User talk:BlueMoonset

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

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18


Hi, I see there is huge backlog at DYK for review. Can anyone review DYK without nominating any new article? I want to help to reduce some backlog. I think I am also one of reason to increase backlog. I have 4 DYK credits till now, all of them I got in last 2 weeks. In addition I have 3 DYK nominations pending plus I also had one failed DYK of Desi daru which was my first ever DYK. So total I nominated 8 articles till now but reviewed only 2. Most of these articles I nominated when I was not having any DYK credit. So can I review 5-6 articles just to reduce some backlog created by me? --Human3015TALK  23:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, thank you for offering. People are always welcome to review DYK nominations whether they have made other nominations or not. Once upon a time, before there was a QPQ requirement, all reviews were voluntary. I think the QPQ requirement was introduced because the reviewers began to burn out, and because a handful of people were nominating dozens of articles and not reviewing any. The reason that the first few nominations are "free" is because new contributors tend to be learning how DYK works initially, and gain a better feel for the process and the rules after having their own nominations reviewed. I remember, for my first reviews, picking articles on subjects I had some acquaintance with, and preferably the shorter ones, though neither is a criterion nowadays. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your guidance. I have another question. Does there are people interested in copy-editing articles for grammar? In my this nomination reviewer asking again and again to improve grammar of this article. Actually I tried to improve grammar after his first review and user Victuallers also improved grammar. But reviewer says still there are grammatical mistakes. I have done my best. English is my 3rd language. One user named "Jointed owl" used to do copy-editing on my articles for grammar but now he is blocked indefinitely. Do you know person who can help me for copy-editing? Thanks. --Human3015TALK  04:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Human3015, there is the Guild of Copy Editors, which takes requests, though it can sometimes take them a month or more to get around to it, depending on the number of requests they have. It can be tough when English isn't your primary language; in fact, sometimes it means you miss things not only in your own articles, but in ones that you review. If there's something you don't understand when you're reviewing, don't hesitate to ask for clarification or for a second reviewer to check your work. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I think I am not that much bad in English. My education was in English medium. I can review and write articles. But still having English as primary language makes some difference. Obviously I will take help whenever needed. Regards. --Human3015TALK  05:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, there is an article named Aviation in Indonesia. This article is 10-11 days old. Creator is senior editor but newbie in DYK arena, had just 2 DYK credits back in 2010-2011. He want to nominate it for DYK. Can he nominate it? Though article should be less then 7 days old still I think newbie can get some leeway. What is your opinion? --Human3015TALK  07:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Human3015, I'm sorry I didn't see this sooner; I didn't notice that you'd made a new addition to an old topic. Next time, please start a new topic so I'm more likely to see it. I hope the creator tried nominating back when you asked; the worst that can happen is that someone would say it was too old. That it's someone who once contributed back in the days when you only had five days to nominate may work against him, and also that it's now about two weeks may make it more difficult if it hasn't already been nominated—that much of a delay is less likely to be granted an exception. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nominations: 7-day window enforcement vs. 30-day enforcement vs. informal laxity for new nominators vs. informal laxity for everyone vs. arcane proposal based on star charts and runes[edit]

Hi BlueMoonset, I hope things are well with you. My proposal for a somewhat convoluted way of granting leeway to new nominators at WT:DYK has garnered enough opposition that, even though it also received some support, I won't pursue it. But it seems to me that we need some sort of consensus. What do you think about opening a formal RfC there, asking people to choose between strict enforcement of 7 days, lax enforcement for newbies only, lax enforcement for everyone, or strict enforcement of 30 days for newbies' first 5 noms with 7 days (strict or lax) for everyone else? I've never started an RfC before, but this situation seems like it might be a good one to apply that process to. There are at least two open nominations I know of that would be affected by the outcome. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Or, since so many of the people commenting so far have said 'let's keep it the way it is' but then demonstrated differing opinions on whether 'the way it is' is strict enforcement or some leeway (or a 'judgment call' without specifying whose judgment should be used), maybe the first step should be to seek consensus as to what exactly the status quo even is? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 06:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, I apologize for not replying sooner. I'm personally not in favor of a new special 30-day policy, especially not for the first five nominations. That said, from what I've noticed over the years, IAR could extend a bit on first-time nominations, typically several days or maybe a week, but not beyond that first time (unless there were a couple basically in the same boat at the same time), and not to the point of an extra two weeks (the two recent examples) or even a month total. "The way it is" and the "judgment call" will, as you've noticed, vary significantly from person to person. It might be worthwhile to ask in order to see whether a consensus as to what the status quo regarding an IAR exception for a first-time nominator is/should be, but I imagine it'll be somewhat chaotic. There are also IARs of a day or two sometimes for a regular who forgets to fill out the nomination before the deadline because they misremember the date they started work on the article. If the regular is usually quite good about it, then you're more likely to be forgiving if they slip up very occasionally. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry about not replying sooner. (I hope all is well with you...?) My proposal was as much an attempt at finding a compromise all sides might accept as anything else; I honestly would be just as happy to go along with a consensus to stay at 7 days with a little wiggle room for everyone as with a consensus to make it 30 days for everyone, personally, since I can see advantages to multiple options.
If you think it would indeed be helpful, I'll work out what wording to use (wouldn't want to make a malformed RfC Face-wink.svg) and post to WT:DYK within the next few days. One question: Is it okay for an RfC question to be 'multiple choice' rather than yes/no? WP:RfC isn't explicit on the matter, but gives examples that are all formulated as yes/no questions. Thanks again, GrammarFascist contribstalk 06:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Expansion allowed?[edit]

Thank you for this helpful comment. Btw, how flexible should the reviewer act when the article size does not fulfill the criteria? Mhhossein (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Mhhossein, typically we're quite flexible. Even if an article comes in far short of the required length, we tell them what they have and what they need, and ask whether they're planning to bring it up to size. I typically allow a week for a response—and always put a note on their talk page—and if they ask for more time to make the necessary expansion, so long as they're making progress, they can usually have additional time. But if they aren't responsive, I'll eventually put the X on it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I'll act in this manner in next reviews. How about the 7-days criteria?Mhhossein (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Mhhossein, the seven-day criteria is much less flexible. You can see a recent discussion about it on the DYK talk page here, which is talking about exceptions for new editors, and I don't see a consensus for nominations that are over a week late. For established editors, maybe a day or two if they ask nicely; for new editors who probably didn't know, perhaps four days or up to a week. We used to be looser back when it was five days rather than seven, and also when we had a much smaller backlog, but the backlog is over 300 nominations now. If it were below 150, things would be different. Of course, WP:IAR does come into play, but if you go too far outside the norms then some other reviewer is likely to take exception. (Note that others out there might give you a rather different answer than I just have.) Basically, if you get your nomination in on time we generally let the nominator fix issues where it falls short, but we're less likely to give extra time to make that initial nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

QPQ for dropped DYK nomination[edit]

Hey Bluemoonset, could I use the QPQ review for Silat ad-Dhahr, which has been officially dropped, for another DYK nomination? --Al Ameer (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Al Ameer, there's currently a discussion on this very topic at WT:DYK#Is it allowed to reuse reviews for QPQs if a nomination has been (correctly) rejected?. There's only one response so far, but it looks promising at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I'll keep track of the discussion. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You do good stuff[edit]

May you have a thousand years of sunshine and smiles. — Maile (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Maile. Much appreciated. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, adding to this, let me say that you have been a positive influence, and possibly have a better than average grasp of how any given process can be enhanced for the better. I also know that what you do is not personal, but geared towards improvement of quality within the parameters offered with any article. That said, just keep doing what you do, follow your inner compass. You've built up a lot of credibility over the years. The rest will work itself out. Ignore the junk, which is not important in the long haul anyway. — Maile (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding credit[edit]

Hi, can you help regarding this. I just got DYK credit for Alcohol in Indonesia. But another author I mentioned on Template:Did you know nominations/Alcohol in Indonesia did not get DYK credit for it. That editor was very much involved in this article and he improved article to great length. He deserves credit for this. Can you help in this matter? Thank you. --Human3015TALK  00:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, I've just added a credit to Gunkarta's talk page, adding my own sig to it. What happened here was that although you added him to the top credit in the nomination, it's the DYKmake template that tells the bot where to post the credit sections. Since a DYKmake wasn't added for Gunkarta, only you got the credit when the nomination was posted to the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for it. Same kind of problem may arise with Alcohol in Afghanistan if promoted. On its nomination also I have added other author later. So what we can do now so that other author will get credit at proper time?--Human3015TALK  06:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Human3015, I've just taken care of it by adding a DYKmake template to the nomination page for BarrelProof. With that template in place, in addition to the one already there for you, both of you will get credit when the hook hits the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, one reviewer is not commenting further even after talk back message on his talk page 4 days ago, and he is actively editing all this period. My nomination is here. Can I ask for another reviewer in such cases? (Sorry, but I am asking you too many questions because I am still new at DYKs). --Human3015TALK  12:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Human3015, the general rule of thumb on Wikipedia is to allow a full week for a response. In this case, I recommend that you find a copyeditor to work on the article before you ask for a new reviewer, because the prose needs some work before the article is ready to be promoted to the main page. I did edit the ALT2 hook so it reads better. Also, the article has two references that are bare URLs, which will also have to be fixed before the nomination can pass. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting me know. I've just closed the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)