User talk:BlueMoonset

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This editor is a Most Perfect Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain and Cigarette Burn.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16


DYK review on Brod Pete[edit]

Hi, I add some references to the article that I was nominated it for DYK section. Please take a look and see is it right.--LordMilan85 (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

LordMilan85, you should definitely reply on the Cave Church nomination template you linked to—that's where the information that you added the references is needed. You should probably also ping Yoninah, who noted the problem on the nomination, to see whether the new references fully address the issue. Best of luck! (Not sure why you used this header, since the article in question isn't Brod Pete at all.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK:Lake Murray Meteorite[edit]

I have responded to the request on the template talk page. I hope I didn't completely misinterpret the comment by Casliber. If you have any additional comments, I'll make another try. Thanks for your interest. Bruin2 (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:PapaJeckloy and his questionable DYK nominations and reviews[edit]

Hi. I'm sure that you have encountered this guy many times in WP:DYK. Ever since I nominated and overhauled this article in DYK, which incidentally he created, he wants to take "all" of the credit for that and even bashed me in my talk page, telling me that I "stole" his opportunity, where in the first place, the only thing he did on that article is to create it. Then after that incident, he nominated every single article he created to DYK, even if it is full of grammatical and factual errors and contain mostly original research. Now, there's an incident in one of his self-nominated articles (Template:Did you know nominations/Juan Karlos Labajo), where he harassed the creator of the article in his talk page. (See this very lengthy discussion) Then after a few days, a new editor User:EtitsNgKabayo (which by the way is Filipino for "horse's dick") passed the article's nomination. I do believe this is one of Jeckloy's sockpuppets. I want to report this user to ANI but I would like to ask your opinion about it since I think you knew his mannerisms after the bunch of DYK nominations he created and you have reviewed. -WayKurat (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

WayKurat, this is the second time this month a brand new editor showed up and approved one of PapaJeckloy's nominations. The same thing happened when Gelkia31 approved Template:Did you know nominations/Brod Pete on August 10; and then turned around and did a GTG review minutes later that PapaJeckloy "helpfully" expanded on a little over an hour after that. To me, it's a clear WP:DUCK situation, and I believe you're right to report this. I suspect that ANI will recommend you open a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, and maybe that's where you should go first. Either way, PapaJeckloy will need to be notified when you file the report. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Follow-up: I have filed the report myself, since it seemed important to do so right away, and you were likely to be off-line for several more hours. I did notice that you tagged both user pages; EtitsNgKabayo had already been blocked due to the improper name. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help... :) Man, he's becoming more of a headache instead of helping. -WayKurat (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It's really too bad, WayKurat. I like his enthusiasm, but something we all need to do is recognize our limitations. I don't work on featured articles because my prose, while good, does not have the elegance and flair needed for these best of articles. If I ever were to want to submit an article I was working on to FAC, I'd get the assistance of someone who does have that extra quality that I don't. In this case, it's been pointed out that his prose is weak: therefore, he shouldn't be working in areas where he needs to judge the prose of others, which includes GA and DYK reviews. (His own nominations have faltered due to prose issues, so how can he tell if others have similar weaknesses?) But his persistence is making it clear that he doesn't truly care about improving the encyclopedia: I'm still appalled by him approving his own DYK nominations (I suppose he could have gotten a confederate to do it for him, but that would be just as bad). No one comes on Wikipedia and for their first non-user-page edit does a cover-the-bases DYK review. For it to happen twice to the same nominator: that duck's quacking is deafening. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The last time I was aware of a similar situation, I left a note – WT:Did you know/Archive 66#BabbaQ's sockpuppets – listing five known instances where socks verified the user's own nominations (and there certainly could have been others). In this case, the sockpuppetry was CheckUser-confirmed. Although I didn't mention it in my post, I thought that the consequence should be a permanent ban from all aspects of DYK. The actual result? Absolutely nothing. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 18:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I created an ANI report against Jeckloy based on my experiences and the findings on the SPI case. See the report here. Feel free to edit the report if I missed something out. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked again[edit]

I took care of it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The Blood of Olympus[edit]

On your recent edits to The Blood of Olympus; I understand that he is American and is entitled to mdy and it was wrong of me to apply dmy (I'm just used to it). Rick Riordan has books with various covers: some American that use American English, some British that use British English. Removing the file made no sense as all covers symbolise the book. Me using dmy and you removing a file on such a basis seems very biased on both sides. - Esmost πአלϰ 03:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Esmost, this is the fifth book in a series, and the four volumes before it have been consistent in their usage. It makes all the sense in the world to continue that for the fifth book, especially as all that material is easily available from the same source. Calling "bias" when the obvious thing is to aim for consistency doesn't make sense to me. Riordan writes in American English, just as Rowling wrote the Harry Potter novels in British English (and if you'll look at the Harry Potter novels, all of the infoboxes use the British hardcover dustjackets; for the Riordan series novels, they've been the American). It makes the most sense to use whichever is the original/primary variant for that particular author/artist/singer/etc. I imagine you'll find that the image has been replaced with the American cover before too long... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Fine but until it is legitimately replaced by the American cover (preferably by just uploading a new version on the current file page), the British cover stays. - Esmost πአלϰ 04:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A request for DYK review[edit]

Hi, I've nominated a DYK here. The article title is The Fifteen Whispered Prayers (Munajat) and I've proposed two hooks. Could you please review my nomination? Mhhossein (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I'm afraid you'll have to wait for someone else to take on the review in the usual way. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Source?[edit]

Hey, thank you for your message :) Well, my only problem is I'm not sure if my source is really good for Wikipedia, that's why i did not add it yet :/ It is this one: http://www.mjsbigblog.com/glee-season-6-song-spoilers-loser-like-me.htm Do you think it is a good source? :) 86.75.160.150 (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

FYI I refactored your talk page comment as you had inadvertently put the admin in the category which also complicates deletion. HelenOnline 09:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

HelenOnline, thanks for that—I don't use categories enough to have realized that just putting them in brackets in a regular comment actually adds them to the page. (It seems to have been successfully deleted.) And FYI, I have removed your addition of the Jeckloy-sock nomination to the Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed page. That page is for nominations removed from a queue or prepare area (or even the main page!) only—regular rejections of nominations still under consideration, even if it's by a sock, are just processed normally, and do not belong in that file. The remaining active nominations by Jeckloy when he was indeffed were rejected in the same manner. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks I learned something new. The colon after the opening brackets is handy for suppressing images and categories if you just want to link to them in a comment. HelenOnline 14:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

W. Stanley Proctor[edit]

W. Stanley Proctor talk page I would appreciate it if the DYK can be revived. Please consider and take a look at the alternate hook, too. User: Doug Coldwell approved it, too. Although he has not yet seen the final wording. I've left a note on his page so that he can react (he's out of town this instant).7&6=thirteen () 18:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Added ALT1. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Histrionics[edit]

I'd dispute the primary meaning (a critic saying "I very much enjoyed the histrionics of the lead actress in this film" isn't going to endear them to the actress in question), and that clearly isn't what is meant in the review. (It's going to be very dry if reviews can only say actor A's performance was superior to that of actor B; rice cake dry; indigestible [coughs up bits of rice cake and review]) Belle (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Belle, I think that since we can't know which meaning the author intended, it's better not to decide ourselves, but take what can safely be interpreted: the dog clearly far outacted the girl. It doesn't necessarily mean that she badly overacted. One solution, of course, would be to quote "histrionics" from the source ("easily outshin[ed] the histrionics"), and let readers make up their own minds. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)