Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page/Did You Know/Archive 2012

Please use this page for discussions surrounding the creation of a "Did You Know" items for April Fool's day 2012

Areas of work needed to complete the front page are:

Ground rules for this activity along with a list of participants may be found on the Main talk page.

Rules[edit]

April Fools Did You Know items should present some trivia that can be presented in a manner that is possibly unbelievable to the reader. This can be done through words or names that mean two different things, shortened names, unbelievable facts, unrelated facts, etc. The normal written and unwritten rules for Did You Know (DYK) are followed, with these exceptions...

DYK articles, for the April Fools DYK, are allowed to be taken from the year prior to April Fool's Day, as long as they have not previously been featured on DYK. The normal "5 day" rule for expansion and nominating is not followed. The article must be created between last April 1st and next March 31st, or have been expanded five times the size it was last April 1st by next March 31st. This exception started in 2006 and has been utilized since.
Proper capitalization, title formatting, and linking standards, may be disregarded only if doing this will give away the joke. This should be done as little as possible. (example from 2009: "... that Caviar, Chardonnay, and Hot Cocoa compete for the love of Ray J? ")

All other Wikipedia rules and guidelines still apply. Pay special attention to Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons guidelines if your hook relates to a living person.

Remember, we are trying to confuse and mislead Wikipedians and visitors, not lie to them. Keep all hooks and articles completely truthful, but outrageous. (examples from 2010: A hook claiming Dmitry Medvedev died in 2005 is ok, saying Mikheil Saakashvili died is not.)

How to review a nomination[edit]

Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the supplementary guidelines.

If you want to confirm that an article is ready to be placed on a later update, or note that there is an issue with the article or hook, please use the following symbols to point the issues out:

Code	DYK Ready?	Description
{{subst:DYKtick}}	Yes	No problems, ready for DYK
{{subst:DYKtickAGF}}	Yes	Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language or offline hook reference accepted in good faith
{{subst:DYK?}}	Query	DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed. Notify nominator with `{{subst:DYKproblem\|Article}}`
{{subst:DYK?no}}	Maybe	DYK eligibility requires additional work. Notify nominator with `{{subst:DYKproblem\|Article}}`
{{subst:DYKno}}	No	Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible

Please consider using {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page, in case they do not notice that there is an issue.

Nominations[edit]

Archival comments: promoted hooks can be found in the code for this page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting verification[edit]

Zyzzyx Road[edit]

... that the film Zyzzyx Road only made $30 at the box office, despite having a budget of $1.3 million, making it one of the lowest grossing films of all time.

Proposal: This film really intrigues me because of its unique story - a sideeffect of which meaning that it became one of the (if not the) lowest grossing film of all time. [1]. I really think we should try to get this to the main page, maybe even for April Fools.--Coin945 (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has been expanded by fewer than 20 prose characters in the last year. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the editor misunderstood the purpose of this page and was suggesting that this become a collaboration for next year. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Grossman[edit]

... that Herbert Grossman was horny as a youth, but learned to conduct himself after serving in World War II?

Created by 4meter4 (talk). A wp:iar nom by User:Ohiostandard at 06:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I submit this as a wp:iar possibility, in the event good noms happen to be thin on the ground this year. I think it meets other requirements ( I very seldom visit DYK, and don't really understand the process ) but it did get a conventional DYK in May of last year. No worries if regulars here feel it must be rejected for that reason, but really, how often do you get so many double entendres in one sentence? ;)

Also, if it's too short, what about something like, "... Herbert Grossman was engaged in some very horny practices as a youth, but learned to conduct himself after serving in World War II"?

I'll probably not look back in to follow this, btw, but I thought it might be useful to all y'all. Apologies in advance if this is in the wrong section or format; the process here seems very convoluted to an outsider. Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verified hooks[edit]

Peter Orno[edit]

... that Ohio State University's mathematical author Peter Orno (abbreviated "P. ORNO") is a pseudonym inspired by erotic publications?

Reviewed: John R. Isbell ([[2]])

Created by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk). Self nom at 13:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Comment: User:EdJohnston suggested the suitability of this item for April Fools' Day. Please note that the article on another pseudnymous mathematicianJohn Rainwater has already been approved, so (if approved) this item's placement would require coordination with Rainwater's. There is extensive discussion of notability, etc., on the current DYK page. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 21:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the nomination from the main DYK suggestion page, and hereafter begins its discussion: Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 14:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm--nice article, but I have some problems. First of all, the sourcing pretty much depends on two sentences in this, and a mention of unpublished results in a nonline "Not available online" source. Second, it is rather short--less than 1,500 characters, not taking into account the "publications" section. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious observation that "P. Orno" suggests "Porno=pornography" was made by Robert R. Phelps in the scholarly publication you kindly linked. Shouldn't that suffice?

I appreciate your spelling out "nonline". All of the sources are available on line, now with page links to the mention of Peter Orno. (They were on-line before, of course.)

The article is now nearly 3000 characters long, according to the DYK counter, double the needed length. I paraphrased the statement of Orno's most famous papers, using the synopsis from Mathematical Reviews, which is cited for each article.

I trust that these improvements satisfy your initial concerns, at least. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 20:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never criticized the hook--my comments were to suggest that a "BLP" (for a fictional character/pseudonym) needs more than two sentences in an article about another "person". The text (without the "selected bibliography"--such sections are usually not counted, though the summaries may count) is a little over 1,500 characters now. But I am still not convinced that such relatively thin sourcing (a total of four sentences, without the Tomczak-Jaegermann mention, which I can't verify) is enough for a DYK article, and I will call in some second opinions. Other editors, in the meantime, are invited to weigh in, and if I'm too critical I gladly stand corrected. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My question is that, if he is a fictitious mathematician, then why are we worrying about BLP concerns? –MuZemike 00:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry MuZemike, maybe I didn't make myself clear: I don't have a BLP concern--my concern is with the paucity of sources in the first place, considering this is DYK article, which should represent some of the good stuff Wikipedia has to offer. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must not have looked at the article again before you wrote that sentence. Look again. The article is better sourced than the article on Henry Mann, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 02:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had literally a one-minute look at this. Two concerns: (i) notability - only 4 articles published over the period covered by Web of Science, that is roughly 50 years. (ii) I see no evidence that Peter Orno was a pseudonym in all those articles - obviously, some real names are much more unusual. Materialscientist (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ~~notability~~ reliable sources: JSTOR lists roughly 20 contributions (Mathematics Magazine, as noted and linked in the article): These are accessible at the public library of many cities, for example.

Please keep perspective: I can add a lot of references from books, e.g. Meyer-Nieberg's book on Banach Lattices is handy. But this is waste of everybody's time. I've written enough articles on WP of sufficient quality and Phelps is sufficiently reputable (and Canadian Universities sufficiently risk-averse about slander), that it's certainly a waste of my time!

You seem to worry that Peter Orno has emerged (like Professor Moriarity on Star Trek: The Next Generation or Jeff Daniel's character in the Purple Rose of Cairo) into reality. If some mathematician named their kid Peter Orno, then the murder of one parent would have been reported by now, well before the incarnated Peter Orno would have diabolically been hired at Ohio State and published his first solution of a problem in the Mathematics Magazine! Check OSU to see whether Peter Orno is listed in the math dept.!

In time---perhaps not in our time, and maybe not in the time of our children, but certainly in the time of our childrens' children---the principal mathematicians publishing as Peter Orno will be revealed, and then this article can be folded into the main article (because I guess that B---whoops---that the author of Peter Orno is only one mathematician, unlike the 10+ mathematicians behind John Rainwater). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 01:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<indent> No slight, but my concerns remain - (i) most of those publications are of low notability; to understand the point, this page doesn't even list his jstor publication, and this is one of the "strong" refs (that is recognized by WoS and assigned a doi number). (ii) I can AGF that Orno from Ohio State University is fictional, but could only confirm the OSU affiliation for two articles (1974 & 1976). Materialscientist (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 18 individual Mathematics Magazine listings establish overwhelming evidence of an association with Ohio State University. The 18 MM articles are not meant to establish notability: All are reliable sources (02:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)). Each (that I have checked) does establish Orno's affiliation with Ohio State. The AMM article is the latest giving his affiliation as OSU, providing easily verifiable evidence to the reader of the OSU-affiliation stated in the article. All those articles are available on JSTOR. In addition, as I repeatedly stated above, Pietsch states that Orno is a "special creation" of Ohio state University, in his history of functional analysis where he only discusses notable persons---small and medium fry are ignored: Look at Google Books, to which the page reference points, as I have said more than once. Pietsch has been a world leader in functional analysis since 1970 or so. (Similarly, while Tomczak Jaeger is an international hot shot and Singer writes the most comprehensive books on approximation theory and basis-theory in Banach spaces). What more do you want?

I listed three notable articles, for each of which I provided a synopsis, using the highlight of the article summary from mathematical reviews, as noted in the article (in hidden comments) and noted above. As I stated before, it is easy to find additional references for each of them. I added a handful of references to Orno's paper on regular representations of operators on a Banach lattice: If you want more, please check Abramovich and Aliprantis and Burkenshaw, for example. But what is the point? Again, the article is far better sourced than most biographies sailing through DYK?, and long ago it met the criteria for sourcing. It certainly did so at 4 a.m. when Drmies again complained about the "paucity of sources" (sic.). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 02:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added another paper, which has been referenced at least 11 times, according to Google Scholar: This paper solves a problem of Jon Borwein, which is usually considered to be notable achievement---to do so in one page is the kind of elegance mathematicians expect but don't deserve from Peter Orno. 04:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you think P. Orno from OSU would pass WP:PROF? I doubt that, i.e. notability is the key here. Materialscientist (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like another pseudonymous mathematican, Nicolas Bourbaki, Peter Orno is exempt from that test, because fictitious persons are not covered by the biography project. Please review the discussion on the project's talk-page about John Rainwater and Peter Orno. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 03:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, just sayin', if biography-notability was relevant, then Peter Orno would easily pass, e.g. by passing the first item: (1) having a significant impact on the field. P. Orno's results are discussed in high-level monographs and featured surveys, which are cited in the article.

Mathematicians don't waste time writing duplicated articles about facts everybody knows. Look at the article on Henry Mann, which uses one reliable source for almost all of its details. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 04:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the sourcing on Mann is much more impressive--there's articles dedicated to him alone, as well as a Festschrift. I'm not sure about what other biographies you mean that "sail through" here; I certainly don't let them sail through. I asked for others' opinions precisely because I am not sure, and I still am not sure--and I'm sorry Kiefer, but that's my opinion. Materialscientist's opinion is of great value to me, and I would love to hear more opinions, but as it is, I can't sign off on it. If some other seasoned editor thinks I'm being too fastidious, that's fine: I certainly don't mind being overruled. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your conscience should over-rule you. You stated a concern about notability and brought up the weakest article by Orno, which only was cited to establish the latest refereed link to OSU. You then ignore the 3-4 articles which are certainly notable and discussed, as well as the numerous references to Orno's papers and mention of Orno in reliable sources. Would you at least admit that your previous points were wrong, and that you are adding new concerns at every turn? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Peter Orno carries on the great tradition of Nicholas Bourbaki, we should consider cutting him some slack. Bourbaki's notability is uncontestable. You could fill a library shelf with the works of Bourbaki that can still be ordered from Amazon. Do we know if Orno is a full professor? He could be a relative of Lieutenant Kijé. A suitable nomination for April 1. I'm looking forward to WP:Notability#Fictitious persons. Since there are so few fictitious mathematicians, we should find the sourceable ones interesting. If there were dozens, we could be more choosey. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, perhaps you wouldn't mind looking at and possibly approving this for DYK. I am being accused here of waffling, inventing new concerns, complaining, and the like, in somewhat unfriendly terms--and I reiterate, paucity of sourcing was my gripe from the get-go, my only gripe, but it leads to the question of notability raised more eloquently by Materialscientist--so it's probably best if I leave this one alone. Thanks, and Kiefer, good luck with the article. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on John Rainwater was already approved for DYK next April Fool's Day, but it shouldn't be a problem to have this article on Peter Orno appearing in a different queue, I suppose. I wrote these articles in an April-Fools state of mind, inspired by the description of pseudonymous articles by John R. Isbell. (I also wrote a very serious article on Robert Phelps.) With luck, John Rainwater's anonymous-referee's report of a submitted article by Peter Orno may be available as an external resource at a university webpage, by next April. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 21:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I'm sorry for being irritated. I have recently tried to help with edits on the blurb for a Swedish dance-band singer on the DYK project, etc.~, which hadn't received the level of scrutiny or the level of reliable sources that imho P.O. had.

It is difficult to write about pseudonymous mathematicians until their authors "out themselves", for the same reason that it was difficult to discuss professional wrestling---all the knowledgeable people don't want to give the game away. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 21:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following EdJohnston's suggestion, I nominated this for April Fool's Day, noting the extensive discussion here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 21:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added this footnote, which is a second source about the pornographic connotation of "P. Orno": "Diestel (1984, p. 259) places Peter Orno in his index under the letter "p" as "P. ORNO", with all-capital letters in Diestel's original."

I have no concerns about notability, but notability would be a concern only if Peter Orno gets deleted by April 1, 2012. Sources are offline so AGF, date/length fine. The rest of the article looks good to me. I agree that Peter Orno should be in a different queue than John Rainwater. Royal broil 03:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added a link to Google Books in one Diestel-attributed footnote: Diestel's "An elegant proof of this was uncovered by P. Orno (1976)" is visible at Google Books.

Extended content

Alt2 that Ohio State University P. Orno is a published mathematician?

DYK hooks on fictional works are meant to deal with a real world fact. Kevin McE (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typically yes, but April Fools Day is a day where the rules are loosened and ignored.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin,

Hook1 deals with a real-world fact. Hook2 has a misspelling and is far less interesting imho. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Kiefer: yes, I agree (although I had missed the typo, now corrected); my comment immediately followed ALT2 and was indented as a response to that. However, there is a failing of logic in ALT 1: a pseudonym cannot be a mathematician, it can be used by a mathematician. And it is at that point that we run into a problem of honesty, because only real people can have real life pseudonyms. Kevin McE (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Balloonman: At the Main Page discussion, there seems to be no meaningful consensus behind that assertion. Kevin McE (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin,

You are pontificating a lot, and pontificating with worse logic than most pontiffs, which is already a low standard.

Peter Orno is in fact one mathematician at Ohio State University, whose identify is obvious to any specialist in Banach-space theory. Unless you have been successful removing Mark Twain from Wikipedia, I suggest you give this one a rest, because you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That claim is directly contradicted by the article: "Peter Orno is the pseudonym of a fictitious mathematician, who appears as the author of short papers by one or more mathematicians." Kevin McE (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall remove the OR "fictitious", whose multiple meanings causes confusion to those seeking to be confused. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you now asserting that Peter Orno is the pseudonym of one real individual, with one specific personal history, one real life set of parents, one real life birth date, one real life body, etc? If so, is the identity of that individual known? If it is, it ought to be in the article. If this is the case, and assuming that he did not publish mathematical paper at the age of a few months, then his date of birth needs to be corrected. On the other hand, if it cannot be verified that all 18 papers were written by the same mathematician, the article, and the hook, need to be honest in declaring that this is a fictitious character. Kevin McE (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, WP's OR policies prohibit use of knowledge that has not been published. Thus, until somebody explains the inside joke, we can only state what has been written in reliable sources. I share your wishes, but can do no more. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please think about and then strike-through the unwarranted conclusion, "if it cannot be verified that all 18 papers were written by the same mathematician, the article, and the hook, need to be honest in declaring that this is a fictitious character". Being unable to verify now that everything was written by one mathematician does not entail that Peter Orno be fictitious. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V. If you are going to claim that Peter Orno is an individual mathematician, which I do not believe that you believe, I am going to insist that you make that claim verifiable. Kevin McE (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a further waste of time to continue indulging your speculations and assertions that lack policy warrant.

Orlady is copyediting and improving the article. I believe that Orlady's judgment will be trusted by the community, and won't condescend to discuss this further with you.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've spent some time getting acquainted with Peter Orno, as well as cleaning up the article. I have not been able to access the majority of the sources cited, but it is clear to me from what I've seen that the name is a pseudonym, possibly used by more than one Ohio State University mathematician. The Phelps biography of John Rainwater discusses Orno in a group whose other members are all known to be pseudonymous mathematicians, and Phelps' statement that "At least one of his authors had an interest in pornography, hence P. Orno," indicates that the name is made-up. The Pietsch book explicitly names Orno as a "creation" and names the Ohio State math department as the creator. Finally, I found and cited the publications list of Ohio State mathematician Gerald Edgar, wherein Edgar identifies himself as the author of two of Orno's publications. I suggest the following revised hook:

ALT3: ... that Peter Orno, author of several published papers in mathematics, is a pseudonym that was inspired by "pornography"?

--Orlady (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic

I don't think the image of "My First Sex Teacher" belongs in the article. It does not illustrate the article; it's just eye candy. I'm curious to hear the arguments for why it's there. --Orlady (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just funny. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You've confirmed why it doesn't belong in the article. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or in this discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

ALT4 ... that several mathematical papers emanating from Ohio State University have apparently been written by a P.Orno? Kevin McE (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of "apparently" and I like it. It doesn't matter if Peter Orno is a pseudonym of several people, if he is the published name, then it does not need "apparently" in there....---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the apparently and it ceases to have any claim to truth, because there is no one person known by that name, and that does matter. However, it appears that there is. Kevin McE (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being female, I am not amused by (or even interested in) the shorthand "P.Orno" -- and I predict that it would be edited in good faith to become "P. Orno". If that's the hook, it doesn't deserve to be on the April Fool's page, because it's no better than a run-of-the-mill DYK hook. --Orlady (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An improved version of the original hook remains the best:

... that Ohio State University's mathematical author Peter Orno (abbreviated "P. ORNO") is a pseudonym inspired by erotic publications?

The phrase "the mathematician" was watered down to "the mathematical author".... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck. I have never heard the term "mathematical author" before this. If you asked me what "Ohio State University's mathematical author" referred to, I'd probably guess that it was some sort of computerized system developed at Ohio State. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Illogical language: an author cannot be a pseudonym. An author can use a pseudonym. Kevin McE (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I intended a literary-theory meaning of "author". (C.f., the "principle of charity" of Donald Davidson.) While logical, my sentence should be written for a wider public than I had assumed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about. For starters you confuse author and writer. Did you bother to consult a good dictionary. The word "author" begins with letter "A". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literary theory has little relevance to the publication of papers in science and mathematics. In a literary context, authors are people who write for a living. In contrast, the scientists and mathematicians who submit papers to journals are "authors" of those papers, but fundamentally they are scientists and mathematicians who are reporting on their work. They are not "authors" by profession. --Orlady (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foucault and Roland Barthes have as much to do with literature and logic as Charles Manson does with supererogatory charity; it is a pity that the current article credits only them with the discussion of the author, which began when a person first realized that others use the first-person pronoun.

The rhetorical and semiotic analysis of mathematical and scientific papers has been endorsed by Charles Sanders Peirce, who wrote volumes of genius and, therefore, his thoughts are worth considering. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say more bluntly, given that you and Kevin wasted a lot of time with idiotic objections, his moronic, that you should consult a dictionary. "Author" is found under "A", and you will find that it has multiple meanings. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the agreed-upon hooks are more for regular DYK. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the quick reply.
- If an administrator has time, perhaps he or she could use this for April Fools (as submitted and approved last April) and move a non-April Fools hook for the 2nd?
- Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]