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.

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

London Buses articles[edit]

Finally, to use edit summaries such as "copy edit" when changing a redirect to a texted article is, frankly, inaccurate. You are creating new versions of articles that had been deemed not notable, which is not a copy edit by any normal definition. When you add new material, it isn't a copy edit either. Putting the "new page" template on some of the articles makes that very clear; as it says right in the template's first sentence, "This page was just created." BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask what you suggest, surely "new article" would be an equally inaccurate edit summary? Its always frustrating when another editor takes the glass half empty view on articles. Yes they may have failed WP:GNG and may still do so, but surely adding the refimprove hatnote in an attempt to promote further activity, and revisiting if no further action is taken, is more positive than just reverting. Ibsiadkgneoeb (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Ibsiadkgneoeb: Re edit summaries, see WP:ES for guidelines. In your case, depending on what you've done when recreating the article, something on the order of "restoring previous article and updating/expanding/adding sources plus copyedit" (pick one of the slashed items, or more than one and separate with "and" or commas as appropriate). For the articles themselves, you took 30 redirects and changed them back to articles in under three days, a huge number. They were originally redirected because they were all considered non-notable, so it behooves you to make sure that they meet WP:GNG before restoring them. If there had been any sign of a new reliable secondary source this time around things might have been different regarding reversions, but you didn't have any and apparently decided to go against notability guidelines anyway. It's never pleasant when Wikipedia's stated guidelines are against what you want to do—which is apparently to have separate articles for almost all bus lines—but you're fighting the tide here. Articles for Deletion generally deletes (or redirects) individual bus articles because they are almost always non-notable. Under the circumstances, I thought it would save a lot of time and heartache to revert, since if you'd had reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability you would have used them. PS: let's keep this conversation on one talk page or the other; it's too easy to lose context when split. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
If an across the board policy that had been reached by consensus were being applied, I wouldn't have a problem.
But it appears that the criteria being applied is that because one editor many moons ago on his own had deemed a particular article not worthy, no further correspondence will be entered into and the original decision stands. On one article said editor stated, after searching for 5 hours he could find no cites, yet I have fished out 5 secondary and 2 primary articles in far less time. I acknowledge some of the articles reinstated despite improvements, are still below par, but they are infinitely superior to many of the similar articles that have hitherto remained unchallenged.
Not to say that may not ultimately articles may still not be notable, but surely flagging an article with a 'more refs needed' hatnote is a more productive way of trying to promote editors to be involved than a 'nothing to see here' approach? Perhaps I have been labouring under the false impression that trying to improve the knowledge base through expanding articles was one of the principles of wiki.
Ultimately what is needed is some sort of criteria as to what qualifies as notable. I thought as suggested at WP:UKBRQDRIVE, this was a good starting point:
  • Routes with a significant history, obviously that can be interpreted in various ways, but a bit of common sense would help here.
  • Major arterial routes from the major cities in the area, with a high frequency, for example every 10 minutes or higher.
As most of the participants have since moved on, I was proposing to crank the project page up again with current editors to try to refine the criteria, but if any consensus reached on that is going to be overruled, maybe be an exercise in futility. Ibsiadkgneoeb (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
If an across the board policy that had been reached by consensus were being applied, I wouldn't have a problem. There is an across-the-board policy that applies to all articles on Wikipedia: the general notability guideline. This seems to be what you fail to understand. You're arguing that improving the text of the article is enough; Wikipedia says that without demonstrating notability through significant coverage sourcing, all the improvements in the world won't be enough. This is a concept central to Wikipedia, and is one that new editors frequently have trouble understanding, or that seems unreasonable.
Regardless of what a WikiProject may consider to be additional guidelines for their special area, such as major arterial routes, these routes must also have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. No project consensus can overrule this. You'll note that in some of Alzarian16's redirects, the edit summaries mention that the route has been around for a while, or is a major route, but that without the necessary secondary sources, it wasn't considered notable by Wikipedia's standards.
At this point, since the articles were previously identified as non-notable, you should not be bringing them back unless you have the sources to show that they are. Your desire to improve them, while laudable, is running up against Wikipedia's guiding principals of notability and reliable secondary sourcing. (Primary sourcing is fine for certain things, but never sufficient in and of itself, and never an indication of notability.) Source quality matters: unreliable sources like London Bus Routes and the photo and eplate sites do not count and should not be used.
Ibsiadkgneoeb, this isn't about Alzarian16 or Jen, it's about notability. If you had, even once, found and supplied those secondary sources with significant coverage, I wouldn't have reverted. Indeed, I would have had no basis for reverting.
I have no idea what's up with your current block, but if/when you come back, I hope you'll take secondary sourcing more seriously as a core requirement for articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Do What U Want[edit]

Hello BlueMoonset, I left an alternate hook for the above nomination at its page. Would you check back once? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Citations in articles about competition reality TV shows[edit]

Hi. Regarding these edits: [1], [2], [3], can you offer your opinion in this discussion? It is sorely needed. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Lili Bosse[edit]

I have added a reference regarding her parents from The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. I don't think they can be accused of lying, and I don't think her father's obituary was published in the press as he must've been a private citizen, so would you please remove the block and let this go on the front page for DYK? And I will no longer submit articles for DYK, because it takes up too much time. But I think this one should make it to the front page. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Did I handle the mechanics of this pull right?[edit]

[4] EEng (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

EEng, you've got all the basics; thank you very much. One minor point is to place, at the beginning of your comment on the nomination template, one of the icons reflecting that the nomination still needs work (I've added one lower down, which also does the trick)—this not only gives the current status, but the icon cancels out the previous approval tick. The bot-generated table of approved hooks by date that's near the top of the queues and preps page bases its "# Verified" column on the final icon in the review template: if it's either tick, then it's added to the total of verified nominations for that date. Also, on the /Removed page, since you've provided a link to the nomination page, a very brief notice of the issue is all that's needed, rather than a copy of what you've written on that nomination page. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Al-Risalah al-Dhahabiah[edit]

Thanks for your attention. I've already edited the article based on the mentioned items. But the problem is that I'd like to change the hook. is it possible? The new Hook will be as such:

Mhhossein (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein, this isn't a problem: you can add an alternate hook to the nomination template at any time. Call it ALT1, and mention that you prefer it to the original. Indeed, you can suggest more than one alternative. (Further alternates would be ALT2, ALT3, etc.) I think "informed" is an awkward word in this context, however—I'd normally suggest using "wrote" instead, although given how little there is about cells in the article (and how obliquely mentioned, apparently), something else may need to be done. Also, if this is a book or major treatise, it should probably it be in italics, like any book title would be. In which case, you'd use five apostrophes before and after the article link in the hook for bold italics, and change the article itself to use italics where appropriate. (See MOS:TITLES for further information.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey! The article is now edited and I've responded to the reviewer's comments. What should I do then? Mhhossein (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Mhhossein, you wait for the previous reviewer, or a new reviewer, to continue the review process. It may take a little while; please be patient. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Hey, can you have a look at the entry for De Akkermolen? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Done, Drmies. I think you're uniquely qualified for this one. I just realized I forgot to mention that you need to make sure the photo has the proper free license, too, and mention that as well. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Responded. Since you left me a laundry list, I hope I returned the favor by giving you much more than you bargained for. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Drmies. Not that I'm trying to outdo you, but I'm writing long tonight, which I suppose isn't much of a bargain. I'll be interested to hear what you think of the actual GA review. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Finished the sentence. I hope you understand what I meant with "not my article". Drmies (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear. I don't know what to say. Well, for a GA the sourcing is pretty bleak. Ref. 6, for instance, is basically a sentence containing the address. Ref. 3 doesn't actually reference anything in our article. And the review is way short and doesn't really address anything at all: I think it's lousy. Really, Mjroots should have a look at it (Talk:De Akkermolen/GA1). Drmies (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, ref 3 is for Cullen stones coming from Mayen. Ref 6 could probably be replaced by ref 1 or 2, but appears reliable. As with all articles, it could probably be expanded a bit, but as it's passed GA it's good to go for DYK IMHO. BTW, you might want to take a look at Thelnetham Windmill, which is also a GA, might give you some inspiration. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha. I tweaked the sentence to make clear what that reference actually references. But it begs the question--if something passes GA review, is it always a good article? Drmies (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Not all reviewers are created equal, and some of them miss quite a bit. There have been a few GAs that have come through DYK and the articles have needed extensive revision once they came under DYK scrutiny. I just made some edits to Parental Advisory today because of the issues I found after the latest hook proposal... BlueMoonset (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi BlueMoonset, I doubt you want to know this, but I thought I'd tell you in case you do (and apologies if you don't): started review of old DYK nom of three articles here. Thanks, Matty.007 15:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Matty.007, thanks for taking them on. I'm all for encouraging GA authors by nominating their articles to get them to know about that DYK is available to them, but once they know, I think it's incumbent on them to nominate their own articles. If not, then some sort of compensatory review from them or the nominator, if not strictly required, is appropriate, and I'm glad to see you doing so. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, I'll try and bear that in mind (if you think a review is required, just give me a ping and I'll do one). Thanks, Matty.007 17:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)