Wikipedia talk:Did you know

I enjoy seeing several of my hooks in the queues, but remind of the one in Special occasions 29 August. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting it in for Sunday. But I wonder how in editing the most important word got lost, in 1725 he FINALLY .... It was quite unusual for Bach to use a text ten years old, normally he would take something really contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the word "finally" is that it is supported by neither the article text nor supporting source. As a result, when performing the hook review I was left with the choice of either rejecting the hook or removing the single offending word. Given this choice I went with making the small wording change that allowed the hook to be promoted. --Allen3 ^talk 15:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. I took it from the book in German and forgot that it is not mentioned in the web source. - To the next one, please, for 5 September, would you or someone else please have a look. This time it's a singer, because all three cantatas for the 14th Sunday after Trinity were already covered. I like to have some time left for a discussion about the hook like above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Checks of Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count show that after a period of slow by steady decline, the backlog is once again growing. A check of the suggestions page also shows that WikiCup contestants are once again submitting large numbers of articles in apparent anticipation of the final round of this year's contest starting tomorrow. As we have not had the time needed to work off that backlog that occurred from the last round of WikiCup, it appears inevitable that new discussions on ways to deal with the backlog will soon occur. Instead of repeating the usual suggestion of raising minimum article size, I would like to propose an alternate system: capping the number of nominations each user is allowed to make each day.

The scheme I envision is that each user be allowed to submit a maximum of 4 (an average of one hook per update) nominations under each days header on the suggestions page. Any individual desiring to nominate more than this number of articles for a single day would need to either submit multi-article hooks or stagger their article creations across two or more days. As the individuals that submit more hooks that this are almost always experienced users who should be familiar with how to utilize user subpages, the primary problem this scheme would create is a small logistical cost of requiring users to move only a limited number of entries into the article namespace on a single day.

Enforcement of this provision should be similar to the way we handle nominations coming in after the 5 day nomination period. That is the rule is largely ignored for minor violations or when the backlog is small, but adhering to the letter of the rule in periods of high backlog and days with submissions significantly outnumbering the quantity of hooks we can run on a single day. --Allen3 ^talk 17:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with this, especially since it allows "outs" for minor violations or when the backlog is small. Also, I think a key point is that it doesn't limit the number of DYK credits, since multi-article hooks are allowed. So users for whom piling up DYK credits is important (as in the case of WikiCup) still have a way to do it, without aggravating our backlog. cmadler (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I could live with this, provided the cap is explicitly on hooks, never on articles; as written above. (Anyone who can actually churn out four DYK-length articles in a day is probably writing on similar enough subjects to combine hooks anyhow.) Courcelles 18:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sounds reasonable. Nsk92 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I find this proposal both reasonable and laudable. - Dravecky (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal, but would suggest dropping the limit to 3 or even 2 nominations a day. I've seen users submit 5 to 6 noms under one day. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The WikiCup rules need to be changed to calculate total prose size instead of article count as there are more than a few people flooding GAN with 2kb articles on sportspeople who played 2-3 games and that kind of thing, and the same here. The obvious thing that is happening is microslicing, and if that's the way the rules are, that's what will happen YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I could go as low as 3, but I think 2 per day is too low. cmadler (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, would this apply to all nominations, or just to self-nominations? Every so often I'm in the mood to prowl NewPages and nominate articles by new or inexperienced users to get them a bit more exposure. I'm not worried either way, as I haven't gone over about four a day since 2007, but I figured if we *are* going to add a new rule, it should be clear to everyone exactly what we're talking about. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the proposal. Another possibility, though possibly more difficult to monitor, would be a limit of X hooks per week or Y hooks per month. Cbl62 (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I see little benefit in this. Rules tend to accumulate over time into an ever more opaque system; I think we should only add a new rule if there is a clear benefit, and I don't see that here. No one has actually cited any data (how many people actually submit >4 hooks per day?), but I doubt it's a common occurrence. As Allen3 himself said, those who do produce so many articles can easily game the rule by putting the articles on a user subpage, so what is the benefit? (I don't think I have ever nominated four hooks on a single day, so I'm not personally affected by the rule.) Ucucha 23:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue happens more often than you apparently realize. At this moment the top six nominations at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on August 25 are all from the same author on similar topics while there are five articles from the sam eauthor dealing with illustrators under the entries for August 28. Another block of five was present in the August 21 suggestions from earlier today. Examples of other large blocks that have prompted discussion on this page during the last two months are available at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 57#Spacing similar articles and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 57#Vietnamese DYK overload?. These large blocks cause problems by first increasing the backlog and then creating scheduling headaches due to the need to space hooks on similar topics across multiple updates. This proposal is meant to help the backlog issue by encouraging the proposal of multi-article hooks for large groups of similar articles. When that is not practical, the limit spreads out the similar hooks over time to reduce problems for the volunteers performing the work of scheduling other people's submissions. --Allen3 ^talk 23:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Wouldn't a simpler way to spread out the hooks over time be just spreading them out over time, without the need for an additional rule? Ucucha 00:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 1-3 a day. Instead of hindering article improvement, it could foster multiple article hooks. We had some good ideas in a previous discussion such as deletion after 5 days past notification and no improvement along with deletion of late noms. I am not sure if they were actually made rules, maybe can create all three.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Per the issue raised by GeeJo, what about limiting self-noms to 2 a day, but placing no limit on noms of articles by other editors? cmadler (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• "that both Patrol 35, based in Israel, and Tsagaan Khass, based in Mongolia, are openly neo-Nazi organizations?"

The problem is, the hook is unsupported by the article. The hook is in the present tense. The article describes a 2007 incident and does not say that the group is still active. It is rather awkward to accuse Israel of having an active New=Nazi group when the article is weitten entirely in the past tense.AMuseo (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Currently lead in Q5 "that Miss Russia 2010 Irina Antonenko (pictured) has no boyfriend?"; to me that is REALLY boring and non-notable. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It also sounds as an advertisement and I would support demotion of this hook, unless the author comes out with an ALT. Materialscientist (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather grossly inappropriate than boring and non-notable, I would say. I have placed the nomination back on the suggestions page. Ucucha 22:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

<shrugs>I thought it was very funny myself and while certainly not serious, it was quirky and not offensive. I'd stick with it. I note Gatoclass, DYK's most experienced editor, was prepared to give it a tick. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added some alt hooks. Offliner is currently on vacation and prob won't see this discussion, so I trust that one of the alt hooks will suffice in order to get the article back on the front page for DYK? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 11:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What is interesting is in the eye of the beholder and hooks generally shouldn't be pulled for lack of interest unless there is near unanimity on their unsuitability, and here there were a number of reviewers, including myself, who thought the hook was fine. "Beauty queen doesn't have boyfriend" is certainly counterintuitive and therefore meeting the "unusual" critera, so I find it hard to understand the objection to it. Certainly I'm sure it would have got plenty of hits, which is what hooks are designed to do. Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well said, G. Bencherlite^Talk 13:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree, and personally found the hook amusing. I'm sure it would have gotten a lot of hits where it was. Maybe a good compromise is to save it for April Fools' Day 2011? –Grondemar 13:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess the hook may have looked worse in the queue than it did at T:TDYK - that happens sometimes. It occurs to me that I was originally going to propose a tweak for it but never got around to it, as follows: " ... that Miss Russia 2010 Irina Antonenko (pictured) says she has no time for a boyfriend?". I think that would probably remove the hint of sexism that I assume has led to the objections. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The last proposal is much better. The original one could be misinterpreted in dozens of ways: she is looking for one and thus posted a message on WP MP? She is not straight? Hasn't got one because of the beauty competitions (life of a beauty competitor is tough .. sigh) etc. Materialscientist (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a better hook. cmadler (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The RHS is very long today and 3-4 hooks each could be squeezed into the three remaining DYK updates. My computer is too slow to do much DYK processing nowadays, with the nom page YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In T:DYK/Q4, the last hook should be changed from

{{sclass|John Ericsson|monitor|3|warship}}s ↔ John Ericsson-class monitors

to

[[John Ericsson class monitor|'''''John Ericsson''-class''']] [[monitor (warship)|monitors]] ↔ John Ericsson-class monitors

Cheers. Haus^Talk 15:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also reworded it to:

• ... that mattresses lined the inside of the gun turrets of the Swedish John Ericsson-class monitors in order to catch splinters?

because the original wording ("that the inside of the gun turret of the Swedish John Ericsson-class monitors was lined with mattresses to catch splinters?") sounded slightly odd - "was lined" struck me as awkward when there was more than one turret in question (because there was more than one ship), but "were lined" sounded bad too, since "inside... were lined" doesn't agree. Comments / improvements? Bencherlite^Talk 15:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant to suggest changing a hook that's already passed through the process, but something like the following might make readers more curious, and more likely to click-through.

• ... that the Swedish John Ericsson-class monitors had mattresses stuffed inside their gun turrets?

Cheers. Haus^Talk 16:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Special occasions nom for 5 September: please have a look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Getting nervous, also going to travel, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, my double hook for Carnegie (ship) and the Carnegie Ridge on August 25, is still unchecked. I'm not complaining, but just want to point out that I will be on a bit of a wikibreak from tomorrow, so I would be grateful if someone could take a look at them, that way, if there are any issues I can respond before I travel, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Now ticked, so I can sign off, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

When I reviewed this nomination, I expressed my opinion that the alt hook, ... that the Azerbaijan National Carpet Museum (pictured) was first established in a mosque?, was preferable, as it really is unsurprising that the Azerbaijan National Carpet Museum has the largest collection of Azerbaijani carpets in the world. Any other thoughts on this? Mikenorton (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

changed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was just writing an approval note on ALT4 of this hook when it was taken off the suggestions page and ALT1 was placed here. Both the nominator and I felt that ALT4 was a little bit more hookier:

... that King of France Louis XIV (1638–1715) perfumed his shirts with toilet water?

Would it still be possible to change that? -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

IMHO this is decidedly less hooky and interesting because it's missing the "heavenly water" part. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• And whoever put "toilet water" before "heavenly water" made the hook better. I have high hopes for that hook, it is good. --NortyNort (Holla) 10:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am posting this here at User:Cirt's suggestion . . .

Klosterbergen was at AfD, so I completely rewrote it, correcting the errors of fact and expanding it more than fivefold, moved it to the correct title, Kloster Berge school, and since there turned out to be an interesting hook fact, put it up for DYK. However, Cirt relisted the AfD to get more participation, and as I expected, taht means the nomination went stale and got junked [1]. Cirt evidently thought a pending AfD would entail some extra time, and still tells me there should be an exception made in such cases. I clearly should not take a position on whether the article should be kept or not, but it's a radical rewrite, so . . . I'm mentioning it as he suggested. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly recommend allowing this to be considered as a DYK candidate. Exceptions should most definitely be made to articles pending candidacy due to ongoing AFD discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I see it is still at AFD right now. I still think it should be allowed to be a candidate at DYK, but of course that would have to wait until after the ongoing AFD is closed and resolved. At that point in time, it can be considered. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I also think that should remain a DYK candidate. I've alway thought our practice was that DYK nominations where the article was at AfD were put on hold until the AfD was resolved. This can delay it beyond our normal time-frame, but if it survives the AfD, the DYK should still be permitted. cmadler (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Cmadler (talk · contribs), but yea, at the moment, it still is at AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The AfD has now been closed as keep. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is fine to go to DYK it should get a priority as it has been checked for many things already Victuallers (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I just made this image the lead for what is currently in PrepExtra then noticed it is on Commons but with a copy right tag. Have invited the uploaded, Chanakal, to comment here. So how is this free when it has a copyright tag? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

On seeing this thread I suspected possible flickr washing, but the upload appears to be legitimate. Backtracking to the original Flickr image shows the name in the watermark matches the name on the account and that the image is licensed under CC-BY-SA. While the watermark is annoying it does not conflict with the upload information and everything else I can see checks out. --Allen3 ^talk 15:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

When uploading the photo, watermark is certainly annoyed me. However I proceeded as the information matched and I've seen images by the same author in our articles such as this image. Although the author releases the image under creative commons license, seems to me he fears the users might not attribute him credit properly.--Chanaka L (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Allen3, this appears to be legitimate. Digital watermarking happens; there's even a commons template for this.cmadler (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue/5 has 2 consecutive Albanian Riviera hooks. I think the usual practice is to at least separate them, or put them in different queue files. Art LaPella (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've separated them. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Taurus-Littrow hook in PrepExtra should read: ...that the mountains surrounding the Taurus-Littrow valley, the landing site of Apollo 17 on the Moon, are higher than the Grand Canyon is deep? This was the version that was approved. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Extremely disappointing that the 11 article Vietnam province marathon currently on the front page didn't even make it to the lead hook when the current two are barely beond stub class. Dr. Blofeld 08:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment relocated from suggestions page. - Dravecky (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Might just be me, but a lead hook stating that 11 different Vietnamese-named places are provinces of Vietnam isn't a very interesting lead hook. JMO, but I agree with the admin's decision to not use it as lead. Strange Passerby (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a glimmer of appreciation for the extreme hard work that went into the articles is my point. Why do we bother? Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone took the time to review 11 articles in hook and promote them. Also, there have been recent lead hooks on Vietnam. Is there some rule that says "if there are several new articles in a hook it has to be the lead hook"? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Dr. Blofeld, lead hooks are chosen on the basis of interestingness and, particularly, what has a good picture to go along with it. As far as I know, we almost never use maps (neither does TFA). Secondly, coming here to complain about your own hook like this is not very classy...

@ everyone else: I would not worry about this too much. Dr. Blofeld is a hardworking editor but he does have some extreme views when it comes to geographical and city articles, he seems to think those are the only articles that deserve peoples' attention. In fact, he has in the past called me and another editor nationalist Uyghur sympathizers because we didn't spend all of our time working on city articles ([2][3]. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) For DYK purposes, I think the articles were represented well. Otherwise, they are good articles and a fine addition to Wikipedia. Not every new article can be or has been made into a DYK. Nothing to be disheartened by, especially if it was just placement.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Following on from this discussion a couple of weeks ago, I'd like to clarify the situation on whether or not we should promote articles for inclusion in DYK if they are largely a copy + paste of a public domain source? Currently John Greenhill is on T:TDYK (here) and the editor has admitted that it is mainly copied from the Dictionary of National Biography. Considering that a few weeks ago an article which had many other sources, but was mainly built around a PD source, was declined, should we do the same for this nomination? If so, should we add a note to the rules to let editors know that articles using PD text are not eligible? Smartse (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't promote such articles. This has been discussed several times over the past year or two, I'll see what I can find in the archives. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Just in case a ref is not found. My understanding is - An article cannot be cut and pasted from a PD source, but of course a subject that is in a PD source is not banned from DYK. PD sources can be used ..... but you cannot cut and paste. Articles need to be original Victuallers (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A sampling of past discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 53#Articles copy/pasted from PD sources
• Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 55#Sea Serpent (clipper)
• Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 32#Removal of Early history of Turkmenistan from DYK template
• Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 48#Citizendium ports

Some of these are more about specific cases and some are more conceptual. I haven't taken the time to read through all of them and gauge consensus, but my recollection is that there is usually a consensus (perhaps only a slight one) against using PD copy-paste articles. I should note, though, that I am a pretty vocal anti-copy-paste person, so my judgment of the consensus might be biased. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If 1500 characters readable prose of the said article were original, I don't see why it shouldn't be elidible. But then again, its whole text would have to come under close scrutiny for paraphrasing as well. I am also not a fan of copying and pasting.--NortyNort (Holla) 16:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling that these often fairly large copied-and-pasted articles from EB, Catholic Encyclopaedia, DNB etc. discourage new and original writing (not original research, there is a difference). Many stay more or less the same for years, and Wikipedia editors appear to feel bound by a disposition and content determined by a 19th-century view of a topic rather than recent research. If the purpose of DYK is to encourage new writing representing a current view of a topic, as I believe it should be, these copied PD texts should be disallowed from DYK and if a new replacement article eventually gets written, it should be regarded as completely new, even if it isn't five times larger than the content it replaces.

Another point: DYK credits are clearly valued by many users, and it is hardly fair to those users who actually make an effort researching and writing articles, if some users get DYK credits for just copying something without even trying to rewrite it in their own words. (Disclaimer: I have written articles based at least in part on articles in the more recent ODNB. I try to rewrite in my own words and summarize sources rather than make uncomfortably close paraphrases, even if means that the article ends up shorter than it could otherwise have been.) --Hegvald (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There are articles almost entirely composed of PD text which have made it to FA. If they are good enough for FA, I don't see why they shouldn't be good enough for DYK. As long as the text is fully wikified, modified where appropriate, properly referenced etc. I don't see a problem. We do of course give preference to original articles so when there is a large backlog it is not unreasonable to reject articles which consist wholly of cut-and-pasted PD text. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If they are good enough for FA, I don't see why they shouldn't be good enough for DYK. I absolutely disagree. FA and DYK evaluate completely different things. There are lots of articles that qualify for FA but not for DYK. cmadler (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, the idea is to encourage the creation of new articles that are actually new. Cutting and pasting a hunk of public domain text (which, I confess, I have done with proper notification for a few NASA administrator articles--none submitted to DYK) is little better than splitting content from an existing Wikipedia article to create a "new" article. In either case, while a red link may have been turned blue no genuinely new content has been created. - Dravecky (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is an interesting topic. A few days ago I wrote an article Duel at Lake Merced. I used 3 public domain sources from which I copied and pasted the text into the article, and I believe at least 3 other sources to include more info to the article. Then I went to the place of the duel, and took the image. I spent 40 minutes working with it in photo shop specially for this article. I did include all public domain books and other sources I used in the reference section.At the article's talk page I specified that I copied and pasted the public domain text. I've done lot's of research, found information from 6 different sources, and ... was severely attacked at the article's talk page. It was an interesting article, illustrated with 2 public domain images (both uploaded by me) yet I asked this article to be deleted because of that unwarranted attack at the talk page. Did I do something wrong, when I copied and pasted the text from PD sources into the article, and if I did not, could this article be DYK, if it is restored? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unwinding the proper attribution of the quoted/paraphrased text plus the severe copyedit required to address grammar and plagiarism concerns would keep a merely restored article from the front page. Perhaps if you were to rewrite the article in your own words, properly attributing sources of facts and quoted text, and create this as a new article in the future it would be addressed at that time. Also, I'm concerned by the obvious but unlabelled photo-manipulation of your photograph of the obelisks. That artwork isn't actually present at the site, is it? - Dravecky (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded it to wikipedia File:The place of the duel between Broderick and Terry .jpg. I used my own image, and another PD image File:Duel between Broderick and Terry.jpg as it specified in the image description "I (Mbz1 (talk)) created this work entirely by myself using my own image and public domain image File:Duel between Broderick and Terry.jpg" So I am not sure why do you call it "unlabelled" but you may delete it of course. There's no need for the image with no article.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Edit protected}}

The Taurus-Littrow hook in Queue 1 should read: ...that the mountains surrounding the Taurus-Littrow valley, the landing site of Apollo 17 on the Moon, are higher than the Grand Canyon is deep? This was the version that was approved. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Economy of Beijing has just been placed on the main page. It was entirely written by the multiple blocked sockpuppet User:Causeplot767. Withdraw this hook from the MP? Materialscientist (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I say yesVictuallers (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• ... that Beijing is home to 26 Fortune Global 500 companies, the third most in the world behind Tokyo and Paris?

Replaced the above hook. If there is a motion, it can be placed in queues later. Materialscientist (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Err. G5ed the article per WP:BAN, specifically "Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors. A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good" NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Other opinions welcome of course. If consensus is to restore it that's fine, but I'm fairly convinced it's a G5 case. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)