User talk:BlueMoonset

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

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


DYK Cross-border Terminal, Tijuana International Airport[edit]

Hi BlueMoonset. Thank you very much for your comments and advice on the above nomination. I'm quite interested in the process, do editors now have a period of time to clean up the article and is that what {{subst:DYK?again}} is for or is it simply the article won't pass? -LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 11:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

LookingYourBest, when we point out issues with a nomination—I'd say the majority of nominations have some issue or other that needs fixing—we expect the nominator to work on fixing them, and we keep the nomination open while they do. Only if we don't get any response in a week or two might we close it. The red arrow is used to call for a new reviewer; usually, if initial reviewers raises issues, they'll have the nomination on their watchlist and go back to it when the nominator posts that the issues raised have been addressed (or asks questions). Things can go back and forth a number of times during the review process. Some nominations don't end up passing, but that's usually due to a failure to respond by the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I added sources to the article where missing. (In fact the source material was provided by the original project manager as images, but OK I added the ref tags.) Please have a look again to reconsider.Keizers (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm slammed with real life work but really feel this guy's article is deserving, and working in Mexican aviation I think the subject is so incredibly cool... I made the additional changes that you pointed out. Let's see if this is a go now? Thanks! Keizers (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

8 DYK noms[edit]

Does it seem strange that all 8 of Carlojoseph14's first DYK noms are nominated by Shhhhwwww!!? Is there any way to check if the latter is a sock? Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yoninah, it seems odd to me that Shhhhwwww!! has so many DYK noms when he's never responded to any of the DYKproblem templates we've put on his or her talk page. If this continues, I'm tempted to propose that the account be blocked from continuing to nominate, since it's the responsibility of the nominator to vet and follow through on all nominated articles. However, that account dates back to January 2013 (with active use beginning that October), while Carlojoseph14 only goes back to May 2014, with high levels of activity since mid-August.
Shhhhwwww!! seems to nominate articles wholesale if they're Philippines-related. At least three by RioHondo have been nominated (which puzzled the heck out of RioHondo), and I found two reviews by Carlojoseph14 of Shhhhwwww!!'s nominations of other users that don't match what a sock would do: Carlo gave Template:Did you know nominations/Betty Go-Belmonte an X, and a slash icon for Template:Did you know nominations/Aserradora Mecanica de Tuason y Sampedro. There's also the ? icon on one that you commented on: Template:Did you know nominations/Sampaloc Church.
If you ever do believe that there is compelling evidence of sockpuppeting, the place to report it is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. You'll need to provide supporting evidence; here's the one I was recently involved in, the PapaJeckloy case. (Another Philippines-based user, but I imagine that's coincidence given how long the others have been around, and the different topic interests.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation, and thanks for keeping an eye on Shhhhwwww!!. I'd like to go ahead and propose to Carlojoseph14 that he start nominating his own articles and doing QPQs, so he'll get better acquainted with policy. Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I am a new editor and it seems that Shhhhwwww!! is nominating most of the Philippine-related articles. It also seems odd to me that s/he keeps on nominating my articles. My purpose on writing those article is to have a start-class article and later expand it, without the idea of DYK (because I did not knew it). Just like RioHondo, I am also puzzled of what he has done with those nominations and I am on the track answering all those DYK nominations. I am working on those type of article because I am a volunteer of Wikimedia Philippines nationwide cultural heritage mapping project that started since May 2014 (reason why I signed up last May). If you will check, after I knew DYK (because of the nominations done by Shhhhwwww!! and later was approved), I started to self nominate my articles which were later approved like Kawayan Torogan, Gavino Trono and Indang Church. Only Paete Church nominated by Shhhhwwww!! was approved as of the moment. I am in great trouble right now, because of his nominations and I tried my best to answer all of those. Carlojoseph14 (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Carlojoseph14, thanks for the heads up. I'm continuing to monitor the situation, and if there continues to be no response from Shhhhwwww!!, I'll ask why there isn't any follow through on the nominations. Sorry I took so long to respond! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
(Sorry late) Minor point - the nomination of articles is a good thing! If we have someone doing it via a sockpuppet then thats sad as it should not be that difficult to nominate an article. Why would anyone bother? You can nominate your own articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victuallers (talkcontribs) 09:17, 28 September 2014‎ (UTC)
Victuallers, the odd thing about Shhhhwwww!! is that the account nominates large numbers of articles but never responds to any issues that come up during nominations. There is also clearly no check of the articles before nominating, since so many of them are too short or have other issues. All in all, it's an odd situation, and if there's no response to the latest DYKproblem template, I'm going to post a request to the user's talk page. The only practical reason I can think of to create a sockpuppet nominate your own articles is to avoid the QPQ, and if that's someone's reason, it's a very bad one. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree, its odd. Avoiding a QPQ seems a very silly reason as I would volunteer to nominate these and move them through. These articles are "thin" but the ones Ive seen have notable subjects and merely lack easy good sources in English... which is a problem but nothing to get excited about. Its just a problem that needs solving. If we can find the owner or puppetmaster then we should aim to turn them being kinda useful into being very useful. Thanks for investigating this odd occurence. If the community decide to "take action" then I would volunteer to help curate the resulting orphan hooks so that we don't lose the articles. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Shhhhwwww!! again nominated a PHL related article, these time: Template:Did you know nominations/Lichauco Heritage House. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for (calmly) fixing the queues after I forgot to delete a set in prep. Cheers. Victuallers (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Happy to do it. I figured Crisco would be around soon and could take care of the minor wording change in the queue that needed an admin. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I really am that predictable, eh? Face-wink.svg Someday I'll surprise you all. Maybe I'll write a species article or something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Heh. The odds were very good that you'd check in before your bedtime. If not, plan b was to try an active admin directly when I'd had my own night's sleep, with a subsequent post to the DYK talk page if that didn't pan out. No need for plan b, y'see... (If you did do a species article, what might surprise me would be if it wasn't one native to Indonesia.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Locus iste[edit]

(This place) - The article talk page is not the place for general discussion of infobox yes or no, like or not, - that was the one good outcome of the Infoboxes case (which you mentioned): "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" (highlighted by me). The case was requested because of massive reverts of infoboxes, - sadly that aspect was not considered by the arbitrators.

Instead of reverting (and not even to the attempt of a compromise) you should explain why you think the particular work by Bruckner should not have an infobox while most of his other works have one, those of the symphonies dating back to 2007. Reverts are past, additions are present, please compare L'Arianna, Carmen, Il trovatore, on top of my featured article and good articles such as the most recent Magnificat.

A heard a new argument: the infobox is unneccessary. Yes, of course, so are images. Both are mentioned in the standards for B class. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Gerda, this has left a very bad taste in my mouth, and for you to come here to lecture me—that's what the word "should" conveys—is not helping. Since you've used bold above, it would appear you think that I was attempting to turn the discussion; I was, in fact, simply pointing out that infoboxes were not required (which was what I thought the GAN invocation was supporting). If some WikiProjects want their B-class articles to have infoboxes, I suppose they can require them for their projects, but the more rigorous Good Article standards do not mention infoboxes, though they do have a section on images. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I think we have misunderstandings which I would like to clarify. If it comes across as lecturing I am sorry. I saw that you didn't discuss but revert. - The term GA was brought up by Nikkimaria, please address her for why. - Infoboxes are not required for B-class, nor any other, nor did I ever say they are, but for an article for which I wrote most of the content I would like one. I have to go now, sorry for being brief. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Gerda, brevity is fine. I did explain why I was reverting when I posted, so I did participate in the discussion. I read the discussion already there, thought the argument for retaining the infobox was very weak, and removed it with an explanation. It seems I misunderstood you above to be citing B-class article standards as a point in favor of infoboxes; if you weren't, then I'm puzzled as to why you mentioned it at all here—it seems to be irrelevant. However, I don't want to keep rehashing this; as far as I'm concerned, the matter is now closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

re:User talk:AldezD[edit]

Please review WP:3RR. That concerns reverting edits in articles and edit war behavior. There is no limit to the number of edits a user can make to an article in a 24-hour period, so long as those edits are not repeated reversions of a specific edit by another user. AldezD (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:3RR says: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." HelenOnline 11:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Complete misunderstanding on my part. Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding and for DTR. AldezD (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, HelenOnline. AldezD, not a problem. I just didn't want you ending up with a block because you didn't understand that, whether you think of it as an edit war or not, the three revisions to an article in a 24-hour period was a bright line you should not cross, except in those very specific and limited circumstances listed on the page, which these clearly weren't. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Luang Namtha[edit]

Hello, Blue,

I have fiddled with this nomination every way I know how, with no result. How about deleting it so I can try again?

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Georgejdorner, I fixed it up so it's now all set; it took a couple of steps. Did you want to reinsert the transclusion on the nominations page, or should I? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
A random act of kindness such as fixing my DYK nom deserves a directed act of gratitude. Thanks for the help. Georgejdorner (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
George, you're most welcome, and thank you. I've just inserted it back on the nominations page under October 10, so it should show up there again. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for resetting those icons in reviews. I'll try not to trouble you with that in the future.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks like I misinterpreted your prior helpful message on this. You must have the patience of a saint to keep harping on me. Thank you for the help.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

All Clear Nomination[edit]

All refs fixed, thanks for the reviewing by the way.--Catlemur (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Remade the delete sections.Any more issues?--Catlemur (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Catlemur, I'm not sure why a November 3 entry is placed in the middle of the Operations section, since that's almost a month and a half before the beginning of it, but that should be fixed. After that, we can get a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed it and added the needed citiation.Thanks again for pointing out issues in the article.Cheers.--Catlemur (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)