User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2022/March

DYK credits

Hey leek (if that's alright for me to call you that)! I was wondering how you can check the amount of DYK credits a user has amassed, usually checking their QPQ is enough but sometimes there are users that are exempt and I don't know the proper avenue for doing so. Sorry if this is a bit of a silly question, I still have much to learn. Thank you for your help in advance! Ornithoptera (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Ornithoptera! So, basically every DYK nompage is going to have that toolbox on the side; if you click on the link that reads "QPQ check" and enter in their username, it should give you a pretty accurate idea of how many nominations someone has made. There are a few problems with this system: it doesn't count rejected nominations, and it doesn't count credits not awarded or mis-awarded by DYKUpdateBot. If the promoter screws up the credits, that's just toodles for the program. It should give you an accurate count for most new nominators though; cheers! leek is the preferred shortening :) some people call me leeky and that is—well, I'm not sure how that caught on. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help, Wikipedia is so hard to navigate sometimes, wish it was easier lol. Sometimes rules are just found in the most random places and a google search does NOT help. Yeesh! Thank you so much for your offer to help me out back when I first entered DYK, I still have a lot to learn. Cool! I'll call you leek from here on out if its not weird to do so, I just don't want to be too chummy with a stranger lol Ornithoptera (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination within time limit!

Hi, Theleekycauldron, just to show that I can make deadline, I just filed a nomination, the day after i posted the article to main space. Yay me! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Ah, quite happy for you :D interesting hooks, through and through! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Your kindness and energy are a bright spot at DYK and elsewhere. Thank you! HouseOfChange (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Aw, shucks, i do my best :D thanks, HouseOfChange! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK preps

I wish there was some way that we could get more prep builders. So many editors want to contribute to DYK, but almost no one wants to help with preps. SL93 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: Don't you need to be an admin to build a DYK prep? Rlink2 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No. You have to be an admin for the DYK queues though. SL93 (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: What is the responsiblity of a DYK prepper? Is there a wikipage I can read more about this? Rlink2 (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There is at Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Rules of thumb for preparing updates. A prep builder would follow those steps while re-reviewing already reviewed articles to see if they meet the DYK criteria. I recommend having a tutor to help you build preps if you're interested. I can't because I feel that I would be bad at explaining. Theleekycauldron is a good person to ask because they often help build preps - more so than I have lately. You can also ask for a tutor on the DYK talk page to walk you through the process. SL93 (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: Thanks for the information. I will have to consider this, I am always looking for stuff to do on here. Rlink2 (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: Yeah, I was hoping that we'd get some new editors to fill the gap when my schoolwork make me step a bit a way, but it seems to still just be you and me and Kavyansh. To be fair, the job is a pretty tough sell for anyone sane; it's hard to convince people to acquaint themselves with an entirely new field in which they solve large spatial puzzles once or twice or even more every day, check and recheck the work of others, and talk people through making fixes to their nomination after they thought they were done. What's more, all your work ends up getting washed away once the set steps off the main page. It takes a really solid belief that you're doing something worthwhile to overcome the initial difficulties of the role.

That being said, Rlink2, the work does put you in pretty close contact with a community of editors from every area of Wikipedia content creation. I find that to be very fulfilling, and it makes prep-set building a nice challenge, a good way to blow off some steam :) If you want to get started, I wrote this guide to prep set building a while back, it should be a reasonably good introduction—feel free to ask any questions you might have on my talk page or by email. It'd be lovely to have you on board, it's really a pretty great job once you get into it. You do seem to already have high tolerance and experience for repetitive-yet-nuanced tasks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

If the three of us stop, the whole system crashes which really is messed up with how many DYK contributors there are. I was wondering if you could promote Template:Did you know nominations/Richard J. Ferris since it's my alt that was approved. SL93 (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I promoted that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. SL93 (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it is always nice to have more prep builders. It is a complicated job, where you are literally framing a section in the main page, all behind the scenes. I have not been active lately, but will try to be. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: I have a question:

When promoting a hook, do you need to promote 8 at one time or can you just promote one at a time, and others can add theirs too? I wanted to promote just one hook to the last prep set to get a hang of the process for the future, but the guide said it is supposed to be left blank. Rlink2 (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: There are no rules that you have to promote 8 hooks at a time. Surely, you can start with one hook at a time, and others can add too. The last prep is ideally kept blank so that it is easy to move few hooks if need arises. But I don't think there would be any issues if you promote a hook or two in the last prep set. Do let me or leeky/SL93 know if you ever need any help with this process. Thanks for showing interest! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2, just dive in. People will give you advice on what you're missing. Try to keep yourself open to that advice, as prep building is a bit of an art form and is probably one of the more complicated tasks on WP. When someone tells you where you can improve, try not to see it as criticism as it's almost certainly just well-intentioned acknowledgment that is is a very complex thing to learn. It takes a while to become good at it, but if you enjoy puzzles it's a really fun job. valereee (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee and Rlink2: oh, totally. it's all right to make mistakes—the best way to start is to just start. If you keep an open mind and good spirits, learning on the job should definitely be a breeze. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried promoting something to Prep 4, comments on how i handled that appreciated. I picked from the special ocassion hooks, since its March. I do have some questions however (I will certainly have more, but this is it for now):

• All DYK hooks have images, but there is only one image slot. Does that mean the hook that get the image needs to be picked more carefully? What goes into that process particularly? It must be some sort of art form.
• On the nomination page of the article I promoted, the DYKmake was commented out on the nomination. Is that normal?
• What does ALT1 in your guide mean? (the part where you talked about the edit summary) Rlink2 (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: Can't check over the promotion now, but the formatting looks good! Usually, images will be approved by the reviewer if they meet a few minimal requirements of clarity and licensing. This gives us more images than we need (one image for every seven non-images is ideal, since that's a prep set), so we can be a little pickier as promoters. If you think an image is good, you can save it for a future slot; otherwise, you can promote it without the image now. I personally look for peaceful or evocative non-bio images and pretty clear bio images.

Yeah, it's normal for the DYKmake to be commented out—that way, it's available to you as the promoter to copy/paste it into the preps, but not visible to the nominator and reviewer.

In many nominations (see Template:Did you know nominations/The Debate), multiple hooks will be proposed, usually in descending order of preference. New hooks, or "alts", will count up in order: they'll be named ALT0 (the main suggestion), ALT1, ALT2, ALT3, etc. If a new suggestion only differs from an already suggested hook by phrasing or wording (while the central hook fact remains the same), those count up from the first hook by letter: ALT0 and ALT1 are different hooks, but ALT1, ALT1a, and ALT1b are all variations on the same idea. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

on the bright side, I suppose we've got ourselves a pretty decent trade union ;) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm so confused. I wonder how the heck the current conflict means no hooks of any sort based on Russia or Ukraine. This is censorship that is absolutely not needed with a criterion that is being stretched way too much. I will not be building preps for the duration of this oddness and I regret filling prep 4. SL93 (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93

I'd argue the purpose of DYK (in my view) is to bring facts that might not be well known into the limelight. Everyone knows what's going on with Russia, and theres already a section on the main page dedicated to Russia anyway. I could be wrong though. Rlink2 (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Rlink2 It's being argued that there should be a blanket ban of all Russia and Ukraine hooks no matter the topic and no matter how long the hook fact occurred. SL93 (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: I don't think Kingsif and nlh5 are saying to not run russian-related hooks from a long time ago; didn't we run one about a russian general just a couple of days ago? They just don't want us to talk about the conflict—or, in the case of the Russia/florist hook, look like we're conspicuously avoiding it. I happen to disagree on the first part, but I think even they have some wiggle room. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm more so referring to the current DYK talk discussion about the Prayer for Ukraine hook and the comment from the Russia DYK at - " The fact that it has nothing to do with politics or the military is the problem—it'd be seen as us trying to change the subject from the fact that Russia is currently carrying out an invasion of a sovereign entity without international or popular support." If Narutolovehinata's thoughts won't lead to what I'm thinking it might, that's great. SL93 (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

If any readers do have an issue with Russia or Ukraine hooks on unrelated topics, I really do feel that they shouldn't be on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit if they are that easily triggered. Those people would also likely want all such articles scrubbed off of Wikipedia or heavily retracted. This is a touchy topic for me because I am against this type of censorship. To me, it's no different than book banning. SL93 (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: I totally hear you—so why don't we try to just get consensus for the four hooks in front of us? If we start setting this in broader terms of censorship and how we approach the topic at all, this is going to get dragged into weeks-long discussions within discussions. If we can get consensus to promote these four hooks, we'll have a much easier time with the next four. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

For that, I would love to see more people sharing their viewpoints. The DYK discussion doesn't have as much activity as I was expecting per past recent discussions. Though at some point very soon, I would like to approach the censorship aspect. I can't even wrap my mind around how there is even any speculation of any concerns based on the media and social networks. COVID-19 has plenty of ongoing disputes (whether it exists, the severity of it, masks, mandates, religious exceptions, and so forth) and yet those are always promoted just fine if they pass a review and any further regular checking. Are we picking and choosing what ongoing disputes to focus on? Honestly, I wouldn't consider it bad for Wikipedia to side with Ukraine...they are clearly not the instigators. I am equally fine with Wikipedia siding with the science of COVID-19. It would be quite interesting if the United States for example became part of a similar military conflict - would that mean no United States articles? Germany for example has sent aid to Ukraine, but we can still promote Germany related hooks. SL93 (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: If the United States invaded Mexico wholesale, and all we talked about was the prowess of American gymnasts, yeah, I think we'd find ourselves in a tricky situation. I think you hit it right on the head with mask mandates—we need to follow the sourcing, even if there's public pushback. Absolutely. We do also want to make sure that if we are covering a country (that normally doesn't receive this much coverage at DYK), we are giving due weight to any recent crises that have eaten the news cycle.

Listen, I want to see all four hooks get their time on the main page. But I think the worst-case scenario is that Russia hook running first and alone, which seemed like a possibility at the time I wrote that comment.

I haven't pinged anyone yet because I'm tired and don't have the mental capacity to handle a waterfall of people talking right now. If you want to ping all the people who've been involved with the four hooks (in a new section), that'd probably be the best way to get discussion going on what we do about each hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not so simple. From what I'm reading, there are editors who also don't want anything related to the conflict in DYK. If we can't promote those, there will only be hooks related to unrelated topics. Then again, there are editors who want absolutely nothing from either country for hooks. There is no winning either way as it stands now. This is my last comment here as this section is getting pretty long. SL93 (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For User:Theleekycauldron/guide to prep set building. Documentation is hard to write. I laughed at the introduction. Nice job. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank ya, Enterprisey! :D tried to make a bit of an almanac theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: Jeff's

Yes indeed it is! :) Gotta love the Western Burger. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 05:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@JediMasterMacaroni: absolutely :) i went pescatarian a couple years ago, but if I ever go back on that, I'm springing for the pastrami on it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Humbertium covidum

On 5 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Humbertium covidum, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the flatworm Humbertium covidum (pictured), named after the COVID-19 pandemic, was classified in a study written mostly during the initial lockdown? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Humbertium covidum. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Humbertium covidum), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Claudia Powers

On 6 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Claudia Powers, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after her father received hospice care, Connecticut state legislator Claudia Powers introduced bills to include hospice under Medicare? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Claudia Powers. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Claudia Powers), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Could still be a joke ...

... based on previous misadventures, but it is not funny. It's nice to ping people but I think you want @Muboshgu:. And my (unwanted) take as reviewer (might not be true in this case) would be that it's extremely bad form for later editors to think they know better than the people who originally wrote the hook. My justification on that would be Template:Did you know nominations/Het Nieuwe Instituut where the hook was modified (without asking me) to "that the archive at the Het Nieuwe Instituut (pictured) contains more than 18 km (11 mi) of architectural resources?", when "the Het Nieuwe Instituut" is the same as "the the Nieuwe Instituut" ... put me off participating in DYK for months that did. Mujinga (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mujinga: sorry! that's not a joke, that's me being stupid twice in a row—read your name in the nom and thought you were nominator. Yes, I meant Muboshgu—here's the relevant diff. re bad form: wikipedia (and by extension, the main page) is a collaborative process, and I think it's okay for multiple people to weigh in on how a hook should sound and feel. I'm pretty good about pings, so in case the nominator objects/I've screwed up, they'll be able to tell and call me on it. Unless I accidentally ping the wrong person, in which case I get this message. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks theleekycauldron i appreciate what you are saying here. and I see you doing loads of good work on the site generally so props for that. on the misreading well that's unfortunate then but not the end of the world (please don't do it a third time though lol). on the form, i really appreciate that you do ping the nom (or supposed nom) because my gripe is much more about being the nom and not being informed about changes that introduce basic errors to hooks. collaboration is great and i've had some great co-working experiences lately but i do think it is distasteful for an unelected and self-appointed elite to edit hooks without telling anyone else. good that you are forging a new path there, cheers Mujinga (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mujinga cheers to you! Credit to SL93 for steering me on the ping-people path, by the way. :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Quotes in place names

Since you asked, it is interesting looking at some of these old especially map- and census- based records of place names where some but not all have quotation marks. In History of Flagstaff, Arizona#Establishment, the quirk gets its own note. For Cane Beds, Arizona being known as "Virgin Bottoms", the source reads Lee [and company] made their way over the plateau between Mount Carmel and "Virgin Bottoms" (Cane Beds, Ariz.) - you'll see there are three place names, but only "Virgin Bottoms" gets the quote treatment. Someone should ask an Arizona university to research why they (it seems, right?) do this! Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kingsif: curious indeed! Maybe it's because the name of the place isn't totally established, so the quotes are to delineate that it's an informal name? Flatulent hypothesizing, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

QPQ Credits

Hey leek! This is a weird one, I'm not entirely sure if I should ask it in the DYK forum so I'll just ask it here: seems like I'm missing one DYK credit, for the DYK of Melibe colemani and I'm not entirely sure as to what exactly happened there (or even how the process entirely works, but that's not the main concern here) for it to be not given. Its a strange thing of me to be asking for sure, I suppose I just want to keep a record of these things lol, thanks for your help so far! Ornithoptera (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

responded on your talk page :) off to award the other missing credits now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks leek for letting me know! Really appreciate it! Ornithoptera (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

happy to help! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Navy Wife

I'm seeing if you would be willing to promote Template:Did you know nominations/Navy Wife (1935 film) to one of the current open preps. You said on the DYK talk page that there was no room then for a bio image hook, but it's a film hook with an image of an actress. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: done :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. SL93 (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Panorama

Please read the nomination. The new hook is wrong, and without a reference to the time misleading. Here we have such a great pic of THE feminist at the time, in women's month. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I caught the mistake on the time, I fixed that one—I also generally don't like featuring bio images when the bolded article is another bio. It never feels cohesive in a set, for me. I'm sorry, she does seem very accomplished and I'd love to use that picture for her article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

if there's another mistake, let me know and I'll comb through and try to fix it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Connecting: a feminist fits the idea of women's month better than an actress, no? - Best have both. - After ec: it's not a bio, but a controversial political magazine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: now I'm confused—I understand "magazine" to denote a regularly published and printed work, usually with a topical focus. Does this describe Panorama? Or is it a TV program? Or does it separately publish both?

re the actress: my mistake, but Trevor actually did star in the movie- if there is to be an image about it, that's a choice everyone's gonna be able to process at first glance. Featuring a journalist who didn't work at Panorama is visually dicey for me—the more effort we ask viewers to put into understanding the hooks upfront, the less likely it is they'll click to learn anything more. It's a very fleeting attention span we're working with- it's always a little off-putting for me to ask the viewer to spend that attention span working out why the image is related to the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: hang on. It's 2:46am where I live, it's possible I'm not thinking clearly. Can this keep 'till morning, when I can string coherent words together? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(ec) DYK that the Panorama article was created because we couldn't say enough about Peter Merseburger in his hook. Please mention or at least link him piped. Please read Schwarzer's memories about him, - this is about some of the greatest people in German TV journalism, not just a little sensation about an abortion (which was a crime then - which doesn't show at all without the context) Back to: please please please read the complete nomination. - After ec: yes, there's time, just undo the promotion. It shouldn't run the same set as the film star. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"Connecting: a feminist fits the idea of women's month better than an actress, no?" Gerda Arendt There wouldn't even be a picture of an actress if you didn't suggest that I add one. SL93 (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Nothing wrong with an actress, in her own set. Why not picture both? But if we have only room for one, then the activist please. Why we picture more buildings in women's month I don't know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I was wondering recently if we should be waiving the inter prep-set image balance rule for Women's History month... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

good idea - nothing wrong with an occasional building, but the focus should be women --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The buildings are actually already occasional if you look through the recent additions and the current preps/queues. There are no building images in the queues and one building image in prep. I would support the image idea from theleekycauldron though. SL93 (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If we only have room for one, I would just leave it to the prep builder since there are so few of them and they have to deal with a lot due to not much help. As for the buildings, most of the women images did end up being promoted. We can't have more images of women if nominators don't add them. SL93 (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I crossed out part of my statement. We do have more women image hooks to use, but I was thinking if we really wanted to use them all for one month. International Women's Month is great, but women should be celebrated year round and I'm not sure if we want to run almost dry with women image hooks in April. SL93 (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

GRuban and I will do what we can to bring more! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Carl Cain

I'm just seeing if you could promote Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Cain with the image even if it has to be open a while longer for a slot. I normally wouldn't care, but the subject is a black man that was successful during a period of much racism. Ultimately, it is up to you as the prep builder though. SL93 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: of course I'd be happy to, but could you crop the image a bit? I've been hovering over it on a couple sweeps, but I just can't make out the details in Cain's face without clicking on the image. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I cropped it. What do you think? SL93 (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: much better, thanks—I'll do my best to hold it for an image slot. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. SL93 (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK

You are too quick. On second thought, I think part of the hook is mentioning the name of Nutan (a popular actress) and the fact that the director is a woman (not common in 1950 in India). What do you think about: ... that the Indian actress Nutan's first lead role was at age 14 in Hamari Beti (1950), directed and produced by her mother? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shshshsh: hmm, I hear ya. How about: ... that the 1950 Hindi film Hamari Beti, marking the first lead role of Nutan at 14 years old, was directed by her mother? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Good. You could switch "marking" with "which marked" if you like but either way it's fine by me. Thank you! Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

done! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK stats

I believe Daniel Sickles's leg should be at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Statistics#March_2022, but am not entirely for sure how that all works. (slightly over 25k views in I think 12 hours). I know you do a lot of the stats stuff - am I correct that this should be one there? It's one of my favorite hooks I've run on DYK, along with the Black Terror outhouse ship from awhile back. Hog Farm _Talk 05:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm: thanks for the heads up! Looks like there was a slip-up in the manual archiving of that set that caused my program to miscalculate its timestamp. I've fixed the archive page, so the program's added your nom and one other one that was missed. Sorry about the delay, cheers! (also, why isn't it Daniel Sickles' leg?) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd always been taught growing up that possessives ending with a s shouldn't have the trailing s after the apostrophe, but was told the MOS says otherwise at the FAC for Landis' Missouri Battery. Hog Farm _Talk 06:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: ah, funny :) I always just sounded it out and went with what felt right—so, Landis's feels right, but Sickles's doesn't really. Could avoid it with "Leg of Daniel Sickles", but six of one, I suppose. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ambush

I guess it goes without saying but if you have some sources on the Ambush episode that would be great. I do have plans to take it to GAN and I'm thinking some clean-up and more sources will help it out. GamerPro64 00:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: didn't come across much while writing "The Debate"—I'm seeing lots of snippets in Google Books you might find useful, but I can't find the books themselves. Also, Thomas Schlamme was an executive director on The West Wing, but he left midway through and never got to "The Debate". neat coincidences :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination – Successful

A Wikimedia t-shirt!

Hey Theleekycauldron,

You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at merchandisewikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks!

On behalf of the Merchandise Giveaway program,

-- janbery (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

yay! :D i was wondering when someone was gonna notice that it wasn't transcluded... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I used to have this shirt. It was a great few months until it somehow got stained in the washing machine. Sad day. SL93 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: ooof, that does suck. I'm thinking I might just put this shirt up on my wall or something, as a souvenir—in all honesty, I don't really wear t-shirts with writing on 'em all that often. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Congrats; well deserved! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Sdkb! :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of C. J. Cregg

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article C. J. Cregg you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Stray Cow

replying here instead of DYK as it is off topic. I can probably imagine why you are finding it funny, but please be informed that the half tonne animal is absolutely dangerous and the advise is to run in the opposite direction ASAP. User_talk:Theleekycauldron/Editnotice looks like a test edit. Venkat TL (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL: Of course, yes :) not something to be messed with. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Keyword "Cow accident" on youtube will turn in some very bizarre videos that only happens in India. something to try in freetime. Venkat TL (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

lord knows i've got more than enough of that theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Urban warfare, W. W. Cow Venkat TL (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Somali pigeon

Per your edit summary at the Somali pigeon DYK, I hope you aren't upset that I pinged you. I just thought you might know since you work on DYK preps so often. SL93 (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: no, of course not :) the intended tone was more of a smiley shrug. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. Sorry about that. SL93 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of C. J. Cregg

The article C. J. Cregg you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:C. J. Cregg for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's all part of the service, here at claudia's house of useless knowledge!

seriously, though, I am over-the-god-damn-moon-happy – she's my namesake and she's a fantastic character and this took a crap ton of work and I actually did itttttt ohmygodohmygod :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm so grateful, too – how many people get the opportunity to do all of this? I had resources and access and time that most don't have, and I had excellent advice from peers, and the single-minded obsession to get that done over late nights. How many people have this privilege that we do? It's such a treat, and I'm happy to be putting in my own small part.

yeah, i know, she won the academy awards, not me. but like- i frickin love it here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Bishop (cave explorer)...

Was wondering what you thought about the different images for this DYK. I don't know if it is possible to connect a different image for the various hooks but there are other images, from the article that I think would work well as the "(pictured)" associated image... Shearonink (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I uploaded a better image of the map to the article and think that could possibly work as the (pictured) for the main hook or for ALT2. Thanks for all your help - Shearonink (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

A hopeful kitten

Hi! Just wanted to say it's nice to see you've continued your activity on wiki at a similar pace to before your RfA. I hope you weren't discouraged by the process from running in a few months. I'm looking forward to being able to support you then :)

A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the kitten, A. C. Santacruz! There's so much I love about being here; it'd be silly to be bitter over it :) no big deal, right?

p.s. if you wanna see an RfA really go down in flames, you and I should nominate Kavyansh.Singh together. What a way to wreck an undoubtedly qualified candidate... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That's the first time I've audibly laughed at a comment on wiki in many weeks. I needed that! In any case, there are plenty of very experienced and respected editors with an eye on Kavyansh that are ready to pounce on the opportunity to nom them once they indicate a willingness to run. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka

Hi Leeky. After the discussion on WT:DYK I learned that what I was doing (closing a nomination that I had already commented on) was not something that was proper and I probably shouldn't have done it. On the other hand, other editors such as you and Schwede66 noted that, even if I had not closed the nomination, it would have likely ended up the same way anyway. Given concerns raised about the procedure of me closing the nomination, would it be better for me to vacate the close and allow someone else to do it, or would it be a better option for the nomination to remain closed and for me to avoid closing nominations I've participated in moving forward? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: hmmm. I've been turning this over and over in my head for the better part of an hour. And i could be wrong, but to be honest, yeah, I think you should remove your close. Yes, it'll force us all to spend a little more time confirming that this nomination really is unsuitable. Yes, it'll legitimize the complaints made at WT:DYK and you probably won't get an apology for that nasty crack Venkat made at you. And yes, it does suck to walk back a mistake, especially when your only mistake basically came down to being bold and making sense.

That being said, when this nomination is most likely closed again along the same lines, it'll be bulletproof. Vacating your close would also show that you've learned from your mistake, and are willing to change and show good faith during a contentious situation. And above all, it is—strictly speaking—the right thing to do.

Another thing is that you're clearly trusted and respected around the wheelhouse—mop without tools, you keep DYKN moving, all that. Because of that (and the fact that we all know you weren't wrong with the close), there's a temptation to say "IAR, he's a regular and he's right, let's move on". But I'm not wild about the precedent that this kind of mistake gets to stand. If we go back and get it right, we set a good example for the future—one way or another, this is gonna be over in a few days anyway. No big deal :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. Would it be okay with you then if you unclose and re-close it then, or would you be too involved in the discussion for it to happen? While you were not involved in the original nomination and had not commented there, you did participate in the subsequent discussion. Because while I am willing to unclose the nomination, I'm less willing to do so if the end result will just be the same and the thought I had was it would be better to just put the nomination out of its misery rather than prolonging the inevitable. At the very least, I promise I will avoid closing nominations I have participated in moving forward. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: well, hmm... no, not really, I wouldn't be comfortable with that. If we really do un-close it, i feel like the nominator should have the opportunity to use the tag—otherwise, we're still just rubberstamping the mistake. Oh, I don't know—you don't have to re-open if you don't want to, that's just what I think is fair. I understand if you see it as just disruptive. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

it is looking like something that's going to blow over- there's a pretty clear consensus against running this hook. so... you can get away with not re-opening. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

SLAPP Suits

As soon as I saw "SLAPP Suits" as the FA of the Day, I thought to myself: "Surely, this was Theleekycauldron's doing!" Congrats!--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 19:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Gen. Quon! :D my first FA, and first TFA. how goes the interviewing? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Congrats! And it's going well! I have one schedule in 30 minutes, which will bring me up to 11!--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 21:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

A little German elf - named Gerda - told me this is your first TFA. Good for you! Congratulations on the achievement. — Maile (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, did she? too much :) thanks, Maile! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

the little elf tells you that stats were above average the first day, - congrats! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Artem Datsyshyn

On 23 March 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Artem Datsyshyn, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, PFHLai! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

i'm just very smiley today, it seems- and with good reason theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I told you: rely on miracles ;) Wikipedia:Main Page history/2022 March 23b for your album --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Joyce McCreight

Hello, Theleekycauldron. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Joyce McCreight, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Coronavirus VII: Sports

Hello, Theleekycauldron. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Coronavirus VII: Sports, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Congrats on winning Wall-to-wall coverage, which I continue to think is one of the hardest Challenges despite the number of people who have proved me wrong! And on your first TFA as well, I believe. I know a lot of your work focuses on the Main Page, so I shouldn't be so surprised, but well done. :) — Bilorv (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

more congratulations! - I didn't know that exists, and guess that unvoluntarily, I may hit it tomorrow, TFA, pictured DYK (a woman!) and at least one of the three sadly in RD, two there right now, and one pending (no comment yet, I wonder why, - just because he is Russian?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to add yourself to any you've already won, Gerda―it's a fairly recent project by me and I've been very pleased by the uptake. :) — Bilorv (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Bilorv! :D I cheated just a little bit—I knew I had a TFA coming up, and, by coincidence, i had a DYK coming up (initially for another date, but then we changed the cycle back to one-a-day—tis a miracle), so with the stars aligning, Gerda let me help out on one of her RD nominations. And by the way, Gerda has absolutely already done at least 80% of the challenges on the page—she'll get wall-to-wall, like, at least 15 times over. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

keep cool, tomorrow will be only the second TFA this year, and none last, no way for 15, - and I started RD only a few years ago ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

t'was hyperbole—but you be as modest as you like :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

No cheating at all: a credit is a credit, and stars generally only align with a little bit of help and forward planning. — Bilorv (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

You mean that tlc gave me the pictured hook for tomorrow with the challenge in mind? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

you vastly overestimate my ability to consider information not directly in front of my face—I think they were talking about Datsyshyn. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

no I talk about you bringing Rose Delaunay in for DYK on top of the TFA, and as I typically have one or more RD, that was what made it, Bilorv. It was 2 RD when the day started. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

In the set with Bezsmertna on top, I have also a hymn (Ein Danklied ...) - could that please be moved somewhere else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! - What do I have to do to receive this cute barnstar, Bilorv? - tlc, I looked at the GIF FAC, and saw that you have many commenters already, - do you really want more questions to deal with? I'm willing, though, - much more fun than endless debates to make a hook 10% quirkier ;) - Did you see that Dan made a lilypond combining the Morgenstern song with Prayer for Ukraine, and it works? Amazing!!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: it's not about timeliness, it's about making the article better—doesn't make sense to have an imperfect FAC. no deadline, right? You can add yourself to wall-to-wall by following the link in the barnstar message, adding your name to the list, and adding your evidence in the ref section. we shall then award you said barnstar :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

also, please show me said lilypond theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

for the last, you go to my talk and look for "surprise listen", or DanCherek, or "harmonious", or just browse from the bottom, - I really thought you might have seen it ;) - the FAC: I'll do but think it's a bit unfair to other FACs lacking participation - the surreal: do I really enter myself, really? - well, I'll try --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

i mean, the barnstar was totally bilorv's thing (i didn't ask 'em to do that), but yeah, it's an honour thing—the last thing we need is another process that requires review. It's just for fun. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

sure, I'm still surprised that I may enter myself - would be like someone gave themselves Precious - also a fun thing without reviews, - reminds me that today's TFA writer didn't get it yet ... - I struggled a bit with the "evidence", thanks for your help, please check if I succeeded in the end. extra bonus for 2 ITN, + I there were two DYK reviewed by me ;) - I'm sure I'd also get the "all positions for DYK" but am too lazy to search for the evidence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Off the top of my head, you also get "rock around the clock" (although my major kudos goes to you for keeping what is clearly a consistent sleep schedule), "maximalist" (List of Bach cantatas), and quite a few others that i can't be bothered to search for the evidence for either. you have a very consistent style that prevents you from getting a few of these, like "minimalist" and "alphabet". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I give barnstars a bit consistently tbh, but I've tried to give one to everybody who's either won a few Challenges or one I think is very difficult. Having a nominations process or (a horrifying thought) trying to search for every editor who's won every Challenge would be a lot more time-consuming for me, and I can trust people to add themselves honestly. Given you a Surreal for "Wall-to-wall coverage", Gerda. — Bilorv (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually, there was a fifth on the same Main page in the early hours, but I wouldn't know how to evidence that, credit for Oksana Shvets came 23 March, and she left 25 Mar early. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt it's an honour thing, remember? and even if it weren't—just provide two diffs in your ref, one for when it was put on, one for when it was taken off, and add a little explanation if you want. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

fine, i'll copy the two diffs - just because Oksana Shvets should be honoured as well --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

back to the easy challenge with the eight DYK positions: as i'm too lazy to search in the past, you could just make it happen ;) - today is position 2 (was yesterday also), Stephen MacLeod was 5, in prep I have positions 1 (q6 and q8), 6 (q7), and 4 (p3, which leaves just the others to be filled, 3, 7 and 8, - i may struggle with a quirky ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: i think finding a quirky in your DYK list would qualify me for a master's degree in paleontology :) oh, and on the balance, you were right about the thing before- don't waste your time on a buttoned-up FAC, your considerable skills should be used to decrease the backlog. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Now you tell me, now that I decided looking at the FAC would be the second thing to do today (after saving a draft for the Mainspace) ;) - you misunderstood about quirky, and the whole intention, - it happens. let's not look at the past archives, but make it in the future: please help me squeeze a quirky out of my articles to be nominated, and then place it there, on top of moving the next 2 to positions 3 and 7 :) - i don't feel it's cheating because I'm really sure I had all positions at some time, - making it on consecutive days might be a sharper challenge but won't work for those mentioned, - nothing on 1 April, - but perhaps within 2 weeks? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

GA

Thanks for picking up the Lucy Feagin GA. I tried to ask for comparison articles on the Women In Green talk page with no luck. SL93 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The article is being copyedited by the GOCE now. I'm surprised it's so soon with the current backlog, but I'm glad. SL93 (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: oh, excellent—that makes my job quite a bit easier. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The copyedit has been completed. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm just wondering where the process is on this. SL93 (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: "where the process is"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Where the process is on the review. Like the current status of the review. SL93 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: by my count, I've still got a couple days on my self-imposed week deadline. sit tight, i'll do my best. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

You said "in about a week" which I took to mean "almost a week" and I'm often a literal person. I think one of my next GA nominations will be taco pizza when I create it later this month. I'm eating taco pizza from Casey's at the moment and it is beautiful. SL93 (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tek Fog

Hi Leeky! Is it okay if you take a look at this article and nom and give some feedback? I'm not really sure about the article's neutrality or content and given my inexperience with the topic and subject I was hoping for feedback from more experienced editors. Thanks! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Hi, sorry! I took a look—it seems as though you're doing well so far. I'll give it a more thorough dig-through if I end up promoting it, but I don't see a need to jump in yet. Good work! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ainsley Hayes

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ainsley Hayes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rlink2 -- Rlink2 (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Prep 3

I noticed that you placed a bio/non-bio double hook right beside a double hook with two biographies. It seems overkill to me. SL93 (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: thanks! missed that one theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ainsley Hayes

The article Ainsley Hayes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ainsley Hayes for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rlink2 -- Rlink2 (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jason Robertson (ice hockey)

Hi Leeky! I see you promoted this hook already. However, I noticed that you promoted ALT2, a hook that I explicitly rejected on broad appeal grounds (in fact, in my opinion, it was the most niche of all the hooks that were proposed in the nomination). The only hook I approved was ALT1. Is it okay if you clarify why you promoted ALT2 over ALT0 or ALT1? Thanks! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:WantedTemplates

Hi! Would it be possible for you to add

/* <nowiki> */

to the top and

/* </nowiki> */

to the bottom of User:Theleekycauldron/DYK stats notifier.js? By putting these tags inside of javascript comments, it won't impact the functionality of your script, but it will keep the backend software from transcluding Template:DYK views\ . You will know if the tags worked if Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:DYK views\ no longer shows your page. By fixing these, we can keep the number of entries in Special:WantedTemplates to a minimum. Thank you in advance for your help! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Plastikspork: done, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks but I didn't see any changes to User:Theleekycauldron/DYK stats notifier.js and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:DYK views\ still shows your javascript page? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

ah, whoops- done now theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! If you want your script to still work, you will need to put those tags inside of comments like this. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Plastikspork: it's endearing that you think my code only suffers from one mistake. you have a higher opinion of it than i do ;) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe

Maybe you might want to decide what hook to promote for Template:Did you know nominations/Germaine Bailac. I undid my promotion because after I chose the 3,000 times hook fact, Gerda Arendt mentioned it on my talk page (like I predicted she would). After Gerda said that she was just the copyeditor and that she would drop it, it didn't happen. Apparently, Gerda is more than just a simple copyeditor since she tried multiple times to "educate me" after supposedly "dropping it" on my talk page and even brought up if the hook was about my mother. Weird...and what if I hated my mother or she left me as a baby or something? Neither are true, but that bugged me. Gerda did mention that the 3,000 times fact is not directly cited. Even though that is easily solvable by posting on the creator's talk page, I am annoyed and I don't want to deal with it. The comment from Gerda that started with "I said I let it go = leave it. I still would like you to understand." is contradictory. SL93 (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: For what it's worth, have you or another editor tried checking if the 3,000 times part is mentioned in reference 10? It's the closest reference to the relevant sentence. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not interested at this point. The conversation that happened on my talk page is exactly why I didn't mention the interesting to a broad audience criterion to Gerda for a long time. SL93 (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: Given that multiple editors noted on the nomination page that the Phenice roles were uninteresting to a broad audience I'm just tempted to reject those hooks outright. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

If that hook is directly cited and chosen, I'm hoping that the promoter isn't "educated" by Gerda and have their mother brought up in a conversation. SL93 (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

a shame- it would have been interesting if she did actually create the role (the way "create" is commonly understood). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I never understood her argument over parents or grandparents not wanting hooks about something that they are not best known for. Depending on the person, I'm sure a person best-known for one thing would appreciate or even like something little known about them being highlighted, like an unusual interest or hobby. For example, if a person was best known for being a nuclear physicist but a DYK hook about them mentioned that they had a side gig of playing in a rock band on weekends, I'm sure the physicist would find the hook funny since them being in a rock band is probably something they love doing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

there's an old joke I love; it's January 20, and the first Jewish president of the United States is being inaugurated. His mother leans over to the incoming secretary of State and says "see the guy up there, with his hand on the chumash? his brother's a doctor." So that mother, at least, would be fine with a niche hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I beg a boon of thee

Hey kid! Kicking ass and taking names, I see. So I have this very nice person who is clerking ANI (I know), User:Curbon7. Would you spend a moment looking them over for a possible admin run before we put this user up at online poll? Is there anything going on I'm not seeing? What do you think? (And remember how much you wish you could have fixed your archives before the RfA? This is your chance to help someone else avoid such a misstep.) Please consider fully bringing your sharp eyes and sound judgement to the task. Thanks and GO HUSKIES! BusterD (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey, BusterD! always a good day when you drop by :) Seems like you've found an excellent candidate!

• Edit count is excellent; he may take an oppose or two since their length of service is relatively similar to mine, but I doubt it.
• Not drowning in GA buttons, but two controversial, high-profile BLPs brought to GA shows a very good understanding of the ins and outs of content policy.
• Excellent participation in admin spheres, including ANI, AfD, AIV, and UAA—first candidate I've seen to already have a perfect adminscore, and he comes across as levelheaded and competent.
• A little foul-mouthed, but I'm not seeing any concerning amount of incivility.
• Dragged to ANI, but it was a bogus complaint; blocked once due to a compromised account, so that'll be something y'all'll get out of the way.

Of course, none of this is a substitute for having that talk where you ask him to reveal anything he ain't proud of, and ORCP won't fill that either; but on spec, looks like an fine editor who'll make a great admin! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Expect the candidate to have to answer questions about the reason for his Hall of Shame subpage's existence, BusterD. Similar subpages have caused trouble for otherwise fantastic candidates. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, A. C. Santacruz is correct—and shame on me for not checking for the exact thing that sunk my own RfA. His is more acceptable than mine, but that'll need to be dealt with. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

All sorts of wikilove being passed around THIS thread. The kind of love which receives and heals. Wow. Nice moment, my friends. Must be a phase of the moon thing; I'm certainly moon-ruled. I'd like to invite that person over to this place to see how wikiloved they are. BusterD (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz, BusterD, Theleekycauldron,

Thanks for your comments. I have struck that userpage and added the following amendment:

"I created this following an incident whereupon a disruptive user started viciously and unnecessarily insulting me; it made me feel really bad actually, so this was sort of my attempt to cope with that by making humor out of the incident. However, I did not further edit this after that, as I realized how terrible an idea it would be to have such a userpage, and there are far better ways of dealing with on-Wiki abuse. I've also come to understand that it is just a bad idea in general to monument negativity, as who would want to remember the bad times. This is only being kept as a relic."

To the best of my knowledge, this was the only skeleton in my closet. Curbon7 (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

We love you more for openly admitting foibles. It's like a twelve-step thing. NOTE: if you were to put yourself forward for RfA, know that ANY remnants of bone will be unearthed and archeologically prodded. Many candidates feel the probing in remote parts of their anatomy and it's, well, uncomfortable. Thanks for putting yourself forward. BusterD (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Curbon7: it made me feel really bad actually, so this was sort of my attempt to cope with that by making humor out of the incident.

I, uh... I know the feeling.

But listen- BusterD is right, you're gonna get prodded over this. I personally don't think it's RfA-sinking, you've clearly learned your lesson, but this is the point where I've outlived my objectivity. I'm happy to give advice as long as y'all still need it through this process, but this should be the point where you start to get serious about it—if you make it through the ORCP in good shape, talk to Ritchie333, talk to Barkeep49, get their assessments on your chances if they haven't weighed in already. I'm a lightweight in the process, and I can pretty much only speak to my own experience. Best of luck to you going forward, and I sincerely hope you pass with the flying colours deserved. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Theleekycauldron. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)