User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

ANI about User:Tortle

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing by User:Tortle. Thank you. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you revert [1]. I'm at three already. Thanks. —Ruud 15:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ruud, I'd like to understand what's going on there first. I can see that Tortle made a group of edits to the article before submitting the GAN, and that you reverted the whole series. Was there no improvement in any of these edits? Nothing that could be retained? There was a reference page correction that looked useful, for example, though I haven't checked the actual reference myself.

Even if the edits were an improvement, I think the point you made that on his talk page that the reassessment highlighted significant problems that don't appear to have been addressed since the assessment closed in 2013 is telling. I'd like to suggest that you make it on the article's talk page, and highlight at least some of the issues you see as outstanding. Since you only have two reversions there, one today and one several days ago, you are not at 3RR (or even close), so I think the next move is up to you—I don't know the subject and can't judge the article's appropriateness for GAN. I've put the talk page on my watchlist. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

He removed a number of referencing templates and the other changes where a very mixed bag. I didn't feel like cherry picking at the time, but that reference change was indeed useful, so I've reinstated it. (Although at a slightly different location, as it doens't seem to back the "not in widespread use" part of the sentence.) —Ruud 18:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Ruud. If you believe that the article should. . not be nominated for GA, then I think you have a two-step process ahead (as alluded to above):

1. Post a new section on the talk page, explaining why the article is not ready and highlighting some of the places where it falls short of the GA criteria. Once you've done that,
2. You can remove the GA nomination as inappropriate, with an edit summary that references that new section. (You really need to start using edit summaries on that page.)

The other alternative, of course, is to leave it there and let the nomination wait for a reviewer. Given the reviewing backlog, that could be any time from this week to the end of the year. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note you left on the talk page. I find it very worrisome that Tortle somehow knows the magic template incantation required to nominate an article for GA, but seems to be completely unaware of what would be required of an article (and nominator) before such a thing should be done. This seems almost beyond a mistake a newbie could make? I could give him an extended explanation, but I'd feel like I'm wasting my time if I believe he's just being annoying or obstinate on purpose. —Ruud 10:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ruud, I'm taking a wait and see approach, and seeing what's happening with his GA experience at Talk:Lego/GA1 and on the article itself, as well as reading his own talk page. The Lego GAN did fail, and he's resumed work on the article. I'll be interested to see what happens next. Remember, he says he was here years ago under a different account name, so he isn't a newbie, and his youth could easily explain how his enthusiasm has gone awry. Still, his judgment is clearly not adequate when it comes to assessing articles for their GA readiness; with luck, Lego will give him a better idea of what's expected. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

GA review for Treasure

Can you please restore the GA nomination stuff ?:-) Thanks in advance! Cartoon network freak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Arabari

User:Casliber replied to your query at the discussion on 10 September 2015 (UTC). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Replied; thanks for the heads up. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sahifah of al-Ridha

Hey, it's a long time I'm waiting for a response from a volunteer to review Sahifah of al-Ridha which is nominated for GA in January!!! How can it be that the article is not listed here? Mhhossein (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Mhhossein, the GA instructions say to put the nomination at the top of the article talk page, which is what you did. Unfortunately, it was subsequently put inside another template (on February 3), where the bot that checks for GA nominations couldn't see it, so it disappeared from the nominations page.

I've fixed the article talk page, and the nomination now appears on the GA nominations page. Fortunately, it retains its seniority, so as (by far) the oldest nomination, and with the GA Cup running, it's likely to be picked up for review during the next few days. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, you did the job! Mhhossein (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Bot request to handle new day edit at Template talk:Did you know

FYI, a request has been submitted at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Updating T:TDYK every new day to automate the edits needed for a new day at Template talk:Did you know. As you are one of the people who has traditionally kept an eye on that page, you might want to take a look at the request and add an appropriate comment if you see any issues. --Allen3 ^talk 09:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for your help at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Social sciences and society.

Hopefully that permanently fixes it,

— Cirt (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars

This edit you made was good. I wasn't aware of that particular MOS guideline. Also, good job making her name consistent throughout the article. Czoal (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Howard Sims DYK nomination

Hello BlueMoonset, I just wanted to make sure you had seen that I replied to your concern about the Howard Sims DYK nomination several days ago. This was my first DYK nomination, so I am not 100% sure of the process, but I believe the nomination is on hold until you agree the issue has been resolved? Sorry if this comes across as pestering, I do understand that people have lives outside Wikipedia. Thanks again for bringing the problem to my attention. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist|, actually, it's Daniel Case's review, and I made an additional comment on it, which you have addressed. He should be the one to come back to it, though if he isn't interested in pursuing the review further, by all means let me know. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Aha, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining the procedure to the n00b. And thanks for offering to take over should it become necessary. Happy editing, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I was waiting for you to say you were satisfied with his response. I'll finish it up soon. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Taylor Swift#Singer-songwriter

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Taylor Swift#Singer-songwriter. Thanks. Calidum 01:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, but I won't be participating. My only comments at the Good Article Reassessment had to do with process issues in the GA space, and nothing to do with Swift herself. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

About QPQ rules for DYK

Hi BlueMoonset, you seem to be an expert at DYK so I thought I would ask you this question. As I understand it, once someone has had five DYKs they submitted appear on the front page, they then must do a QPQ review for each subsequent DYK nomination they make. That part is clear. Can reviews done before they are needed be counted towards future QPQs, though?

Example: I nominare articles 1 and 2 for DYK, then review the ABC and DEF nominations, then nominate articles 3, 4 and 5. Would I be allowed to claim the review of DEF (not counting ABC as I didn't do a very good job) for the QPQ on article 6?

Relatedly, should I leave reviews I've done off nominations prior to my sixth (so I can claim them later)?

Thanks in advance, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 15:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, there is no requirement to include a review with any of the first five nominations promoted to the main page. And you can start reviewing whenever you like and save reviews for later usage, so you don't have to use up any of the reviews you've already done. We do certainly welcome people who decide to submit a QPQ before they're required, but only a few do so. (I didn't, myself, but I've done plenty of extra reviews beyond my QPQ requirements since.) So you can certainly use DEF with your sixth DYK nomination, and you can certainly continue reviews in the interim, saving them up for seventh, eighth, ninth, and so on. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarifications. I appreciate it.

And now I'm going to pester you with another question. :p I wound up creating an article for the second species mentioned in the ALT1 hook for this nomination, a couple days after creating the first article and nominating it for DYK. Is it too late to convert this into a two-article DYK? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 01:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, ask by all means. It's definitely not too late to combine the two, since the second species is still well within the seven-day period. You'll need to bold the other one in the hook, and this will now count as two DYK nominations toward for first five. Let me know when you've done that, and I'll do the minor template fixes to the nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about DYK

Hi BlueMoonset, do you know the answer to this question: I just achieved a new GA and wish to contribute a new DYK, but someone attempted a DYK for this article six months ago which has been archived: Template:Did you know nominations/Germanwings Flight 9525. When I try to create a new one, this old one appears, since there appears to be only one DYK slot per article. Do you know how to create a new DYK for this article, since the conditions are certainly different now? Thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Prhartcom, the article will still not be eligible: once an article has appeared on the main page at In the News, it cannot subsequently appear at DYK whether new, 5x expanded or just listed as a GA.

For future reference, it is possible to create a new DYK for articles that have not appeared previously at ITN or DYK yet have failed once; LavaBaron just did that with his withdrawn Template:Did you know nominations/Mercados Libres Campesinos nomination after I pointed out his QPQ was incomplete, which he resubmitted as Template:Did you know nominations/Mercados Libres Campesinos 2 with a different review. You just need to vary the name of the nomination template. (Did you also notice his six consecutive DYK reviews posted over a 30 minute span that night, which were even more incomplete than the one I highlighted, and have all since been superseded by requests for full reviews?) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for answering that; no big deal. Thanks for telling me how to do it otherwise. It helps to know the people who know these things. As for your other comment ... amazing. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi BlueMoonset, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Harrias ^talk 17:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Harrias. This was an unexpected and pleasant surprise, and much appreciated. Even if I'm not creating as much these days, I'll be sure to continue doing it the right way. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Antoni Koper

Having been unavailable for a few weeks for personal reasons, I've only now learned of the concerns of close paraphrasing in Antoni Koper. I understand the concern about the item specified, and I have corrected it. However, having now reviewed the article and sources thoroughly, I remain unsure what other instances of close paraphrasing might yet concern User:Fuebaey. I have requested a fuller detailing from User:Fuebaey and I'm happy to make any revisions other editors agree are needed to improve the article, regardless of the status of the DYK nomination, especially in light of the delay caused by me recent unavailability. Is it now too late for the article to be considered, or should I abandon the nomination altogether? I would appreciate any advice you can offer about how I should proceed. Thank you. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Malcom Gregory Scott, I'm afraid it is too late for the article to be considered for DYK at this time; the nomination was rejected four days ago. Should you continue working on the article and at some point successfully have it listed as a Good Article, then it can be nominated again. (The article is so long now that I don't see how it could be expanded by five times in seven days; you'd need to add nearly 18,000 prose characters.)

If you need help identifying close paraphrasing, you might want to ask User:Nikkimaria, who is the person I always consult when close paraphrasing is a possible concern. Best of luck, and sorry that DYK didn't work out this time. I hope you'll try again. If there's anything I haven't answered sufficiently or anything else you'd like to ask, please feel free to ask again. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Also...

Can we convince you to become an admin yet? I know the question has been asked repeatedly, and each time you have declined. Despite that, on behalf of Wikipedia, and in particular, DYK, I come, cap in hand, to ask once again. Admins are well within their rights to work in very specific areas, so you could easily restrict your work to DYK if you wanted, but the additional help that you could provide that project would be invaluable, particularly with keeping the queues rotating on time. That said, I can completely respect anyone who doesn't want a mop! Harrias ^talk 17:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliment inherent in such a request, Harrias, but my feelings about remaining mop free are unchanged since this was last raised here in August. Indeed, some recent interactions have been sufficiently unpleasant that I've been contemplating spending a bit less time on Wikipedia. Thanks for the encouraging words. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough; I hadn't realised that the last request had been quite so recent! Keep up the good work. Harrias ^talk 06:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK review for Safeword (game show)

Hi BlueMoonset, I was going through DYK nominations looking for some to review, and I noticed Template:Did you know nominations/Safeword (game show) has been around a long time. It needs a new reviewer, but specifically an experienced reviewer. Do you think I have enough grounding in DYK review to take it over, or should I leave it to someone else? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, given the sorts of issues on this one, and that Ritchie333 (a very experienced reviewer) wanted another very experienced reviewer, I think perhaps not yet. I'd like to give this more time to attract that very experienced reviewer, if you don't mind. (It only became available a couple of days ago.) I am impressed with your work on the other one from July, though, and was wondering if you wanted to finish off the Template:Did you know nominations/National Association of Seadogs or Template:Did you know nominations/Louise Upton Brumback nominations, which I think just need hook checks. If you want more to do than that, there's this triple-article nomination, with plenty of other possibilities on the list. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment on my DYK review of the Supplication of Abu Hamza al-Thumali nomination, BlueMoonset; that means a lot coming from you. I understand your reasoning for recommending I not take over Safeword (game show). I can't finish National Association of Seadogs because all it still needs is a hook check, and I wrote the hook in question. I will have a look at Louise Upton Brumback, though, and, if I can work my way up to feeling that ambitious, I may give the triple nomination a try too. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Diwali

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

DYK review for Sigala (musician) / Good Times (Ella Eyre song)

Hello again BlueMoonset, I hope you don't mind my continuing to hit you up for answers to my questions about DYK. I wanted to get a second opinion as to how the special rules for notability of musicians work, as I find the official guideline's use of "may" vague. Is it, as the nominator suggests at Template:Did you know nominations/Sigala (musician), Good Times (Ella Eyre song), the case that meeting any one of the musician-specific notability criteria means that they do not have to also meet the general notability standard? Or are those musician-specific criteria meant to represent a higher standard than the usual Golden Rule? Or do the two sets of standards interact in some other way? Thanks in advance for clarifying this for me. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Notability, oddly enough, isn't usually a significant criterion for DYK; indeed, I've seen articles that passed the Good Article criteria and were listed at GA, but were later deleted because of notability issues. That said, MUSICBIO, as you note, says "may be notable". If a musician meets a single criterion, that doesn't guarantee notability. (I've seen this fought at SONG as well; it typically depends on who shows up at the AFD discussion, unfortunately; if they all say keep, it doesn't seem to matter that their arguments don't match the criteria.) The most appropriate way to settle notability issues is at articles for deletion; if the article survives, then the community considers it notable. At DYK, if the article doesn't have adequate secondary sourcing, or doesn't cover the subject matter adequately, then you can make a case regarding its deficiencies, and ask for them to be remedied. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, yesterday Asaf Ali Asghar Fyzee was featured in DYK but somehow I am not able to check page views of that article. That tool is not showing page views since 11 Oct. Is there any other way to find out how many views that article got? Just for record purpose. Thank you.--Human3015^TALK  04:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, it looks like the tool doesn't have access to the latest page view data for any articles, and I'm not sure where else the information might be available. It could be an issue with one of the databases that will be fixed in time, in which case you would be able to find out in the next couple of days. Best of luck, and sorry I couldn't help you. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, there was a report that the stats were fixed, but I don't know whether that means all the missing data has been restored. You might want to try again and see what is displayed. Hope it works for you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Past missing data has also been restored. Thanks for giving me update.--Human3015^TALK  07:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK

I notice you have weighed in at Template:Did you know nominations/Francis Doughty (clergyman). Please read the note I posted on User:Maile66's talk page: [2] StAnselm (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

StAnselm, thank you for letting me know. I'm very sorry you've been caught up in the middle of this; there's currently a major kerfuffle about reviewing going on on the DYK talk page that I have hopes will settle itself out in the not too distant future. I appreciate your comment in that note you posted, though it might be best to have someone who isn't closely involved in said kerfuffle, as Maile66 is, do the new review. Regardless, I can't imagine that a satisfactory review won't have been completed in plenty of time for the hook to run on Halloween, as seems to be the plan, and if my imagination is faulty, I'll find a new reviewer myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging reply! StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Provinces of other lands

For your information, the reason I have been expanding articles on towns and provinces in France, Italy and Spain is because of the high number of points they gain me as DYKs for the WikiCup. Thankfully, that finishes on October 31st and I haven't nominated any of these articles since mid-October because I didn't think they would pass through the DYK system in time. I don't work on these articles from choice, the history of the areas tends to be complex, the sources tend to be in a foreign language and it is challenging to find sufficient information from reliable sources to provide sufficient expansion. For example, I was just in discussion with Gerda on the Province of Cremona nomination. I could demonstrate that rice was grown in the province and that a network of artificial canals criss-crossed the Lombardy plains, but I could not demonstrate that they were actually present in Cremona, a recently created administrative region. So too with Haute-Loire, where you thought I was too close to the source. The source I used had little information but phrases like "came under the control of" are difficult to express differently because of the difficulty of finding relevant information - was the territory won in battle, inherited, acquired by marriage or what? So I am not proud of these articles, the history sections in particular are not very good, but I still think they are an improvement over the minimal articles (stubs) that were there before. I'm trying to say that I don't normally close paraphrase and that it is the particular circumstances that surround these articles that caused this lapse. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, thanks for letting me know. I was actually quite surprised to see the close paraphrasing, because my experience with your work is that you're careful to avoid it. The odd thing is that there are some people who would have passed it even if they'd done Earwig copyvio check because (aside from the wiki that was copying it) the Earwig likelihood level for that source was 18% ... which is one of the reasons I dislike Earwig: it's way too hit or miss. (Sources tend to be listed at 0% as much because the attempted "get" timed out as that there were no passages that matched.) I'll get back to the nomination soon; the drama on the WT:DYK page has been excessive, and shows no signs of letting up. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

GA review

Hello! Perhaps you remember of me from Talk:Treasure (Bruno Mars song)/GA1. Can you review Give Me Your Everything and Dance (Alexandra Stan song) against the GA status? All the best and thanks in advance!:-) User:Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Cartoon network freak, I'm limiting my Wikipedia participation right now, so I'm afraid I won't be able to review your articles. I hope that someone is able to do so without too much of a wait. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/That We Can Play

Wow, I've learned a lot since I started to review Template:Did you know nominations/That We Can Play — much of it thanks to your kind tutelage. But after consulting this diff, which covers every edit the nominator made to the article since they said they were "really going to take this seriously" yesterday, I'm beginning to despair of them being able to actually correct the close paraphrasing still present, as opposed to maybe hiding a little of it from automated copyvio checkers. Should I perhaps just go in and do the necessary rewrites myself, even though that will mean another editor will have to re-review the nomination? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, if you don't think they're capable (and it appears not), then the choices are to fail it, do it yourself, or send them off to the Guild of Copy Editors. (The problem with the latter is that they can take a month or more to get to the request.) I've actually just pointed someone else on this page to the GOCE. If you do it yourself, then another reviewer does need to be found, and in any case I'd probably want Nikkimaria to check it to make sure nothing slipped by (it's always good to have a backstop). Best of luck, whatever you decide. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I think I'll give them another couple of days, then have at it if, as seems likely, it's still necessary. But who knows, maybe we'll get a pleasant surprise. I am unfamiliar with NikkiMaria; does she(?) have particular expertise in evaluating music-related articles? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your excellent work at and around Did You Know, where you are a model of appropriate behavior and gentle guidance. (You can totally use this barnstar as proof that somebody else is a no-goodnik; trust me, I'm a reliable source because I say I am! </sarcasm>) — GrammarFascist contribstalk 14:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, GrammarFascist. I much appreciate the nod. You're very kind. As it happens, I've only ever deleted/refused one Barnstar, which was (not coincidentally) given to me by that somebody else on August 27, an hour or so before he banned me from his talk page for a month. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

User:LavaBaron/DYKAbbreviations

Wow, how WP:POINTy. It doesn't seem that he will stop flogging a dead horse. It may be a better idea to simply avoid provoking him as much as possible, and he will hang himself. sst✈ 14:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

sst, I doubt that anyone who can write as he does elsewhere can be as stupid as his recent reply to your post on his page would seem to indicate. Of course, he can't resist misstatements and exaggerations as he posts, so you're probably right that it will come to bite him in the end. It's too bad that there doesn't seem to be a way to avert the inevitable collateral damage to Wikipedia in general and DYK in particular. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

LB certainly does say any number of things which (AGF) are coincidentally provocative, such as misstatements of fact, misrepresentation of what other editors have said, and shortening my name to simply "Fascist". It's almost as if LB is, like a troll, trying to get a rise out of people. Of course it's our duty as Wikipedians to presume LB simply has poor reading comprehension and social skills. If it turns out that that is not the case, though, sst's analogy to WP:ROPE may well turn out to have been apt.

By the way, BlueMoonset, I considered carefully before weighing in on the DYK talk page, and I made an informed decision to leave myself open to being swept up in the WikiDrama. And if I've drawn some of that certain someone's ire from you to me, so much the better, if it's been burning you out. Not that I enjoy it, but it isn't bothering me unduly. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, you've clearly drawn that ire, having all of your unreviewed DYK nominations opened for review at once, and each recent comment in one starting either "Unfortunately" or "Sorry you were confused" even though you weren't. (WP:DYKR is also being ignored in the process.) I appreciate your sacrifice and wince when I see colleagues in the line of ire, though in all honesty while the behavior bothers me, the damage that's being done here bothers me far more, both to the established DYK process and to the collegial feel of DYK. I've put a great deal of time into DYK, and get a certain amount of satisfaction when my work helps it run more smoothly, but I'm not here at Wikipedia to raise the level of stress in my life, and that's what's been happening. (People wonder why I've refused the mop given the many offers I've received to be nominated: this amount of stress is No Fun.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't blame you for turning it down; I have no desire to be an admin either, much as I appreciate the work they do. I have enough trouble making time to work on the areas of WP I prefer to contribute to as it is.

Your hard work at DYK shows, which is why I awarded you that barnstar. I don't feel the current disruption has completely ruined DYK's collegiality; everyone else is still behaving appropriately, after all. And so far I haven't noticed any permanent harm to the process (just the addition of delays to certain nominations), so take heart. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 02:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Varaha Upanishad

How do I renominate this page Template:Did you know nominations/Varaha Upanishad now that User:Ms Sarah Welch has reworked the article with a good deal of inputs? User:RhinoMind was involved with the review. In fact I had with drawn the article at her suggestion. Nvvchar. 09:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I don't believe you can. The nomination was withdrawn, which would mean you'd have to start from scratch with the most recent expansion—it isn't a new article. Unfortunately, it doesn't qualify as it is now: it is only about a 1.4x expansion since the withdrawal, not a 5x expansion. I'd say that the only sure way is for you to nominate it to become a GA, and for it to be approved there, after which you'd have seven days to nominate it.

This is basically an article that was completely rewritten after it was withdrawn and rejected, not the one you originally nominated back in August. You can always ask at WT:DYK if you feel this warrants an exception, but making one isn't something I could personally support. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK help!

Dear BlueMoonset. I'm not very experienced on reviewing DYKs and so I need a second opinion. This is probably easy for you: there is this one DYK [[ nomination that confuses me a bit. Two articles were nominated for a DYK, Valls and Alt Camp, two regions in Spain. The DYK is about the calçot culture for those region, but there is no mention of calçots in Alt Camp so I decided to remove Alt Camp from the nomination, and asked the nominator to corrected some wordings for one of the article before the nomination is approved. I don't know whether this is a wise request for the DYK nomination, so could you provide a second opinion on this? --Rochelimit (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

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? --Human3015^TALK  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. --Human3015^TALK  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. --Human3015^TALK  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? --Human3015^TALK  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

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 _contribs^talk 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 _contribs^talk 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 ) 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 _contribs^talk 06:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Expansion allowed?

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

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

File:Smilie Kissen (cropped).jpg

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)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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)

Regarding credit

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. --Human3015^TALK  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?--Human3015^TALK  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). --Human3015^TALK  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)

• Hi, this has been withdrawn. --Human3015^TALK  14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. I've just closed the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiclaus' cheer !

		Wikiclaus greetings
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you the happiest of Wikiclaus' Wikipedian good cheer. This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages us all to spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing others a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !

Season's Greetings!

Hello BlueMoonset: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Ada

I think we may be paniccing early as Ada was born on the 10th? Victuallers (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Victuallers, I thought the entire point was that we wanted to run these articles on the bicentennial day, which is the 10th. Queue 1 and Prep 2 are the two sets that are currently scheduled to run on the 10th. Yoninah, do I have that right? If not, then I'll drop it, and we should probably return the accumulated hooks from the special occasion area to their original dates. (Queue 5 will be promoted in 40 minutes; Queue 6 in 12:40. Then it's the 10th, and Queue 1, little more than 24 hours from now—this is not the moment for further delay if you want this to go forward.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not delaying BM - I'm working on it now. I have cleared Q1 and reserved P1 and P2. I will fill these if no one else does. Do help if you can. Victuallers (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

GA

Thank you for the prompt. I am, obviously, new to the GA process. (I had asummed that it was more like AFD, with multiple editors weighing in.) I followed your instructions regarding Filipino Americans, an article with disbarring problems about which I am qualified to comment. Re: Thomas Bailey Marquis, I am unsure how to proceed. I left comments o on the GA discussion page, but issues of verbosity aside, I have grave misgivings about the historiography, that is, the assessment of Marquis's status among historians, which feels highly unprofessional and certainly would not have been published in anything like this form in an encyclopedia edited by professional historians. Is this the standard at Wikipedia? I am not expert on the Indian wars.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory, no, when you started these reviews, you were taking responsibility for the full review. You'll definitely want to read the Good Article instructions page in full, which covers the process from beginning to end. You will equally definitely want to read the Good Article criteria, since there are very specific requirements for an article to be listed as a GA, including prose quality, grammar, citations, being free from copyvio and close paraphrasing, adhering to WP:LEAD, having all images be licensed and meet certain standards, and so on. Verbosity is covered under criterion 3, especially 3b. I can understand your historiography concerns, and perhaps it would be a good idea to call for a 2nd opinion on that issue. At least, that's what I'd normally recommend, but it seems to take weeks if not months these days for someone to come by. Perhaps you could post a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History for someone to look over the historiography in the article and see whether it seems appropriate and balanced and neutral? (Neutrality is number 4 of the GA criteria.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Done. (I looked into the historiography myself; kudos to you for your labours at GA - enormously time-consuming task) Thanks again.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, I am just commenting here because Blumoonset helps everyone at DYK and E.M.Gregory is involved reviewer. E. M. Gregory has reviewed my nomination but I am not getting what exactly improvement is needed in article. Now its more than a week. --Human3015^TALK  16:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Caesars Palace

Feel free to take out one of the lesser importance ones in the queue I've contributed in favour of Caesars Palace. It is one of the places most associated with Frank Sinatra and would be worth doing I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, since I'm not an admin, I can't do anything once hooks hit the queue. You'll need to find an admin, and with only a couple of minutes before the first set is promoted to the main page, it will have to Queue 6 that gets the nod. Best of luck! (I think 363 Copa De Oro Road is probably the best choice to be moved to a later prep to make room for Caesars Palace, but that will be up to the admin.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for going out of your way to patiently and courteously explain the GA process.

E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy I was able to help! If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Staten Island Railway

I want the Staten Island Railway article a good article without copyvios. Is it possible that you could reassess it to fix the problem. Thanks. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Bara Gumbad

I would appreciate another editor taking over the review. My time is limited at the moment. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Advent

I tried to respond to your concerns Template:Did you know nominations/Übers Gebirg Maria geht. The pregnant Mary should not be shown after Christmas ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, there are a couple of things that I'd like to add before I approve it, which I won't be able to do for at least eight hours because I have to check some sources; would you like a special occasion date like December 23 or 24 to be sure it runs prior to Christmas Day (or even on the 25th)? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I must have a language problem saying that I don't want her pregnant on Christmas Day, - please before, thanks for looking into sources! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Steven Anzovin

You removed "effect" and put in "affect" in the hook. I think you made a mistake. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a rare exception to the general rule. See Grammar girl. {:>{)> Stan 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen, I don't believe I did make a mistake. One can indeed effect change (which is Grammar Girl's noted exception; basically cause or make change), but changes affect (interact with and change) the world around us. As the hook is written, "affect" is correct; you can't substitute "cause" or "make" or even her "accomplish" in that sentence. You're welcome to check with other grammar wonks if you'd like, but I think they'll agree with my edit to that hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I would be horrified to put a grammatically incorrect hook on the Main page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Dear BlueMoonset: Wishing you and yours a warm and wonderful holiday season! I value your contributions to DYK, and look forward to seeing more of them in 2016. Best, Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Yoninah. Let me return those wishes and for a Happy New Year, plus thanks for your own manifold DYK contributions. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: StatisticianBot

Hey. Just saw your message now, was off for a couple days. Looks like it finally went back up last night, though if I'm wrong on that I can send him an e-mail. As for the second opinion, if it's still up when I finish the review i'm working on now (i'm so slow on reviews anymore i'm becoming the user i always yelled at, heh), I'll take a look at that. Merry Christmas! Wizardman 15:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Wizardman, thanks for getting back to me. The bot did indeed finally run the report yesterday, thanks—I thought you'd sent the email! However, the bot's only run once successfully: if it skips another day before the end of the year I'll ping you again so you can write that email and Daniel can take a look. Regarding that second opinion, I have little doubt that it will still be there no matter how slow you are on this one. (I'm about to close down a review opened on November 16 but with no review text ever posted; the nominator got to work despite a great many edits elsewhere plus two talk-page reminders.) And if you wanted to tackle the other second opinions after that, I wouldn't say no... BlueMoonset (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Properly citing web sources

I personally believe that Clyde cancer cluster follows all of the Good Article requirements. There is only 1 problem:

• The citations: This is really not a major issue. I know all the citations I used are reliable sources. The article is definitely notable because it received continuous news coverage for several years on several news sites, and supports a long, detailed article. And there is no question about the article's factual accuracy. The only problem is that the citation format is incorrect. Can you please help me to correct all these internet citations? By the way, they are mostly citations of news articles, but some are of law firm sites and one is an official court document. I really want to make a Clyde article that's a good article. Philmonte101 (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy of Science DYK

Sorry to ask this apparently too late, but what was the problem with alt5, here? I am really at a loss to understand the opposition to my nomination. Please re-open it or let me know who I should talk to about an appeal. Thanks. -hugeTim ^(talk) 20:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC) I've also just addressed the concern about uncited paragraphs. I initially considered that concern unwarranted but I am now very glad it prodded me to remove some badly written, extraneous material and also add a few sources for statements that needed them. -hugeTim ^(talk) 20:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) hugeTim, I won't be reopening the nomination, but if you want to appeal the closure on the WT:DYK page, you are welcome to. You basically threw up your hands on December 10 and left, saying "Do with this DYK as you wish, whoever else." That's exactly what happened when I closed it sixteen days later. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)