactly promoting or encouraging readers to watch porn - it's just about the actress and nothing umm.. bad is included there. If we are going to remove this one, we might just as well remove all sex related articles from DYK. Chamal talk 11:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support restoration to queue. There seems to be a consensus forming here that this hook is not on the wrong side of whatever line there may be in relation to what goes on the Main Page, and that it should be restored to the next update. The dicussion about whether there should be a rule, and if so, where that line should be drawn, can continue here. - Mark 12:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've said why enough times already. I will abide by consensus - I'm not interested in wheel warring. Royalbroil 13:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Your reason was that FA doesn't allow adult articles, however Raul has clarified that this is not the case. Afterall, what is Cannibal Holocaust if not an "adult" article? Or did you have another reason? ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Common sense is required. But, this is factual and not sensational. Victuallers (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support restoration into a non protected DYK page such as Template:Did you know/Next update, but if any admin decides to remove it from a protected DYK page (e.g., the queue), then keep it out. Once an admin removes a DYK hook from a protected page, that raises whether their use of their admin tools to remove a DYK hook from a protected page is justified under Wikipedia:Administrators. And resolution of that should be held at WP:AN or some location other than Wikipedia talk:Did you know. -- Suntag ☼ 20:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Alot more objectionable items have been put into DYK (I can cite the Confederate Monuments DYKs that have popped up in the last few months), so why is this no more different?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's valid to deny coverage of a topic because it is about an organisation that one regards as inappropriate, otherwise, a lot of politicians and world leaders would have to be deleted. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • As perspective, the naked butt in the image to the right is now on the Main Page through the Rokeby Venus FA article. -- Suntag ☼ 06:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


Copyright again

Several chunks of Tata Corus acquisition seem to be copied almost verbatim from here, particularly the second section ("The Tata Corus deal, once through, will bring Tata Steels to fifth position ..." to "... Jindal of Jindal Steel and Power Limited made initial plans to acquire it.") third section ("...beat notorious cyclical nature of steel industry..." through "...by bringing down the cost structure company plans to raise its bottom lines" to "Another crucial aspect of the deal was the product mix" and "thus giving thrust to the bottom line, in a highly competitive industry.") and the first paragraph of the sixth section ("Tata Steel had decided that the acquisition would be financed through "own funds and debt" " to "Tata Steel’s debt-equity ratio is currently 0.3 thus giving enough room for the company to raise debt").

The article itself is pretty poor, with obvious typos in the first sentence, and includes parts that were clearly written before the offer was completed in early 2007 (see above - "once through"). I suspect some other parts may be lifted from press releases and the like.

I found the copyvio by putting a couple of sentences into Google. Shouldn't the DYK approval process include such simple checks? -- Testing times (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it isn't a great article I must say. Whenever I check hooks (which I don't often due to my busyness IRL currently) I always check the validity of the sources, and glance over them to make sure they aren't copy and pasted. A brief Google search is great for spotting copyvios as well. Is this kind of thing written into the instructions? – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the problems with that article, Testing times.
As for including plagiarism checks in the DYK vetting process, this is something which comes up every so often. The answer is usually that, yes, plagiarism is unfortunate, but that a) it affects a small proportion of articles and b) requiring people to check entire articles against every source would take such a huge effort there's really nothing we can do to stamp it out completely. Not without drastically reducing the number of articles we process in a day - currently something in the region of thirty which make it to the main page, plus numerous failures. You can find many arguments on this in the archives of this page - for example, Gato's first comment here sums it up pretty well.
Of course, everyone at DYK remains grateful to any work done in fighting plagiarism, like yours on Tata Corus acquisition. But doing so for every article we process just requires more man-hours than we have. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
agreed Olaf. But just to underline... people who find copyvio problems are heroes. Well done. I personally do check articles that I think are suspicous and I guess others do too. You are a hero, those who present copyvio articles to DYK are ......not Victuallers (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I posted a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 23#DYK Copyvio bot. Perhaps they can come up with something to assist us. -- Suntag ☼ 08:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    It's conceivable, but a bit on the tough side because the DYK suggestion page is not in a format that's very amenable to automated parsing and editing. There is a possible trick that could be used, however: if you add a wikilink to a suggested article to User:CorenSearchBot/manual, CSBot will do a one-off check using the same algorithm it uses to ferret out obvious copies as articles are created. It doesn't tag the article, but it does post a result usually within a minute or two that can give you better confidence about the text or a likely source to look up for direct copies. — Coren (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this would be worthwhile step while putting together the "Next Update". When you move an article over, place a wiki link on CSBot manual page for a check. That would be one extra layer of protection before a possible copy vio hits the mainpage and probably would be that much extra work. AgneCheese/Wine 01:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, all. Suntag asked me to post here regarding CoBo. I do have the code for CoBo lying around somewhere; I never actually implemented the bot as Google changed their API shortly after I wrote it, and the new TOS specifically disallows usage by non-web applications. I did try to contact them regarding this, but they never got back to me, which was a shame. If anyone knows whether or not there is another Google API now (this was a good year and a half ago at least), or they've changed their TOS and removed the requirement for a URL to activate the licence, can you please let me know, as it means I can get CoBo back up and running. --Veratien (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Section 5.3 of their Terms of Service states "... You specifically agree not to access ... any of the Services through any automated means ...". However based on the code for CorenSearchBot, it does search Google for copyvios, that said at its BRFA it appears a member of the Foundation contacted Google about it, so perhaps something came of that contact? ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Nothing did, this is why CSBot is not set to use Yahoo instead. — Coren (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Credit bot is now enabled

DYKBot (talk · contribs) is now in a 7-day trial to do the credits (BRFA #2). I've gone through all the queues and got them ready for the bot and added instructions inside hidden comments on the clear page. I've created more in-depth instructions at User:DYKBot/credits, mostly its not that big of a change just a few things that have to be remembered. The bot is not adding hooks at this stage though as it's too unreliable. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about the bot "not adding hooks" but one thing I have noticed is the bot leaves an automessage which includes the phrase "on behalf of x". I'm thinking that perhaps the "on behalf of x" phrase should go because it only emphasizes that the credit has been done by a bot, thus depersonalizing the contact. Gatoclass (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
At the BRFA it was suggested that it add the hook to the credit which I said I would do but now I don't trust that it will work reliably. The edit summary is to clarify why a bot is posting to the talkage but signing using a different signature, I feel that it personalises the contact more (rather than the reverse), as if someone looks at the history of their talkpage and sees DYKBot posting a nomination credit and spoofing a signature with clarifying what is going on it looks like the bot is trying to deceive the user, while if it states "on behalf of X" then it asserts that yes a bot is doing the credits but it was specifically instructed by another person to do it. Would be interested in other views though, it's no problem to change it. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Congrats on the credit bot. I recently received a DYK credit on my talk page from BorgQueen. I just looked at my talk page history and see that the credit was posted by the bot. Until then, I had no idea that the bot did it, even though I was aware of the DYK changes to take place. The bot has been implemented seamlessly without any noticeable change to the credit posting system. Good job! -- Suntag ☼ 17:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Christmas DYK

User:SandyGeorgia left me a message about whether or not I want to write something about the Christmas DYK for the next Signpost. Is anyone interested in writing a Signpost article to promote it? Does anyone have the list of hook that we promoted last year? Gatoclass, I remember how you and I did almost all of the promoting that day. Royalbroil 04:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC), strike out sentence Royalbroil 03:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(message) Royal, you all mentioned the Christmas mainpage at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-11-08/Dispatches; should we put out a Dispatch to encourage submissions ? Sort of like we did with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-03/Dispatches? If so, we could aim for the December 1 Dispatch. If you're interested, you can sandbox something at WP:FCDW/December. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Do we really want to overwhelm TT:DYK? Advertising on Signpost sounds great at first, but I fear the deluge may be more than we can handle.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 07:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
It's Christmas-related only that we're after though. I doubt the current submissions would change a lot. As always, I'd be happy to work on something again. – How do you turn this on (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Even if we do get a lot articles through this 'advertising', I don't think the amount will be exactly overwhelming. I like the idea. But maybe there's a risk of flooding the page with too many articles failing the criteria :) If there are too many selected hooks to handle, we'll just have to adjust the time that we keep each set on the main page. We are likely to get more hooks than we did for halloween, so probably we will have a bit of a backlog with the normal hooks, which we will have to work on later. Chamal talk 12:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, write something about the Christmas DYK for the next Signpost. We can never have too many new articles. As for the noms, Christmas can be handled like Halloween with a section below "Expiring noms" on Template talk:Did you know]] entitled "Christmas 2008". The project will start December 1st. We can put it either in a DYK subpage or reactivate Wikipedia:WikiProject Christmas. ( A past Christmas effort: Wikipedia:Christmas 2004)-- Suntag ☼
I think your first idea is better, under the expiring noms, like we did for Halloween. We can make a subpage like we did for Halloween, documenting possible articles to use (there will be many, many more for Christmas than Halloween), and discussion of things like when it should run, so this page doesn't become too cluttered. – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I did my part for the April Fools and since I already have a non-qualifying article already (from 2007, so this answers part of your question Royalbroil), think i'll focus on another christmas related project. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I struck out one of my original questions as I found some answers. I also clarified that I meant it should be the Signpost article. Thanks for the tip about the defunct Christmas WikiProject. I never heard of it. It's worth a mention in the Signpost article. Royalbroil 03:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The DYK Halloween 2008 effort was followed by the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Halloween. These seasonal WikiProject may die out off season and pick up diring the season. They probably should be task forces of Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays so that someone is there year round to tend to them. I do like how DYK expands to include topical article creation efforts, so I'm more in favor of DYK Christmas 2008 rather than using WikiProject Christmas. -- Suntag ☼ 08:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
If we get a lot of hooks, we could do Christmas Eve or boxing day too. And we can make a bit of an effort to get a couple days ahead in the week before Christmas, by just adding a couple extra noms to each DYK. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there going to be any discussion about the fact that we are highlighting a Christian holiday? Are we going to do a Ramadan-themed DYK? What about Divali? Are we going to make an effort to include other religions in our "DYK themes"? If not, I suggest we don't pursue such themes. Awadewit (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If people are interested they can. Otherwise, there isn't a problem here. If people think there's bias here, they're wrong. There's bias everywhere. If someone wants a Diwali-themed day, then they can propose it. No need to prevent editors from doing something fun just because some like to spoil it with claims of "bias". It's an encyclopedia, not a game. – How do you turn this on (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
So, because bias exists and some people unthinkingly perpetuate it, it is not wrong? Wow. Awadewit (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea why you think there's any bias here. It isn't as if we've said "No, we're not doing a themed day for this day". Anyway, I never said bias was right. It is not right, and if you can show me some proof there is bias on DYK I'd be very grateful. Thanks. – How do you turn this on (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I wondered about how a Christmas theme would appear to non-Christians, which is why I didn't push/advocate for it. We have people of almost every description/kind here at Wikipedia. Halloween has an pagan origin (and an occult theme to strong Christians), and you didn't hear these Christians complaining about it (I don't mean me). As far as I'm concerned, if a relatively large group of people want to write hooks for a theme day, then let them. There doesn't need to be an official theme if they plan the days out right in any case. This past year, I've seen plenty of hooks placed on the main page at the right time when the nominator asks politely in their nom. Royalbroil 03:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
So, if a large group of people banded together to write hooks about the evils of homosexuality, we should let them do that? The majority rules? Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there is a lot more objection to homosexuality from religions worldwide than there is to Christmas. But never mind me; I'll go back to copyediting. Art LaPella (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
If editors can come together and time the generation of 30+ new/expanded articles for DYK on any topic, why would DYK object? Creation and expansion of articles is the purpose of Wikipedia. If one editor wants to save up their noms and dominate DYK for the day, that's fine as well. (See image on right). -- Suntag ☼ 06:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Because bunching them all together into a theme looks like a Wikipedia endorsement. I don't think that allowing one theme to dominate DYK for any one day should be such a cavalier decision. Awadewit (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)While I think there is nothing wrong with a religion-themed day, I do think Awadewit is right that if we only promote themed days for a certain religion then Wikipedia is showing a bias. Looking at the calendar, I notice that Hanukkah takes place during the week that Christmas falls, and Kwanzaa starts on Dec 26, and the Islamic New Year is December 28/29. Since all of these holidays fall very closely together, singling out one of them shows a Wikipedia bias. If we want to have a holiday-themed day, let's include (and advertise for) all of the holidays that fall in that week, especially if we'll be bending the rules a bit on what can be included. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I just came to protest the bias here against atheists, deists, agonstics and Satanists. That is all. I will have a Christmas tree production in the United States article ready for the holiday DYKs. --IvoShandor (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
And I am kidding, btw, in case it wasn't obvious, I meant to include a winky face but forgot, alas, woe is me. --IvoShandor (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
We aren't singling anything out as better or more important. If people want to create a themed day for another holiday, they are free to. We can work on more than one thing at once. I'd rather not include all the holidays. If there is enough interest for Kwanzaa-related articles, they can be given space on Dec 26. I honestly don't see the issue here. Maybe I'll be proven wrong when we get masses of complaints that we're "biased" (we didn't with the Halloween day, so I doubt we will here but you never know...) – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Halloween is celebrated by people of all different cultures, and it does not represent a particular religion. Same with April Fool's Day - it is celebrated across many cultures and is not affiliated with a particular religion. Christmas, however, is associated with one and only one religion. Other religions also have holidays during the same week as Christmas; by choosing to highlight, advertise for, and bend the DYK rules for only one of these holidays, Wikipedia is showing a bias. My suggestion is that the call for submissions include articles related to Christmas, Hannukah, Kwanzaa, and the Islamic New Year. Otherwise, don't allow the rules to broken, so articles would only be eligible if expanded/created December 20-25 (and don't advertise for it). Karanacs (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
We made a special effort for Saint Patrick's Day this year, and that's less celebrated that Christmas.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 18:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've posted a link to this discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Christmas-themed_DYK and Talk:Main Page#Christmas-themed DYK. Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a "Hannukah+Kwanzaa+Islamic New Year+Christmas"-themed DYK week? Happy Holidays! --PFHLai (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we can allot certain days to certain holidays. SpencerT♦C 21:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
On this date is over on the right. Trying to keep track of all the holidays and religious festivels for DYK isn't worth the hastle.Geni 18:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Karanacs solution is a good one. Awadewit (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me. It was merely a suggestion we had a Christmas theme. I wouldn't have bothered if I knew how much fuss it would cause. – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(Haven't read the discussion properly, just voicing my opinion for what it's worth.) I don't like the idea- it opens the gates to having other holiday themed DYKs, which sort of defeats the point of DYK to show off new articles. If people want to write a load of Christmas themed topics as new articles and they are placed there in the usual way, that's obviously not a problem, but I don't feel that we should give them preferential treatment. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I believe having only Christmas themed DYKs is not neutral, so I support the comment made by Witty Lama on the village pump that we should accept articles related to all festivals that fall in the period near Christmas to avoid bias. - Mgm|(talk) 13:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Of course, no one is stopping someone from starting a similar DYK project about another holiday, but I think having too many special topic days in a short period of time would be discriminating against regular DYK entries (since it would mean they'd very likely not make the main page because of it). - Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some merit in this idea if all desired holidays are included in an unbiased manner. I do feel, however, that certain bias exist when it comes to including DYKs at certain times. A recent experience I had was trying to include what was a treble DYK of Bertie (TV series), Haughey (TV series) and Mint Productions on the day that the first was broadcast. It was pointed out that this was akin to advertising which was fair enough. However, since the show was already going to be on anyway and anyone who would have watched it would presumably have heard about its broadcast, it seemed extreme to me. In the same week as the above we had the Barack Obama/John McCain double featured articles, in a further politically-related bending of rules. I did not have a problem with the idea of this but it seemed to contradict what I had been told and advocate a political and almost racist bias for and against certain nations. In relation to the holidays mentioned in this discussion, they all (even the religious ones) seem to be being promoted on the basis of how commercial they are. Halloween, Christmas and even Saint Patrick's Day are very far up the list of commercialised festivals in both Ireland and the United States to name two countries. I have never experienced any such secular advertising of the Islamic New Year (I've heard more on the Chinese New Year) or any events related to either non-Christian or non-secular festivals. But this ought not to inhibit their relevance and their importance. If Wikipedia is so thorough on the rules in relation to advertising (apart from, of course, US presidential elections) then the inclusion of all requested DYK rule bendings ought to be enacted to maintain neutrality, not just for overly PC reasons. --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 11:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"US related topics"

Why is the note regarding US-related topics required on the next update/clear page? It's wrong for a start; there's often hardly any US topics. And US topics is a very vague term indeed. I don't see any point in having such a message there. It's been removed, and readded a few times. I'd like to know what purpose it really serves, and if it's actually necessary. I'm sure the admins dealing with this are careful to choose a variety of topics in a fair way. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried removing it once. I think the general concensus is that we don't want an admin to buff up DYK with to many things from the US, though I agree with you that they have a brain too. I think "US related" is intentionally vague and open, though because of this it should be removed. There's also nothing about Briitish topics, which also come in by the dozens. That's my 2 cents at least. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The note is there because we have had too many instances in the past of inexperienced updaters filling an update with all US hooks, or conversely filling it with hooks that include no US hooks at all. It also serves as a more general reminder about the importance of balancing the contents of updates. I will strongly oppose any move to have this note removed, as I know from experience that it creates more work for the more experienced updaters who have to come along and fix the imbalances. Gatoclass (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the suggestions page currently includes 56 US hooks out of 121 - or about 46% US hooks. So the note is as valid as ever. I didn't count the British hooks, but they are far fewer - probably well below 20%. Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • A less specific reminder should help. Point out that topics should be varied as well as the geographical region they relate to. -Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Balance is necessary. So normally I would disagree with ethnic cleansing of articles. The above user has a valid point. If the language used is offending Americans... well we can't have that, can we? --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 11:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

suggestion regarding DYK articles' Discussion pages

Do we have a prior discussion (I couldn't find any) about requiring a wikiproject banner on a DYK article's Talk page? Though this would be "instruction creep", here are my thoughts:

  1. When a reader goes from the Main page to the particular DYK article's page, he won't see a big red link at the very top of the article on the word "Discussion". It's one of my peevees with DYK noms, so maybe it's someone else's, too.
  2. As DYK articles cannot be stubs, an assessment of "Start" (or higher), or "List" within the project's tag & assess would validate that the article isn't stub class. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should mandate a project banner. There may not BE a project for a particular article. But I think the idea of making the talk page not be a redlink is a good idea. If a project doesn't jump out at you ASAP... just slap a {{talkpage}} template on it maybe? ++Lar: t/c 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with a redlink for "Discussion"? Seeing a redlink there tells you there is no discussion as yet and saves you a click if you were thinking that there might be. Yomanganitalk 00:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
We already put {{Dyktalk}} on all the DYK articles' talk pages, so I don't see the issue here with redlinks. --JayHenry (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
This question is obsolete with the new DYK crediting bot. The article should immediately get an edit to the talkpage when the bot adds the DYK banner. Besides, I've seen plenty of DYK articles that don't fit into any WikiProjects. WikiProjects don't cover every single topic. Royalbroil 03:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
They may not cover every single topic, but they are close. See User:John Carter/Alphabetical listing of WikiProjects. -- Suntag ☼ 23:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Does {{Dyktalk}} get added immediately upon the article's inclusion in DYK or only when it is archived? If the latter is the case then those who view the article from the Main Page will still see a red link. --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 11:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

The next queue is empty, and I have to go offline soon. Can someone fill the next update and copy it to the queue please? (Please be extra careful with the new credit format.) --BorgQueen (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone do it? --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 11:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Elf and writing

wth happened to the suggestion page?

Simply south (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone accidentally transcluded somebody's talk page over the top of it. I've made the same mistake myself. Gatoclass (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Most viewed DYK update and proposal

Last summer, I started a sandbox page User:Cbl62/sandbox3 to track the most viewed DYK hooks on a month-by-month basis using Henrik's page view tool. Though I've neglected it in the last couple months, BorgQueen has been diligently updating it. The Top 10 all-time are set forth below. I continue to think a permanent page, which other could help maintain, would be useful in demonstrating the types of hooks that work best in drawing readers to new articles, and would also to serve as an incentive for nominators to come up with more interesting hooks. Do others think that a permanent page would be helpful? Cbl62 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems nifty to me. Would this get placed somewhere? Is it updated by hand? The page seems to have a lot more on it than what you shared below, so I'm not sure what it would look like or where it would go. ++Lar: t/c 02:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
That's a nice idea. The only thing I can think of is that, naturally, the vast majority of most-viewed DYKs are the ones with pictures, so it might skew the demonstration of what kinds of hooks are good (ie, there may be lots of hooks that were probably more interesting, but didn't have pictures and therefore didn't make the hall of fame). Can you think of any good way to rule out the image variable (such as by making, just for experiments' sake, a similar list of DYK hooks but excluding all the image ones), just to get a better idea of what factors other than the image contribute to a good hook? —Politizer talk/contribs 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, hooks that are not the image hook occasionally get massive hooks -- e.g., the Todd Palin and National Cleavage Day hooks below. Lar is right that there's a lot on the page, month by month stats, the Top 10 was just an example. My thought was to put it on the menu above along with Next update, Suggestions, List, etc. I find it at least as interesting as the "List." Another idea would be to set up an award system so that anyone who nominates a hook that gets 10,000 views (maybe happens 15 times a month) or who nominates one of the Top 10 hooks of the month gets some sort of DYK medal (sort of like the 50, 100 DYK Medals). It would encourage people to come up with enticing hooks.Cbl62 (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Another factor that skews the view count is the time of day it's on the Main Page. Based on my non-scientific review, hooks that go on the Main Page during the middle of the night in the USA generally don't get nearly as many hits. Sorry, forgot to sign before.Cbl62 (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The mysterious commenter above me (I believe it was Cbl62) also brings up a good point: especially with these 4-hour periods (or are we back to 6 now), some hooks go up when most of this continent is asleep (by "this continent" I mean America...I don't have any stats but I assume we spend more time on Wikipedia than the rest of the world) and having awards for how many hits a hook gets might eventually lead into a bunch of politics over when and where hooks get placed (i.e., "so-and-so put my hook in the queue that he know wouldn't go up until night, and he put it 3/4 of the way down but not quite at the bottom so no one would see it!"). Of course, everyone knows it's just a fun award and not worth getting all riled up over, but that won't stop people from getting riled up, we're only human. That issue aside, I think having some sort of informal recognition for top 10 hooks is an excellent idea and would be a lot of fun. —Politizer talk/contribs 03:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Should we try it out and see how it goes over? Who has the know-how to move User:Cbl62/sandbox3 to a permanent page and add a link in the Menu above (probably just below "List"? Cbl62 (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Per Politizer's suggestion, here's a list of the all-time top hooks that were not featured in the main photo slot.Cbl62 (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the charts since they are now on the permanent Wikipedia:DYKBEST page.Cbl62 (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Billy Hathorn

I'm a bit concerned about several of the recent DYK's created by User:Billy Hathorn that have been allowed on the main page. Take a look at these The Californians (TV series) (not a single good resource), The Roy Rogers and Dale Evans Show (several shady refs), The Greatest Show on Earth (TV series), (more of the same issues), Roger Mobley (the main source is the subjects own website), Window on the Plains Museum (resource 3?), and Don Collier (similar issues). I investigated this because I have declined DYKs for this user before for using IMDB and I was wondering why he kept on submitting articles with that as a source. Now I know. Although I think we need to have a talk with Billy, the more pressing concern here is a lack of consistancy among our reviewers. How can we expect good submissions from regular contributors like Billy if we don't enforce our own policies?Nrswanson (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nrswanson's concerns, and think we all (myself included; God knows I've let some bad noms slip through the cracks, and thank goodness other reviewers have usually been able to notice and chide me for it) need to be firm about the quality of refs in an article. —Politizer talk/contribs 03:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I am extremely concerned about his noms and I am automatically skeptical when I see one of his noms. I did some independent research on some of his earlier DYK noms in 2 television books that I have and I was able to find most of the content in the articles. I won't review every one of his new articles and cite it for him. I can't save his noms. I left him directions on how to find a reliable source at google books and other web sources and it didn't work. I'm tired of leaving him a polite message each time I find problems. A regular nominator shouldn't need this amount of hand holding. Royalbroil 03:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. As a reviewer you really shouldn't be editing his articles anyway beyond little typos etc. That is not your job its the noms job. I think the question I'm asking though is what are we going to do about it? I think we should say something to Billy for sure. Possibly a ban from DYK is in order, although I'm inclined at this point to go with a stern warning from DYK project as a whole. As for these articles getting onto the main page... I'm not sure what we can do to improve the radar so to speak. Anyone got any ideas on that?Nrswanson (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not just his TV series/TV personality articles. It's also his articles on politicians and other public figures, who are frequently of questionable notability. Billy's lack of concern for certain basic policies has been known about for a long time, there was an RFC on him ages ago about these very issues, but nothing came of it. I've generally taken a harder line on his articles but frequently found myself overruled by other updaters.
Billy is not the only regular contributor we have who submits lots of questionable articles however, there is also Nlu, for example, who submits a lot of articles on ancient China based solely on contemporary chronicles - in effect, primary sources. When I brought up this problem long ago I got little support from other users, but I did notice that user Lampman recently brought up the issue again. I did intend at one time to start a thread about Nlu's sources on an appropriate policy page, but never got around to it.
We also have a contributor ATM submitting articles on Japanese pop culture products like comic books and Manga films that are quite difficult to assess because of their Japanese language sources but which often seem to have little if any independent sourcing to confirm notability. As a general rule I try to avoid reviewing such articles because others decide to ignore my concerns, but if we are going to enforce these policies more firmly then I think we need to be consistent. Gatoclass (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the fact that we're all talking about this and acknowledging the problem helps a little, because it will be easier for everyone to shut down his noms if we all agree that there's this pattern. For example, I have reviewed some of his noms and wanted to break my computer in half, but was always hesitant to unilaterally reject them because of how we are generally supposed to be nice to nominators and help improve the articles, so I would usually leave a less stern "please bring in better sources" and ; if we all agree that a particular user has a disruptive pattern of nominating, then we can be more stern about rejecting their noms immediately (after a cursory glance at the article to see that the references are all lousy, for example) and not having to waste time arguing over the references all over again with every new nom.
On a side note...you make a good point about Nlu's noms. I know I am guilty of verifying a lot of them because, at first glance, all those Tang dynasty sources in his articles make it look awfully fancy and academic...but now that you put it this way, I agree, it would be nice to have some other sources. I will try to be more critical when evaluating his noms in the future, and hopefully other reviewers will do the same. —Politizer talk/contribs 04:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Based on my experience with Billy Hathorn and hook length warnings, he doesn't so much need someone to read him the riot act, but he needs more re-explanation than most. Art LaPella (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I too avoid reviewing poorly sourced articles since I would reject them but others seem to have no problem DYKing them. I don't want to drive DYK reviews away since it is a lot of work and we need all the reviews we can get. I've considered the idea that Billy Hathorn is vandalizing Wikipedia by posting articles that make little effort to comply with article content policy. But that didn't and doesn't make sense. He has written many new article and puts a lot of effort into each one. He has a sincere desire to contribute to Wilikedia that may be misdirected, but it still is a lot of effort. I revamped his B.P. Newman article, which was listed for deletion. I even developed Template:SSDI rootsweb for his cites to the Social Security Death Index. B.P. Newman was written like an obituary and that is where the information came from (along with rootsweb and Net Detective, People Search), but he posted a note on my talk page indicating that he did not understand why people objected to it so much that they wanted to delete it. His talk page is filled with editing comments from others, but that don't seem to have much impact. I agree with Art LaPella that he needs more re-explanation than most. We haven't yet banned anyone from DYK (as far as I am aware). Also, we're not here promarily to help improve the editor or an article. A main effort of DYK is to protect the encyclopedia from embarrassment. So long as this thread remains unresolved, I think it would be OK to post a note under his DYK noms (as well as ATMs and Nlu's) mentioning that

An unresolved discussion was started on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about this editor's recent DYK post.

using a link to the discussion. That might motivate him to resolve the discussion or at least clue the DYK reviewer into looking into the article more thoroughly. Perhaps we can have a bot programmed to make such posts, with an admin adding and removing names to the bot post list as needed. -- Suntag ☼ 07:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Some very great comments! I think it's important to encourage submitters AND to encourage reviewers... so there's a difficult balance here. There's also WP:AGF to keep in mind! That said, if we have nominators that we agree are consistently producing (or at least have a tendency to produce) problematic nominations, I wonder if it makes sense to note that somehow, as an aid to reviewers. We want to do it in a sensitive way, but maybe a list of "currently on probation" at the top of the nom page or something? Because I agree... Billy's enthusiastic but some of his noms are problematic, take significant time to resolve, and sending mixed messages (which can confuse the issue) may not be the best way to proceed... all reviewers need awareness to reduce that, as improving our consistency in applying standards is goodness. Balance that against WP:BURO of course! ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with Suntag that the primary goal of DYK is not to improve editors, it's still a little bit disturbing that such long-standing contributors haven't caught on yet. Billy has been on WP for over 2 and a half years and has over 40,000 contribs; it's not like he's a newb that we're biting. I think somewhere we have a guideline that newbies aren't required to have their refs formatted all prettily with author, title, accessdate, etc, but once someone becomes a regular we can start expecting them to be able to do that stuff (Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 29#Reference section). If we expect regulars to get better at formatting, shouldn't we also expect them to get better at recognizing reliable sources? —Politizer talk/contribs 16:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Politizer. Also if you look at his talk page right now and in the archives you will see all sorts of reminders about these things. He's been told over and over. I don't think the talking to him is working. Didn't someone once say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? I think we may need to try something else.Nrswanson (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Jumping into this a bit late. I came across the John C. Fleming DYK nomination when I was posting a nomination of my own. I took a look at the article and was not only concerned about the state of the reference formatting, but also the references used — such as his own websites, which do not fit with WP:RS. Also of great concern was that it read like campaign literature, where much of it was taken. Which would make Wikipedia a tool for a candidated promotion — certainly in violation of policies and guidelines — WP:NPOV , WP:NOT, etc. There seems to be reasonable notability for this subject, so I spent considerable time cleaning up the article — not to take away what BH should be doing, but in the interest of having an article on Wikipedia that met with policies and guidelines. However, BH continues to add material not supported by the citations that have been added; and has not yet commented on the talk page. I've left a message on the article talk page and hope he will respond. If not, this editor is not only in need of education on appropriate DYK nomination, but on Wikipedia standards. — ERcheck (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Hathorn has a long-standing problem of citing his own work and completely ignoring everybody. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This appears then to be more than just a DYK issue, but a general editing issue, leaning toward disrupting Wikipedia (ignoring guidelines and general community discussion; using WP:OR to create articles - See