User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2022/February

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your honest introspection in response to question 20. The ability to realize your mistakes, straight-up admit that you were wrong without making excuses, and reflect on how it helped you grow shows true character and a level of maturity which a lot of us never reach — this makes you eminently worthy of administratorship in my book. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel that you are being opposed much out of proportion to what the actual incident merits. Regardless of the outcome, I hope you don't let it get to you, and that you continue the good work you have been doing. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@The Most Comfortable Chair: thank you! :D i really do appreciate that. don't worry, i'm arguably feeling better than I did before the RfA started—and there's lots of work to be done in the West Wing universe and at DYK (and, lately, people named claudia?). who knows what this year's gonna bring next? it's been great so far :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm glad you haven't lost motivation for Wikipedia; I really appreciate your work around here. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that as someone who opposed, I'm glad to see you're taking this in your stride. Hopefully there are no hard feelings, and I look forward to seeing you around the project. And to any TPS, the RfA has been sitting in the open requests for over an hour now, so if someone (who didn't oppose) could sort out the templates that would be great. Now done. Regards, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 12:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

No hard feelings, Giraffer! Look forward to working with you as well :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 13:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I returned to your RfA after vacation, ready to tell you to withdraw just by the numbers, but then looked at the support in more detail thinking you still had a chance, by arguments. You decided, and I accept. However, please don't strike your acceptance, with all it included. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: could've made it if it were closed right then, but the opposes were piling up too fast; everyone I knew had already voted, and the people just getting to know me didn't always like what they saw. sorry about the strikethrough, too—not sure i should do that now, though :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I talked to the closer, and you could do the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The closer said there be a final crat, no need for you to do anything now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gerda Arendt, I just saw your ping. I have removed the strikeout text as request. Theleekycauldron, I'm sorry your first RfA wasn't successful, I know firsthand that that can be a very dispiriting experience. On the plus side, many of the opposers have given you a roadmap of sorts as to what to do to earn their confidence next time around. It looks like the RfA has been properly archived despite all the crats being asleep, but if you see something that was missed, or need anything else, feel free to drop by my talk page. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@28bytes It looks like the RfA has been properly archived despite all the crats being asleep good to hear, I was worried I missed a step. @Gerda Arendt I just saw your pings but your query appears to be resolved now. Sorry for not responding: RL suddenly demanded time of me. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 15:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I hope that the RFA doesn't dampen your spirit about Wikipedia. Much of the opposes were unfair. SL93 (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Not at all, SL93 :) you think I'm anywhere near done bugging all of you about the minor changes i make to your hooks? nuh-uh, I'm in this for the long haul theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Per the most recent diff of this page. The one involving picking at your face. 🐔dat (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

(: thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

No, thanks to you, for bringing an online smile to my face. 🐔dat (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You gave it your best efforts. There is always tomorrow, and another chance somewhere down the line. In the meantime, keep on with the good work you do for all of us — Maile (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry it didn't work out, but I think everything anyone said is totally fixable. So it's just one giant gift of feedback! :D valereee (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

i love giant gifts of feedback! :D my favourite. And also, thanks, Maile! rest assured, I'm not going anywhere just yet. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 13:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Really sorry for forgetting to attend your RfA. I'm busy in my home wiki and real life, so I forgot to look after enwiki. I've seen the answers to the RfA, and none of this is immature. Those who doubt you think that people can't change in a matter of months, but who I am talking to now clearly disproves that statement. Some other people have warned you to wait for several months for the RfA, but you pushed forward regardless. You might have lost the battle, but you won the war. Prove to them that you are not the 16-year-old they might think about.

P.S. To my future self reading this: yes I know this is cringe. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Jeromi Mikhael, and thank you! Maybe I should have waited a bit longer—although I think that growing up doesn't just happen with time, it comes with active reflection and self-work. I don't think I would have grown in the ways I have, and reconsidered how I handled the highlighted problems, without this RfA—in which case, I'm glad to have learned it early on :) you gotta embrace the fact that you'll cringe, jeromi—cringing is a sign of how much you've grown. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

About The RFA

I have lost significant respect for those who opposed based on the age factor and not on merit, thus the reason I’m firm believer in not compromising your real life identity on Wikipedia for whatever reason. Having said, please do not feel upset, you volunteered to take on a very tasking role and you withdrew due to objections raised and I applaud both your courage and maturity, not all would have had the maturity to do so. I noticed the age factor was a major concern but I didn’t bother to check precisely just how old, and still would not check because I deem it trifling, and has nothing to do with your proficiency and maturity. As I stated there, maturity isn’t a function of age, rather, it is a function of the mind. Please do continue your brilliant work in DYK, and if in the future you still want to be of help to the collaborative project please you can run again, some of our most brilliant admins ran up to three times before they eventually got the mop. Do remain safe. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Celestina007: thank you for the kind words! :) i'm grateful and proud to be where I am for my age, and I'm excited to see where growing up will take me next. this site has been a lovely place for me so far, and this RfA doesn't change that one bit. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi leeky. I wanted to just chime in and say how gracious I found your withdrawal message. It was a message that hopefully would help the community come back together after that difficult discussion. I give you a lot of credit for being able to write that. I think similar to Loudes, that 12 months could make a substantial difference in your RfA outcome. If you are ever interested in my doing a vet of your RfA prospects in the future please don't hesitate to reach out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: that means quite a lot from you :D I thought there was a chance I'd take an RfA loss badly going into it, but the timing and manner of this one gave me a lot of space to process and reflect before withdrawing, which is quite nice. I appreciate the offer, too—I'll definitely drop a note when its time! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I would like to echo these comments. Keep doing your great work at DYK, and try again some time! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz! for the record, the hedgehog flavour crisps hook is still my all-time favourite hook. And bear in mind that I've promoted something like a thousand of 'em now... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I hope the result isn't too much of a downer for you. I think you're very likely to succeed if you try again in six months or a year. (t · c) buidhe 19:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Not at all, buidhe; in fact, I'm weirdly happy with the RfA, despite the results. A year seems to be the general consensus; that feels quite a while from my point of view, but there's lots to do in the meantime :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Fuck it. You gave it your best, and that's all anyone can hope for. Not that a talk page message is going to fix everything, but I think you're all right, you're a great editor and you'll be a great admin. You did impressively well under ludicrous pressure, and even if I hadn't voted for you, I would have changed my mind after seeing that display of candor. jp×g 22:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@JPxG: you made my day, you know that? :D they say that governing is a job for statesmen—and damnit, if Jed Bartlet can take a congressional censure with his head held high, I can too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Chiming in with some support like everybody else. The opposition was quite embarrassing, and I hope we get to see you run again soon. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 13:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@ThadeusOfNazereth: thank ya kindly :) small question, and I'm sure I'm not the first to ask this—why nazereth, and not nazareth? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Good question! A few years ago I was in Los Angeles on summer break and bought a CD from a rapper who was selling them on the street since we had the same first name. He had it misspelled on the CD, and so when I started making this my username on everything I misspelled it as well as a sort of homage. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 10:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
ThadeusOfNazereth oh, that's an excellent answer! i thought you'd just, like, made the misspelling when you were younger and now it was too late/confusing to change it—but you've got, like, a backstory for it and everything! very noice :D

as an angeleno myself, i can confirm that the story is definitely plausible theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Congrats on the Triple Crown(s)! You might be interested in a userbox I made, {{User crown|Imperial}}:

This user has been awarded an Imperial Triple Crown.

— Bilorv (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel bad for you

I felt you had a good case. It's a shame to see it end this way. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 05:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223: don't feel bad! i certainly don't :) weirdly enough, I'm feeling happier at the destination than I was during the journey. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

2022

Happy new year, in friendship! - Today seems like a good day to say so, after a Bavarian peasants' mass (sorry, on the train home, no recent pics of that - just keep watching), and two DYK, even with a pic I took - thanks to you!. I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the DYK review of December, and yes to curiosity! - Christmas never fares well in terms of views, but that tells me the good news that people have better things to do those days than read Wikipedia's Main page ;) - I feel that there's a bit too much attention on DYK views (vs. facts), and think that we have general topics and niche topics, and can't expect general interest in the niche topics, and shouldn't compare. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, gerda, and happy new year! i know, i should probably be putting less emphasis on the pageviews, but the prospect of not being able to make charts and spreadsheets is quite daunting—i'm a numbers gal. Hey, that's what the quality quirkies are for, i suppose! :D

Also, re: Last Week Tonight: it is a bit of an unusual show, compared to other U.S. late night. It's 30 minutes, at least 20 of which is spent on a main segment where Oliver takes a dive into an important topic that might not get enough attention in mainstream press. Usually, that main segment dive is the only thing that gets lasting coverage—sometimes, there'll be one-off news stories about side segments, but those generally don't carry water (and by water, i mean independent critical analysis and significant coverage). When non-main segments on the show do get significant coverage in the press, it's usually a recurring shtick over a few weeks that all gets lumped into one story (see John Oliver Memorial Sewer Plant). But the main segment is usually, as far as Oliver's show goes, the only thing the press cares about—an article about an episode is generally going to focus on just the main segment, there's not enough coverage to include anything else. So, Oliver's show doesn't have any full-episode Wikipedia articles, but it does have four or five articles about main segments. Those are, for all intents and purposes, basically episodic articles. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for both! Views and general interest: I'm often told to address the interests of a broad readership, which seems to translate to mentioning sex crime Nazi. But for an opera singer, those who potentially will profit most from an article about the singer are possibly less interested in her having suffered under the Nazis but what kind of roles she performed. Then view count may be lower, but perhaps the "right" readers served better. - Oliver: you made me understand that MUCH better. I don't even have tv, if I may I say so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: "sex crime Nazi"? That's totally a unfair charge!

... sometimes we do meta-joke-about-wikipedia sex crime Nazi as well ;)

In all seriousness, you're right—you will draw in a more niche crowd who will take enjoyment from knowing the roles an actor or actress was in. But—I don't know, Gerda, you've got a crazy-huge audience at your fingertips. Isn't there an argument to be made that the "right" readers are the ones who don't even know that they're interested in a topic yet? I trust you to not stoop to "sex crime Nazi" regularly, but I also think that you have an opportunity to ask new people to take a look inside your world. We have an awesome power at dyk; people are coming to us, signaling that maybe they're open to hearing about new fields and broadening their horizons. Unfortunately, they will need some cattle-herding to actually broaden their horizons, because otherwise they just click on the familiar or go somewhere else. But if there's anyone who can not just appeal to the lowest common denominator, but raise it, it's you! You have a near-unrivaled track record of fascinating articles decorated in stars and pluses, lots of them off the beaten path of well-viewed Wikipedia articles. Is the "right" audience really the people who are already well-acquainted with the field of opera? Or is it the people you might just set down that path? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 10:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

it was meant as sort of extreme, but I'm not good in jokes ;) - seriously: if I have something to offer for an opera singer that's of broader interest, I take it, and you saw that. However, we write what sources tell us, and for opera singers, that's which roles they sang where, and those knowing a bit can tell by one such instance (and without a "purple" critic's description) how that voice sounds, and what the status in the opera world is. Ongoing discussion: Elena Guseva. We have the hard core fact that this young lady born in Siberia (which we could mention, but I believe the name sounds Eastern enough) was invited to sing at the Vienna State Opera (one of the top 5 for sure)! ... in a house premiere!! ... of a Russian famous composer!!! - which should all be interesting enough for our broad audience, but the reviewer wants the critic's description, with a direction towards sexy (which she was, admittedly, I was there). I usually like to mention what I saw, but in this case, I believe the other is much more powerful. what do you think? - also seriously: I feel I'm loosing too much time in these discussions. See my resolutions: I want to write more quality articles, and to do more reviewing. when a discussion about a 2000 char article amounts to five times that, something seems wrong. DYK isn't holy scriptures ;) - when I review, I often make suggestions for different hooks but say that I will approve the nominators's hook (provided it fits the criteria) it they prefer theirs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

upd, and that discussion grew as predicted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'm so sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner, I've been drowning recently. (for the record, I was also kidding ;D) yeah, I could've told you that that discussion was going to happen—you know how nlh5 tends to be with your hooks sometimes. I don't have the bandwidth to weigh in, I'm sorry, I'm still spread a little thin. Best of luck, though—I'm sure you both are able to work this out sans me! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

no need to be sorry, and sorry if you thought I wanted you to weigh in - no, I just described what I saw coming, and what a waste of time that is, and what bothers me even more is that this was really a good hook for both lay and experts on multiple layers (I took the time to explain in a numbered list, sort of a good-bye). If you read my nyresolutions (click below the image, it's rather short): I will only from time to time write the short DYK article, and focus on higher quality. I wrote little articles (about one a day) to have a zone free from infobox discussions DYK? ;) - happily on vacation, click on songs, and all this seems so far away --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Should I help myself to stats for Berggarten? ... and if yes how? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: glad to see you focusing on what makes you happy :) Berggarten is already on the stats page, but I've stopped handing out {{DYK views}} templates while I work on automating it. That routine broke down a little. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

St. Martin, Moosach, is a parish, - the lead hook says the parish is pictured and shows the old church, sorry that's nonsense. The star singers from the parish are pictured on the image of the new church, on its left. The old church has nothing to do with Merkel in 2012, because the new church served the parish from 1925. The pretty pic of the old church was to go with the original hook. Easiest solution: swap images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: whoops! fixed that for ya theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

on second thought—i don't think the second image quite works out the way I want it to. If the image doesn't totally (in photo-op style) speak to the honour of receiving the chancellor, it's probably better to leave the picturing to the imagination. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

i'll ping you again, seems like you already found the first and I don't want you to miss this one theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

can we agree that the first image didn't speak to any current imagination, while the second at least pictures the star singers, and the bright conditions - with music! - they come from, - and that some of our readers may not be able to imagine star singers, and why they would be received by the chancellor, as a major source of charity? - whatever, can you please separate the two Germany-related hooks in one set? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: will do when I build the prep sets, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

congrats to your first FA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, gerda! :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

best of luck for your RfA - there seems to be an unwritten law that the candidate should only reply to asked questions, not to opposes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

next time you know ;) - 2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have the great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva (after that discussion estimated four times the article length), and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. If you were an admin you'd just do it, I know. Any admin watching? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: ten years of precious—I hope you're proud of yourself, you've warmed so many hearts :) I'm not sure what you mean by admin watching? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, Precious feels like a good thing to have done, inspired by great predecessors, - more musing on the history on User talk:Ipigott who asked. - Biller: died on 27 Jan, declared ready (WP:ITNN) on 29 Jan, and still not on the Main page. I thought admins watch this page, and one of them might have mercy ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: ah, I see—supporting an RfA to get some favours from a friend ;) sneaky sneaky of you. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

??? - update: we have now Guseva pictured, Biller pictured better (but still not on the Main page), and one more day of my pics - You can can go over my RfA supports : I neutrally and evenly go by Precious: when a candidate doesn't have it, I check if they could get it, and if yes, give and support, if not go away. I support candidates who work towards Wikipedia being better, such as the so-called Recent deaths showing recent deaths. When someone dies, and the article is made ready asap by several people who drop what they planned to do to make that happen, and then is not promoted to the Main page in days (4 by now after being ready, 3 after marked as ready), that's not only disappointing for the editors, but also fails the goal of recent. - By now, we had to deal with the next one who died, Heinz Werner Zimmermann, whose music we sang. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: sorry—I was only kidding about that :) Your criteria for an RfA seems as sturdy as your criteria for Arbs. Just joking about your ITN request, hope it gets there soon! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

accepted, you were only kidding, and I even knew that, but how about someone reading this discussion without context? ... also joking about recent deaths is dangerous anytime, but we deal with Bach's successor who is still not on the Main page. Just waking up, my February pic will arrive later today, - the only pic I took thinking of someone who died and named it after her Creek frozen, and one I like especially, for brightness and flow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Well I can confirm that before your RfA, I manually checked that your talk page had exactly 30 page stalkers (including me). Now, it 47! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: sigh, i'm really gonna have to update my archiving system, then, aren't i... :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

momentarily, you said, so here you go momentarily (although I'm ashamed to not have kept my promise of the Feb pic): because it's the very day, and we don't trust our readers to notice the significance without telling them. we could say "on this day in" 1727, but that wouldn't be much shorter, and - depending on time zone - often wrong. Biller went on the Main page, finally, but off again within less than 24 hours (and again the hours while Europe sleeps), so I'm not in the best mood. the world waits for you being an admin ;) - watch El C, who is just great, for a model while we wait, seriously. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: to my credit, I did figure it out before you came a-callin' :) i think the advantage of "295 years ago today" is that it pretty explicitly sets out what we're trying to accomplish with the date, so that dummies like me don't think it doesn't belong on accident. Appreciate the kind words, too :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

i'd agree if it was 300 years, but 295 seems an uneventful number, and requires math on the part of the reader to figure out when exactly. people knowing Bach's work - and they should after almost all Bach cantatas had a DYK ;) - could know immediately "ahh, after his great cycles, must be a mature work". (the great cycles were 1723-25, so close enough to not know immediately.) I don't know if i'd live to the 300, Yoninah ... - worried about The Rambling Man, another one where a day of not editing is unusual --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough—how about "on this day in 1727"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, i'll ping ya theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, I was wondering where TRM went... i do hope they're okay theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I said just above that I think it's not much shorter and wrong depending on time zone, but acceptable if you think that's better (while I believe that readers even on the 5th or 7th might figure out it's close). TRM has left with big noise several times but this absence feels different --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For TRM, see Special:Diff/1064696188. I assume he is busy ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope so. - As for anniversaries, Bach's cantata 125, written for this day (2 February, a feast day at the time) in 1725, was on DYK 10 years ago, and TFA 4 years ago. It was Biller who brought his choir back to observing Bach's liturgical intentions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Ugh

Can you help me with my jumbled nomination on DYK. {{Template:Did you know nominations/Louis Micheels House}} Bruxton (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I envisioned this: I may need an admin Bruxton (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think I fixed this, happy to help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Please help

I need serious help at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School. An editor, for a reason that I don't know, wants me to find out what the Northern Lights International Film Festival is. I can't verify that, but the editor wants it verified because FAs need complete coverage and they won't let me remove the film festival from the article. I said that it could be undue weight if sources don't verify or write about the film festival, but they still want it verified. It seems from the article talk page that they are insinuating it shouldn't be a FA because of that one film festival. I seriously feel that I'm about to do something there or at the featured article request that could get me into trouble. SL93 (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: Looks like you're gonna be okay, sdkb is backing down. I strongly urge you, don't touch the keyboard while stressed. It won't help you, and sdkb is just trying to make the article better. You will much more easily find solutions when you're in a clear state of mind—you might want to go to sleep and come back to this in the morning, it's pretty late on central time. as for the film festival: looks like the the film festival in question is more commonly known as the "northern lights film festival", you can find some sources on that when you're in a better spot. In the meantime, your blurb is already scheduled, don't worry about an FAR or the blurb getting pulled—it's not gonna happen. You're gonna be just fine :) deep breaths. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Mulard

I'm thinking of expanding this article...any idea good hooks? Are we allowed to use Tiktok for the hook? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jeromi Mikhael: hmm... the tiktok bit is good, but you'd need a solid source on translation—something that can show due weight for inclusion in the article. Has it received any media attention? Anyways, here are some hook ideas:

... that the mulard is also called the "mule duck"?
... that for the mulard, artificial insemination is more efficient than natural reproduction?
... that a salmonella outbreak killed 100,000 Egyptian mulards? [1]
... that France killed 600,000 mulards to stop a bird flu outbreak? [2]

Hope this helps! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Claudia Quintet

On 3 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Claudia Quintet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Claudia Quintet was born out of an incident at alt.coffee? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Claudia Quintet. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Claudia Quintet), 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.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

jazz music intensifies theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Banzai Bug

The game was marketed as "The Flight-Sim with an Attitude". The citation says "billed as "The Flight-Sim with an Attitude". It was also on the original packaging and Arizona Republic made a reference to it (not in article, but available on Newspapers.com). SL93 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Just thought I would let you know in case you were left wondering why I undid your edit. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, SL93—that's my bad, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

RfA

We will forever need new admins, and I hope you pass – though things aren't looking too good right now. 🐔dat (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Though I am currently in the neutral section, I hope you manage to turn this around. I can't imagine the level of stress you may be feeling at this moment, and I hope you're doing well under the circumstances. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 13:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, after looking through the opposes and becoming aware of the "I see dumb people" mess, I don't know what to say. You appear to have stumbled into the most toxic RfA since this one. 🐔dat (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to reiterate PJvanMill's comments. I hope that you're feeling okay after your RfA. It was really good of you to put yourself forward, and I wish you well with your future Wikipedia work. Bibeyjj (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Bibeyjj and PJvanMill :) I'm feeling great, to be honest. I've had a few hours to get adjusted to the inevitability of the close; now that it's really over, I don't really think there's much to be bitter about. Thanks for dropping in—hope to work with you sometime in the future! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry that this didn't work out for you. I very seldom participate in RfAs (not that we have had many recently) and I am glad you felt you were able to withdraw now and don't feel too affected by it (hopefully)! The project does need more admins and i'd encourage you to try again in 12-18 months. Sorry if it was my !vote that tipped it though (as the last oppose)! Keep doing a great job! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bungle: no worries, I feel great :) if it makes you feel any better, the camel's back was well-broken before your straw. Look forward to working with you in the future! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for standing, and for your positive attitude. — Bilorv (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv: and i'd do it again :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I came here to apologise for opposing in your RfA. Like I said in RfA, I opposed that particular RfA, and I really hope you that you would run for RfA again. I wanted to tell you this sooner, but I was busy IRL. See you around :-) —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

No hard feelings, usernamekiran—it would seem from a cursory scroll that you weren't alone there ;) hope to see you at the next one! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep your chin up

It was your first RfA and it went better than my first one! I know it feels like a bummer. But before you know it time will pass and I suspect a new attempt would go better. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@Jason Quinn: fingers crossed! anything to put more distance between me and the 2021 Talk Page Archive Incident :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
now that sounds like an interesting DYK Elli (talk | contribs) 10:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I also wish you the best and even found your withdrawal comments unceasingly positive. Keep up the good work and I look forward to what I'm sure will be your next successful RFA! --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Cerebral726! Don't cry because it happened, smile because it's over or something like that :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Just chiming in to say that I was really sorry to see how this turned out, and I'm glad you are holding up well. I think your conduct during the RfA is strong evidence that you've already moved well beyond the maturity issues brought up (rightly or wrongly) in the oppose votes, and I hope people see that next time. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the pick-me-up, asilvering :) joining DYK in mid august/early september was when I really started to feel like a part of the community, and not just a gal who clicks the "edit" button—a lot's changed since then. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm impressed at how you took the opposition at the RfA in good grace and used it as a tool for feedback, which is what it's supposed to be there for. I think in 12 months you should easily pass an RfA. It is possible. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thanks, Ritchie333! looking forward to talking with you when the time comes around :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi leek-- I don't think I've ever interacted with you ever on Wikipedia before this. You've gotten active in a time when I kind of left the project for a bit, but I participated in your RfA and watched it unfold. It is incredibly difficult to face adversity and criticism, and you have shown the strength of character that we all would be proud to have (but somehow never do) when we face pushback. You've shown yourself to be open-minded, generous, and kind. I hope that you continue to edit Wikipedia, and I hope to see you back at RfA someday as you continue to be involved. Nomader (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Nomader! I appreciate it :D (my apologies for the delayed response, it's been... quite the week.) don't worry, there's lots left for me to do here—these DYKSTATS pages won't update themselves! or, actually... hmm, that's not a bad idea. :) in any case, I do hope to see you at the next as well! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK 1979 Book of Common Prayer

You adjusted the DYK hook for the 1979 Book of Common Prayer and I would appreciate you implementing it as it was approved, without alteration. “Episcopal” won’t quite work because there is a Scottish Episcopal prayer book also on the docket. Simply leaving it as "1979 Book of Common Prayer" as it was approved is how I’d like it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, should’ve linked the prep page in the original comment: Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: happy to leave it as is, but I haven't any substantial changes yet (other than moving the '1979' outside of the bolded link). Is that what you're referring to? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You're good, then. Mulled it over a bit, too, and you can make the changes you think necessary on it without consulting me again. Thanks for asking for comment, misread it because I was editing with my phone earlier. Apologies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Pbritti! I'm fine letting it go through as is :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Donald Gurnett DYK credit

Hi Leeky, I was wondering how I go about getting DYK credit for Donald Gurnett? I wasn’t notified on my talk page when the article ran on DYK. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

answered on your talk :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I find myself wanting to type over your shoulder: "...sorry about that! Congratulations on your DYKGA! BusterD (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

new GA? I'm intrigued, I can't see it... side note, Thriley, I'm interest in taking over/dragooning Draft:Claudia West. Do you think it has notability potential? I'm mostly getting passing mentions/descriptions of their professional preferences... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I’ve debated it myself. She’s borderline, but I would lean to notable. If only she came out with another book or two! Thriley (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Here’s one that would be a great one to commandeer for DYK, especially for February: Draft:Shermann Thomas. He’s an African American self-taught historian who does tiktoks on Chicago history, particularly about overlooked or under-covered communities. Thriley (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm lookin' for An Abundance of Claudias at the moment, but it's an excellent idea :) p.s. looks like you've got curly quotes enabled; you may want to disable those, since they shouldn't be used in articlespace :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

c'mon, people, why won't you vie for attention so that we can write about you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Haha. It would be so good for the publishing industry! Thriley (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Claudia Powers

Hello! Your submission of Claudia Powers at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Bagumba (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

jockey bangtail thing

I have no idea how that happened. I thought I only checked the page views. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: the script automatically updates the stats pages now—I really want to get my bot up and running, so that i can take that function off... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

reply

Great work in general TLC. You asked "what does the execution have to do with the governess have to do with the imposter woman?" ... that IS the hook... its an amazing story that intrigued people for decades. You cannot obvs debunk a woman, but you can debunk the invention of a woman, and that is what happened. Victuallers (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Victuallers! :) I'm so sorry, I had a brain fart—I was halfway through promoting the hook, and forgot to undo the promotion when I asked the question instead. I'll copy/paste your message back there, we can continue discussing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

If we must Victuallers (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

'preciate it, just don't want a discussion fork theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm

I saw this account on my mentor dashboard, what are you planning to do with the bot? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 14:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith: general DYK upkeep—just trying to get consensus for those tasks at the moment. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Fan editor research interview

Hi, theleekycauldron! I don't know if we've connected before, but my name is Gen. Quon. I'm an editor who works largely on articles about TV shows (it's nice to connect with a fellow television fan)! I'm also working on my PhD dissertation about the information behaviors of fan editors (here's a more detailed overview of my project, if you are interested). As my edit history makes obvious, I've been messaging Wikipedia editors to see if they might be willing to share their experiences with me. Given your interest in TV, I was wondering if you'd be interested in chatting with me about your information experiences here on Wikipedia. The questions will focus on topics like "where do you get info", "how do you determine if this or that info is what you need?, etc.? I know that you're fairly newer to the site than some other editors, but I want to capture a variety of experiences and voices. Also, I'm more than happy to send over additional details, if you'd like. Thanks!--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 16:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

February songs

I managed two more days in pics - celebrating today 10 years DYK and 4 years of TFA for Bach's cantata Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, written for today's feast day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: that's fantastic! can... I ask why the BWV classification system is included in the article titles? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

short answer: for "natural" disambiguation, like U.S. state names are added to cities with the same name. We need to disambiguate this cantata from the hymn it's based on, Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, and also: these titles are a lot of German, but the abbr BWV tells a reader with knowledge it's by Bach. long answer abbreviated: i raised the question at project Classical music in 2010, and this was what had consensus, as somewhat systematic. you'll find it in the archives if you want more details. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I like my talk today (keeping Biller a bit longer, and even explaining how it works), and managed to picture two more vacation days --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: for the record, you quite possibly have a better photo album than anyone I've ever met. Thanks for the explanation on the bach disambigs! I'm playing BWV 1041 at the moment in violin class :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Today, I decorated my talk with a Bach cantata. I heard it last year when missing RexxS began, and "not letting go" was a theme. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

thank you, and i take it as reminder to upload more pics, instead of arguing for Holger Mühlbauer and Cosima Wagner ;) - cats and flowers are perhaps more important (but I don't see how a person working in ISO is less interesting to the "broad audience" than some German hymn, and why a few elite editors who argued in 2012 should define how an article looks in 2022) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I totally hear you; these discussions get arduous, especially because it seems as though you've gone through this many, many times already. to me, it looks like you've got three ways forward with your nomination for Mühlbauer: you can keep discussing with nlh5 and sl93, which I doubt will result in a consensus to promote; you can take this to WT:DYK, even though I know you hate it, and get a more broad opinion of the DYK community; or, you can propose new hooks. I know it really sucks, but all three of you have now laid out your positions fairly thoroughly. y'all have done all the talking there is to do, and you still can't agree on that hook. so—I'd say step back, weigh which option (if any) is most worth the trouble to you, and try to get your hook approved that way. I just don't see any of you winning the philosophical debate on the role of DYK here, and it's a shame to see you fine editors engage in this discussion ad nauseum. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

There are more options I see, such as others chiming in. If not I'll go to DYK (but not on a Sunday). Let's try the nutshell: The "broad audience" argument is subjective. We better reach out for a really broad audience accepting even niche topics (and is a person active in ISO niche? ... when the obscure funeral cantata now on DYK is not?? ... and who decides???). I find overwriting someone else's approval by this argument (which translates more or less to "i am not interested") especially ... - don't have good word. What do you think about the other "discussion"? - uploading pics proceeded until the next-to-last day, and now I won't rest until all are on. If you take 100 pics a day it's quite easy to find two good ones ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

we have three new hook proposals, and I left one of them but really - really! - don't see how that would be more interesting. - my joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: a bach motet in TFA, I figured it had your fingerprints on it :) as for the hook... it's not fantastic; but if a true compromise leaves everyone unhappy, then you three are the best of diplomats. In the meantime, know that even though a lot of your hooks don't get through, you're a necessary counterweight to DYK's more flighty, clickbaity impulses. Your ability and desire to publish substantive, educational content is really a light for how DYK should be operating in theory, even if it doesn't (and even shouldn't) always work out in practice :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

thank you, - about compromise: cellist and pianist of a duo, asked what thy did when not agreeing on a tempo, said: one night one's tempo, one night the other's tempo, - a tempo in the middle would be good for nobody. That's one of the great aspects of music: being created from scratch each time. thank you for help with the compromise, - working on two recent-death articles, again, - one is already on the mp and not ready, quite embarassing ... - I saw one of his productions. i don't know anything about the other but that he deserves being mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

We have a pictured hook in prep about an actress (prep2?), - why say upfront that she is an actress when repeating at the end anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: thanks for the catch! And I do love that story :) how's it going now with the RDs? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

thank goodness no RD since Crumb, watch the page if interested - Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Ah, very pretty ice tree :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Prep area 1

I messed up a bit and wanted to ask if you can change "ice dome" to "ice mound" in the image caption, I messed up the wording on the DYK nomination and "dome" isn't mentioned at all in the article! That was my bad and I must have forgotten to edit it, so if you are able to I would really appreciate it! Thank you in advance!! Ornithoptera (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Done—thanks for the note, Ornithoptera! crazy than an artist with this much talent just freely licenses their work... better for us :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You have reply

Sorry for not noticing note. Thanx! BusterD (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User page

Hello, Theleekycauldron,

It seems like your User page has attracted unwanted attention recently. There is no reason anyone but you should be editing it. So, I've given it semi-protection for three days. If you don't want this, let me know. If the harassment continues after this period is over, you can let me know as well. I'm sorry that you have become a target for someone out there, I know what that is like. Hopefully, they will get bored and move on with their life. Take care, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize the vandalism also included your user talk page so I've protected that as well. We don't like protecting user talk pages for long periods but I don't see many unconfirmed or IP accounts that have been posting here so it is unlikely to impact legitimate efforts to communicate, at least for 3 days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: The now-blocked LTA accounts were autoconfirmed (in fact, non-confirmed accounts by default do not have the ability to edit others' user pages) so the level of protection that you applied wouldn't have been enough to stop the previous vandalism. DanCherek (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz! And thanks, DanCherek, for getting rid of the stuff. To be honest, I don't really care about the vandalism, so no need to increase protection—hopefully they move on, like you said. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Just a reminder that there is an edit filter preventing unconfirmed users from editing others userpages by default. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Image hook in prep 6

I boldly changed the pictured hook in prep 6 to Template:Did you know nominations/Jennifer Webster-Cyriaque which I feel respects the month. I also feel that image hooks were moved into the prep sets too fast which probably isn't good for later approved special occasion hooks. Also pinging Cwmhiraeth to see if she wants the Elysia timida hook promoted later with an image. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: all good on this side :) I didn't see that hook beforehand, I usually build sets by taking the first image I like off the top, order permitting. If Cwm wants, we can move it around, if not, I'm okay with that as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding. I just didn't want to step on any toes. SL93 (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind Elysia timida not being a picture hook, but you must admit, he is rather handsome for a slug! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that "handsome", - please show that later ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

i'll do my best! ;) ugh, I've had absolutely no time on my hands this week—I'll try to fill the preps tomorrow morning theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth The last two image hooks in the prep areas are for special occasion hooks, but I can promote the handsome slug to the prep after that when it opens. I mean if someone else doesn't get to it first. SL93 (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

For prep 2, what does the edit summary "nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak hook 1" mean? SL93 (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: just me screwing around—in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Dumbledore's first big speech to the school when Harry gets there is simply the words "nitwit! blubber! oddment! tweak!" which causes the Harry to think he's senile. And I tweaked hook one, and my brain just jammed the two together. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I figured it out after I Googled it. I last saw the movie a long time ago. SL93 (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

ah, gotcha :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for The Bigg Chill

On 25 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Bigg Chill, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Demi Lovato started an Internet feud with a frozen yogurt shop—and lost? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Bigg Chill. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Bigg Chill), 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.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft talk:Government Surveillance (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver)

Hello, Theleekycauldron,

This page was deleted as it was a talk page of a nonexistent page. But if you would like, I can restore it and move it into your User space. It looked like references for a future article so it might be of some use to you in the future. Just let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: yeah, that'd be good, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)