On 12 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article W. Claude Jones, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the groom for the first wedding in Prescott, W. Claude Jones, abandoned his bride less than six months after the event? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/W. Claude Jones. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Responded to accusers talk page on why it is inappropriate to assume that changing a map in an infobox, one that I placed into the article three minutes before the edit being questioned, does satisfy Wikipedia's definition for WP:Vandalism. --Allen3talk19:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK-Good Article Request for Comment
Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, GilderienChat|What I've done22:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you declined this as it had already got a ITN credit. However, I have seen articles that have been both ITN and DYK. Is there any chance of getting it in DYK?
Hello Allen3.
Just wanted to say I adore all the incredible work you do at Did you know?, and I happen to have a administrator question about Did you know? procedures.
When I upload a temporary copy from Commons for images that are about to appear on the Main Page, I have to retrieve the copy of the author attribution and the license tag from the Commons file source. But the formatting will mess up naturally if I simply copy everything directly. So the question is, how do I do it properly like the way you do it?
If he (Edmund) was her eldest brother -and their were 5 children -and the 2 young girls were left behind in school while the others moved to California w/parents, that would indicate that Edmund was the oldest. Creativewill (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I undid your edit is not because the information is untrue, it was because your edit had the effect of claiming your addition is supported by Goff's book. I own a copy of the book in question and re-read the cited page before performing the undo. Goff gives no detail as to Edmund Dunne's birth order.
That being said, while the two sources you provide are convincing they are not a complete proof. No information is provided by either of your sources as to the age or birth order of the second girl, Mary O'Dunne. As a result it is possible that she was the eldest sibling (the first source only lists Edmund as the oldest brother). Given the remaining context I do however recognize that this is extremely unlikely (e.g. if Mary was the eldest sibling then it is much more likely she would have been married off instead of being sent to a boarding school with her sister). --Allen3talk19:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I realize that this offers no insight into birth-order, early on in the book Pioneer College: The Centennial History of Saint Leo College, Saint Leo Abbey, and Holy Name Priory by James J. Horgan (1989 isbn: 0-945759-01-0), it states that Edmund first accompanied his father to California in 1852. The other resources only mention "the family" moving west in 1856. It would seem that Dunne's father saw fit only to take his 16-17 year old son while he first attempted to establish himself. As you said, at this point it's likely that he is the oldest but it isn't clear. I have contacted the Ursulines of Cleaveland in an effort to find out more about his sister Mary (the other nun). The problems I continue to have on my own are that I don't know what name she took, that two of Edmund's daughters also became Ursuline nuns, and several more close relatives in that era became Benedictine nuns. --Creativewill (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just received an email from the archivist at the Ursuline convent in Cleaveland, OH. "...Mary Dunne, aka Sister Mary of the Angels, was born to John and Ellen Dunne on September 20, 1841 in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. She entered the Ursulines of Cleveland in 1860, took final (for life) vows in 1863, and died on September 13, 1883 at the of 41... ...She attended Ursuline Convent school, and in her Junior year (1857) excelled, with Sarah, in Arithmetic, History and Geography. In 1859, her Senior year, she again excelled in History and Geography; and in book keeping and (again with Sarah) piano. I'm sorry to say our ministry records do not go back that far, so I'm uncertain where her life's work took her. However, it is likely she was a teacher since our fourth vow is to educate." With name in hand I then found this supporting link [1] thanks Creativewill (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK update
Hi! Are hooks in Preparation area 2 supposed to be featured on 23 August (three days from now) or sooner? I'm asking because the lead hook was meant to be saved for 23 August, and I haven't seen hooks go into preparation areas more than a day before they are featured. Anyway, thanks for promoting the hook with the image! Surtsicna (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Maintaining correct order of items in DYK prep areas
Hi, I apologise for my mishandling. I was fully aware of the effort to correctly schedule the date request. After shifting two hooks away from prep area 1, I wasn't planning to fill the set immediately. So I confirmed the local update times, and prep area 1 was scheduled to appear on the Main Page on 23 August 01:15 in London. Since the reasoning behind the date request was the nominator's wish for the article to appear with the bridge's London counterpart in WP:TFA, I didn't think it would be inappropriate to have the hook appear few hours in advance on 23 August in London.
Hi, please can you change the hook for Milan Poparic at this page per the last post on this. Please can you change the hook from "... that suspected Pink Panther Milan Poparić was broken out of a Swiss jail by two accomplices carrying AK-47s" to "... that suspected Pink Panther Milan Poparić was broken out of a Swiss jail by two accomplices firing AK-47s". Thanks, Matty.00717:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BlueMoonset's assessment that the new wording makes for a stronger hook but that the article needed to be changed to support the new wording before it could be used. I do not see a problem with the current hook but have only a limited ability to predict what complaints others might raise. --Allen3talk17:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it belongs on the main page at all. Both the article and the hook are focusing on a negative aspect of an individual, and as such it goes against the DYK rules. StAnselm (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aloha Allen3, I am the great,great,great,great granddaughter of William Claude Jones and I had a biography for William C. Jones written on my Wiki account but somehow it has been deleted. Since William C. Jones is my family, I have many rights to this article. I have photos, old documents of his from Arizona and Hawaii that I intended to publish on the page. I would also like to publish that Jones was the first to name Arizona and had work relations with Poston. It is all noted in Arizona history. The fact that Jones is not acknowledged on the Gadsden Purchase is not acceptable to my family and we would like Jones to be known for his part in history. Please contact me if you can because the Jones family is extensive here in Hawaii and we would love to have his name remembered.
Mahalo, Bellaopera (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aloha Allen3,
Much Mahalo for all your work with William Claude Jones article. It is my dream to have his page made so thank you. I may just delete my page since it is not accepted because of the wording I took from Finch's bio of Jones. Though, I am sure we can find the footnote from Finch on the Poston/Gadsden Purchase. I have uploaded the drawing of William Claude Jones and I will upload Maemae next. I will ask the Jones of Kaneohe for more photos. I am also going to upload a few documents and you should use them on your W. Claude page. Some are in Spanish because of the mining deeds and others are from Hawaii. I have an article that states Jones was arrested for trying to fool some of the monarchy in Hawaii and this was the downward spiral of his Attorney General career. Question, where did you find Maemae's name because in our Jones genealogy, her name is only Ka'ilihao. And when I was taking my Hawaiian genealogy courses, I was told Kailiha'o would not be the spelling of this name. Of course, Hawaiian names are very particular, due to the history of the family. My name (Kapioleilanionalanielua) is a full story linking my genealogy to Queen Emma of Hawaii. I would love to know how you got the Kailiha'o Meheiwa name and spelling. Mahalo nui, Bellaopera (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aloha Allen3,
I am very happy you wrote the page for William Claude Jones, but please do not insult me and the Jones family by insisting we do not know about our ancestor or the information written about him. Since I am a descendant of William Claude Jones, I have Finch's biography, Jones' poetry, old documents and genealogy information. Please let our family know how you got the name Meheiwa and please let us know why you spelled Ka'ilihao a different way (Kailiha'o). The Jones Hawaii family has an extensive book on our family tree and no where is Maemae's name spelled Kailiha'o Meheiwa. Again thank you for writing the page but please do not treat the Jones family as stupid criminals out to get you. We are not. We just want our ancestors' information published as should be. Mahalo nui, Bellaopera (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm kind of an idiot when it comes to anything DYK. I was just asked to verify something, I didn't know how much I was supposed to do with the page. I meant to unsubst the template, but must have forgotten. Thanks for reverting and all, I'm sure I accidentally broke a couple things. TCN7JM00:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Myron McCord
Well done on the rewrite of the Myron McCord article. I think he deserves it. I was the last editor and added the images, and I was thinking about doing it myself but too many other projects right now. LaurentianShield (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of 23rd Arizona Territorial Legislature
people in law
Thank you for quality articles about people in law, for Christmas, for your tireless work and reviewing around DYK, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (26 July 2010)!
2013 is being celebrated as the 150th birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda. In September 1893 he delivered a series of lectures in the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago. Six of those lectures are mainly referred and recorded in the Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. We are attempting to feature DYKs on the dates on which Vivekananda delivered his speeches in Chicago.
If "DYK featured?" column indicates "no", that means, the date is still free.
Please do not select more than 1 DYK per day (even if you see more than 1 DYK are nominated per day).
Do not comment on this template or the planned DYK celebration in the DYK nomination page. Post your comments here.
Task completed: 100% complete
DYK promoter/Admin, please note
If you feel a "passed" DYK nomination is not ready to be promoted or a hook needs to be pulled down from queue, please replace it with the immediate next DYK hook or select one from the reserved DYKs.
Hi Allen3, Not too long ago you promoted the Charles R. Chickering (artist) page for DYK presentation, but another reviewer came along and found a couple of near paraphrasing issues which I have dealt with days ago. No one has since returned to give the page another peek so I was hoping that you could if and when you have the time. Best, -- Gwillhickers19:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allen, thank you for going out of your way with my request to position a certain article as my 1000th DYK. That's really kind of you to coordinate the effort. Rosiestep (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wonder if there is a class of LeshedInstructor whose students have added the batch of DYK nominations this evening? I noticed you just reviewed one as not qualifying. I would try to check them myself but I'm having horrendous internet connection problems today which has got even worse this evening and each page is taking minutes to load - even emails are struggling to download! SagaciousPhil - Chat19:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - sorry for leaving you with the work, hopefully my connection will be better today but it still seems to have problems and huge pages like the DYK noms take so long to load that it often gives up. SagaciousPhil - Chat05:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Maria Popova
Hi Allen3, I apologize if this is redundant in any way, but I just wanted to let you know that I responded to your concern regarding the nomination for the Maria Popova article. Thanks again! --Ric.chi (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Allen3, I have gone ahead and addressed your second reminder about the insufficient expansion for the Maria Popova article. Please let me know if you need anything else. I look forward to hearing back from you! --Ric.chi (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to follow up with you again on our DYK nomination for Maria Popova which should be in compliance with the 5x expansion that you had mentioned. Thanks for your help. --Ric.chi (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allen3, I wanted to check to see whether you were still interested in reviewing this. If so, it's all yours; if not, I'll put the "review again" icon on it to find a new reviewer. I did run DYKcheck, and it is now indeed a 5x expansion. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if there's anyway that I can have the picture shown in the DYK. I know it may be an extra hassle for you but i would really be happy if you can do this. It took me a long time to gain permission from Ahmet Abakay himself to use the photograph. I told him that he will see it on the main page and he is personally excited for it. So please can you help me out. If not, thanks anyways. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you pull this hook from Queue 1 please? The nominator and I both agreed that this shouldn't run before the election, which takes place on Tuesday. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You seem to be the person who prepares DYK currently.
Could you slightly change the hook about Dayana Kirillova (in preparation area 1). Cause the hook will be on the main page later than I initially expected. These are the changes:
Add the word "today" to the hook. I think it makes the sentence more clear for readers cause it is already November 30 everywhere.
(Maybe) "is representing" is better cause at somewhere around 19:00 UTC she will already finish her song. First I thought about changing "will represent" to "has represented" as soon as he finishes her song but there will be voting going on for another hour, and possibly a winner reprise...
The hook would become "... that 11-year-old Dayana Kirillova (pictured) is representing Russia in the 2013 Junior Eurovision Song Contest in Kiev today, on November 30?". I think, it is better like this.
Also: I will be watching the contest and if you let me, I can change "will represent" or "has represented" either when she finishes her song or when the contest ends. Tell me when it would be appropriate to make the change. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Allen, I was wondering if you would be able to help with a question I have on a DYK that you promoted recently. Is there any reason we cannot use an image for the sea anemone hook? Sorry if this is coming across as trivial, but I felt like it might help explain the hook a bit more, especially since there aren't all that many images of life forms successfully buried into ice. Let me know what you think, as I look forward to your answer. Have a great day! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for promoting this DYK submission. I've only just noticed that, following the promotion, I wasn't supposed to make any more edits to the template, such as these [4] Sorry. I responded because the reviewer seemed still to be seeking the best hook. Regards, —217.42.178.17 (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User "Complainer" is doggedly deleting an explanatory half-sentence in the lead on Poena cullei on the meaning of parricide (a not all usual word), claiming that explanation is a "disruption" of the page. he is now up on 3RR.Arildnordby (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An American pioneer is someone who participated in the settling of the frontier. Technically that would include every non-indigenous person living on the frontier, but generally just the business owners, explorers, city founders, politicians/community leaders, lawmen (people who helped tame the frontier), etc... Basically, everybody who lived in frontier times (early 1900s and back), except the outlaws [and the Indians], but even some of the outlaws can be included, because in many cases they were regular pioneer citizens before becoming criminals (Burt Alvord and Billy Stiles would be good examples, Although at this moment I cant remember if I added the category to their articles). The only people I was not including in the category were the lowest of low lives, outlaws such as Augustine Chacon (who lived in Arizona in frontier times, but was never anything other than a cowboy and outlaw) or Billy Claiborne (who seems to have done nothing with his life other than steal cattle and shoot people.) I suppose it would not be completely out of line to add the category to the Chacon and Claiborne articles, but I dont know. I saw that there were "American pioneer" sub categories for other states, so I wanted to start one for Arizona. Thank you for your interest. If there is any article you think should not have the "Arizona pioneers" category, please just go ahead and remove it. There were a few I wasn't so sure about. Im sure there are also more articles that need the category. Thanks--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For your tireless efforts at handling DYK well, I present you the Dyk of all DYKs, Viktor Dyk. I have absolutely no idea who he is or what he did, but it's clear that he was a total Dyk. By the way, DYK that Dyk doesn't have a DYK? Perhaps we could DYK the Dyk. :P
Heh, but on a serious note: thanks for your endless patience in staying on top of the DYK entries. It's a thankless job until someone doesn't do at, at which point, people notice just how important you are. :) Anyway, thanks again for all you do. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk /04:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nominations for April 6
Hi Allen3! I'm a newbie, and I accidentally put my nomination under April 11, but by the time I realized that it actually belongs under April 6, the section was already put under "Older nominations". Thus, I put April 6 back to "Current nominations" with my nomination in it. Can you correct me if I am mistaken, because my nomination has not been reviewed yet. Thanks! :) Bananasoldier (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't know if you did this deliberately, but all the hooks in this set are non-U.S., with two Turkey-based ones. I thought of swapping the second Turkish hook, a bio, with that of American baseball player Wally Pipp (Template:Did you know nominations/Wally Pipp), but wasn't sure if you're saving that for a lead hook. Best, Yoninah (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And again at WP:ANI#Did you know that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"?. Speaking of the latter, could you please explain, either there or here, why you promoted the "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" hook? Specifically, I am curious to know if this was accidental (i.e., you neglected to read the hook or to notice that it might have been problematic in light of the WP:NPOV policy), if you sincerely believed that the hook did not violate WP:NPOV, if you knew or suspected that the hook violated WP:NPOV but promoted it anyway, or if there is some other explanation. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to add to the drama at AN/I but I am here to tell you that it was very wrong of you to promote this. It contravened our policies. Please do not do anything else like this. Thanks. --John (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK and not blatantly insulting our readers as an admistrator.
Given that you appear to be defending your promotion of the blatantly inappropriate hook Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Jesus_Christ_is_Risen_Today, and are now defending it as basically sour grapes from people who disagree with you, I'm wondering what exactly would lead you to resign your administrative bit? Would it require a full arbitration case, or would you submit to a binding RFC? Another procedure? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably check your facts before making accusations such as the one above. A check of the Merriam Webster dictionary shows "blatant" has a definition of "very obvious and offensive". As per Fram's count, opinion as to the appropriateness is evenly divided among those who have expressed an opinion. As evenly divided opinion is well short of the "blatantly inappropriate" level that you claim exists, I see no reason to further entertain this line of discussion. --Allen3talk21:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the cavil over whether the hook was blatantly inappropriate or merely inappropriate, I (and doubtless others) would be interested to know your response to the question Hipocrite (talk asked above: "What exactly would lead you to resign your administrative bit? Would it require a full arbitration case, or would you submit to a binding RFC? Another procedure?" MarkBernstein (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to remove an admin bit here, but (as I'm surprised to discover that both of these monumental cock ups were evidently passed by the same person) would you consider standing away from DYK approval at least? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) define "approval", I approved one, Allen3 only moved it. English is not my first language, I don't know what a cock-up is. - I will stay away from approving puns, if that helps. - I know enough English to know that "insulting" in the above header feels like insulting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining that. (Look for "mess" on my user page, - look for mess there would be something different, right?) Please, could someone also explain how moving an approved hook to prep equals to insulting readers and raises doubt in admin capability? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One way to prevent Allen3 from damaging the encyclopedia by proselytizing on the main page would be to prevent him from editing locked pages that only administrators could edit. Hipocrite (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you have made an inflammatory accusation without providing any facts to back it up. Despite your insinuations, the hook in question received no special treatment. A "Special occasion holding area" has existed at Template talk:Did you know since February 2009[5] and the practice of allowing people to request a hook appear on DYK on a certain date goes back even further. The nomination in question was created and made available for community comment a month before its promotion.[6]. The nomination in question was reviewed as per normal DYK procedures and available for additional comments for a month (Adjusting for timestamp granularity, the promotion occurred between 1 and 120 seconds before a full 30 days had elapsed). During this month, one person raised concerns about the hook wording but did not feel these concerns were enough to prevent hook promotion.[7] As there were no know issues preventing promotion, the approved nomination hook was scheduled to run on the requested date. This was not due to any special considerations upon my part but was based upon long standing DYK procedures and practices. Finally, on the day in question there were no comments of any kind raised about any DYK hooks at either Talk:Main Page or Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Do you have any evidence that I have done anything other than follow long established procedures and community consensus as it existed at the time of my actions? If not, I would ask you to comply with Wikipedia:No personal attacks and cease and desist your baseless attacks upon my character. --Allen3talk23:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to get inflamed fairly easily. I have made no attacks on your character, merely your actions. Further, WP:IGNORE makes it clear that if "follow[ing] long established procedures" (there's clearly no community consensus that proselyting on the main page is acceptable) causes us to damage the encyclopedia by proselyting on the main page, then we are supposed to ignore said procedures. Beyond that, I contend that said procedures, which require individuals promoting hooks requires not just a lack of objections, but that the hook be appropriate. I'll reiterate my question, which you have continued to fail to answer: "What exactly would lead you to resign your administrative bit? Would it require a full arbitration case, or would you submit to a binding RFC? Another procedure?" Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given you don't even have a real consensus that this hook was a problem individually, or that there is a pattern of problems with Allen3's work in DYK, I am finding I hard to view this as anything other than an attempt at hounding an editor out of an area of the project because of a personal dislike. If I may ask, Hipocrite, when was the last time you actively reviewed DYK hooks? Perhaps the DYK project would benefit from your participation. Resolute14:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it would. The last time I reviewed DYK hooks was Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Barack_Obama_on_Twitter, where I was concerned with, shockingly enough, proselytizing (regarding politics) on the main page! There is a pattern of problems with Allen3's work in DYK - he promoted a hoax and then the hook in question, in a very short period. Hipocrite (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two incidents hardly forms a pattern. Regardless, you are aware that both of these hooks were reviewed and approved by other editors, right? Allen3 merely moved (promoted) these hooks to the queues. While a promoting admin has the option of re-reviewing or opposing a hook, I find it hard to fault Allen3 for AGFing that the review for the Chorizo number DYK was proper. As to the Jesus Christ DYK, I still do not believe you are justified in your attitude here. Don't you suppose it might be more productive to simply ask (at WT:DYK) that any admins who do the work of moving DYKs to the queues consider that such nominations may be controversial and so should be brought up at the talk page prior to being promoted? Or do you honestly think that attempting to hound people off the project for doing things you personally dislike is a greater benefit to the project? Resolute16:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know why you think I'm "attempting to hound people off the project." Does Allen3 admit that he made an error in promoting this DYK yet? If not, what's the point of asking him to consider not promoting "controversial" DYK's without more input? There's an RFC about DYK that you should participate in regarding how to fix what's broken. Hipocrite (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this hook had a quotation sign and capitalization that made it clear and recognizable as a quotation, not a fact. Considering that this is the English Wikipedia and most English do cerebrate Easter, and considering that we have Freedom of religion for folks, a principle that supports the political freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in religious education, practice, worship, and observance; and that the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion, being part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 - when said all this, I really don't understand how can anybody take this literally. Hafspajen (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I have reviewed your DYK nomination for William H. Barnes (jurist) and have given it a green tick and review as ready to go. However, I suggested a few changes in the hook, which makes it a little longer but I think adds some attraction. Based on past experience, I am sure the promoters will want you to approve or disapprove the alternate, which I just realized that I forgot to number. I'll go back and try to amend that to ALT 3. In any event, I wrote that I thought the original hook was ok but that I proposed the altered hook for the reasons I state. I noted again your request for this to run on May 11, but I am sure it would help if you would comment on whether you prefer the original or my proposed changed hook. Donner60 (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
