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.

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


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: Do you think it is a good source? :) (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


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)


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)

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)

David Hume[edit]

Hello. I appreciate your supervision on the GA candidates, but when a reviewer abandons the review, such as the David Hume case, the process is considered failed. That means that the article's history should be updated and the article should be re-nominated. Otherwise, the statistician bot report is providing false information, and considers the article to be still on hold.--Retrohead (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, found a way to fix the mistake. I re-nominated the page under GAN number three. I incorporated the original date and person, which changes nothing significant. In future, when a review is abandoned, add new Subst:GAN at the top of the talk, and then correct the date and nominator field.--Retrohead (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Retrohead, I did not make a mistake. What I did I learned from Wizardman: this way the nominator does not lose their place in line when a reviewer abandons a review, or even starts one by mistake, which happens more frequently than it should. I've done this many times, and StatisticianBot has yet to consider the nomination still on hold, so long as "onhold" (or "onreview") is removed from the GA nominee template when the page number is incremented. Further, what I did is recommended in the documentation: please see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/FAQ under the "What should I do if a review page (Talk:ArticleName/GAn) becomes inactive?"—I followed those steps exactly, while you have done something entirely different. If the article's history should be updated, that's a step I haven't been acquainted with; however, I'm very sure that you should not be the nominator, as you originally had it, and that the nomination date should have been original August date. I'm glad you've fixed that. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
What you did was revert to nomination number two. No. 2 was already done (abandoned) and it's logical for the bot not to recognize that. What you need to do is open a third nomination, and then change the date to the original one and add the correct nominator.--Retrohead (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I did not revert to nomination number two. If you look at what I did, the resulting GA nominee template is identical to what you've now done: page is 3 and status is empty, but the template is otherwise unchanged. If there is also supposed to be another step to add to the article's review history, then that should be made clear in the FAQ, if the bot isn't set up to figure out such changes and adjust the history itself. Wizardman? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 20 September 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)


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)