This is an archive of past discussions with User:BlueMoonset. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
All the GAR work you've done lately (whether closing or reviewing reassessments) takes lots of dedication and was well needed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Snuggums. It's hard to believe that some of these individual reassessments have been sitting around for upwards of three years... BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Work ceased on the Paralympic classification articles in March, when it was hoped that the IPC would fund a Wikipedian in Residence to work on them full time. This fell though in July, and work resumed. It looks like everyone involved is flat out with the Paralympics being on in September. Can it wait until I return from Rio in October? It has been going on for that long already. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, it isn't up to me. Fram opened an individual reassessment, which means it stays open as long as he thinks appropriate. He's the sole reviewer, though others can comment, and when he's done, he can close his review as "kept" or "delisted", just as a GAN reviewer can close at any time with "listed" or "failed". Community reassessments have a different methodology, but that's not what is in process. I did start the ball rolling again last week; at this point, all I can do is monitor what happens and make sure the various templates are updated per the results of the closure, whenever that should happen.
If the articles should be delisted, then they'll be exactly as they are now textually, only as B- or C-class rather than GAs. People looking at Wikipedia will still get the same information about Paralympic classifications, which is the important thing; indeed, the information is clearer thanks to the reviews to date. Having looked at the B1 article, I can say frankly that you've had years of GA status as an undeserved gift. Any articles that are delisted should be able to be gotten back into shape starting in October and nominated at GAN. Best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a mop reserved in your name
You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified! You personify an administrator without tools, and have gained my support; already!
From a recent comment at DYK, I was surprised to learn that you're not an admin. I think it would be good for you to be promoted so you can help out even better there. Please consider WP:RFA. Andrew D. (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Andrew D., I appreciate the compliment, but I have no wish to become an admin; it would add an extra layer of stress that I don't want; things are stressful enough around DYK these days as it is. It is quite warming that people come by and ask me to do an RFA—the most recent times were ten and twelve months ago—but I feel sure I'd burn out quickly, and I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia too much to want that to happen. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to badger you, but I notice that the current change of gear at DYK is quite complicated and that you're having to explain the details to admins that you're depending on to get it these tasks done. Surely this sort of task would go more smoothly if you were able to do these things yourself too? There's no requirement to do other admin stuff like blocking people or deleting stuff too and the regulars at RfA are crying out for competent editors to step up and help share this kind of load and so I'm still not fully understanding your reluctance. What is the nature of the stress that is holding you back? Is it that you don't want to get sucked into becoming more of a dogsbody for little reward? Or is it that you don't want to be put in a position where you might conflict with other admins? Or what? Per WP:CHOICE, it's your right to do as much or as little volunteer work as you wish but it might help our general understanding if the reasons for this were clearer. Andrew D. (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It's also my right not to put my name up, and not to explain myself further. Thanks, but I'm still not interested in the mop, even if it might be convenient at times. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Rachel Bilson
Hi, Bluemoonset, and thanks for the reminder. I've spent a couple of hours touching up problems at Rachel Bilson, but there are still numerous issue to address, which I've noted at Talk:Rachel Bilson/GA1. I see another editor there is all in favor of delisting. I hope my comments there help in determining how to proceed. With best wishes, --Tenebrae (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Tenebrae, thanks so much for responding and doing further edits. If you don't mind, I'd like to place notices on the relevant WikiProject pages, to give them a chance to work on the article, much like you just did. It's part of the procedure given on the WP:GAR page. If no significant progress is made on the issues you've raised within seven days, the reassessment would then be closed as unsuccessful—I'm happy to do that part of the process if you'd like—while if good progress is being made because an editor has shown up to improve the article, the review would continue. However, if you did make those WikiProject notifications back in 2014 when you opened the reassessment, then we don't need to do so again, though I certainly can anyway. Please let me know. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Bluemoonset. Yeah, anything you could do to get the reassessment ball rolling would be great. I'm sure could learn to do it, but it'd be a learning curve for me since I don't believe I've done it before, and honestly, I'm a little burned out on this article. Times like this, I especially appreciate being part of a team of editors! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
DYK
Hi BlueMoonset, yes, on the John Hazelwood DYK nom' page I noticed that you added the word 'that' to the hooks, except for the approved hook, which was crossed out. Not sure what this means. Is the approved hook being rejected simply because it's not the shortest? I'm hoping that the comprehensiveness of the hook will be among the primary considerations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Just realized that with the addition of the word 'that' to the original hook it would be over 200 characters, so I did some condensing and the hook is now only 190 characters. Apologies for the mix up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Really dumb GA question
Hey Blue, got a question that I'm probably completely overthinking. I wrote Joe Nathan roughly eight years ago, and it became a GA. Since then it's atrophied to the point that I know it's not a GA, and since it seems like the guy will never retire (which I was waiting on before an improvement, but no longer have the time or desire now), even if I fix it it'll just atrophy again. Can I just delist it myself, or should I put it at GAR to cover my ass so I don't get any complaints? (I can't imagine there would be any but you never know). Wizardman22:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Wizardman, you've been around GA a lot longer than I have, so I'd think you'd be a more experienced judge. I'm a process guy: if the process has been established, I tend to think it should be followed. Although I've seen a couple of abrupt delistings of late, it isn't the process that's been set up and I don't much like seeing it happen, though as a non-admin I don't challenge admins. For Joe Nathan, I'd put it up for a community GAR. (You certainly can't do an individual reassessment per the rules.) I'm sure if the article's in the shape you say (and you point out its flaws on the reassessment page), it will be delisted soon enough since you're not interested in updating it and I rather doubt anyone else at the baseball WikiProject will be. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for informing
Thank you, for informing about icon selection, in DYK review , I shall consider it in further reviews, as this was my first review.Junosoon (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Jonathunder - QPQ stands for Quid pro Quo a latin phrase which I believe means I do something for you and you do something for me. I presume it's with reference to DYK, when you submit a DYK you are expected to review two other nominations - QPQ. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Jonathunder, the quid pro quo review means that, once you have five DYK credits, you are expected to do a full review of one article (not two) for each article you nominate. (So if you nominate two articles in a single nomination, you would be expected to supply two QPQ reviews for that nomination, one for each of the nominated articles.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, that's right. It's GA where it is suggested that for each nom you make that you review two articles. Though not required. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Sino-Roman relations
I see that you just recently overturned User:Iazyges's promotion of Sino-Roman relations as a Good article at Talk:Sino-Roman relations/GA2. Is there a particular reason why? Please voice your concerns on that page. Traditionally, from what I've seen, Good articles can be reviewed by one reviewer/copy-editor, whereas FA's require a wider consensus. Are you basically removing Iazyge's deicion on the grounds that not enough reviewers have weighed in? Pericles of AthensTalk02:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
PericlesofAthens, I've just posted to the review page my reasoning. If you'd like to look at the review he finished immediately before Sino-Roman relations (both were posted in a 16-minutes period), please see Talk:Caracalla/GA1, which I looked at first. When new GA reviewers do problematic reviews, they have been reversed on these grounds rather than having the review dragged through a full-fledged GA reassessment. This happened less than 24 hours ago at Talk:Cambridge/GA2. Note that it is not merely that I feel that Iazyges didn't put in enough time, though that's clearly the case, but that the review clearly missed issues that prevented the article from fulfilling the GA criteria. It was demonstrably not an adequate review. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Did you know that the Carnethy 5 is an annual hill race in the Pentland Hills, was meant to commemorate the Battle of Roslin? -> Did you know that Carnethy 5 is an annual hill race held in the Pentland Hills, that was meant to commemorate the Battle of Roslin?
ALT1:Did you know that in order to commemorate the battle of roslin, the people of Pentland Hills hold a horse race called the Carnethy 5? -> Did you know that in order to commemorate the Battle of Roslin, the people of Pentland Hills hold a horse race called Carnethy 5?
I'll also suggest an ALT2:...that the people of Pentland Hills commemorate the Battle of Roslin by holding a horse race at Carnethy Hill called Carnathy 5?
Additionally link to Carnethy 5 and potentially the Battle of Roslin as well. That's the most minor of issues, I haven't handled DYK before so wait for BlueMoonset to look at it as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Iazyges, the formatting isn't quite right on the template. Each hook is supposed to start with "... that" (no "Did you know", but the space is required between the three dots and the word "that"), and the link to the nominated article has to be bolded. You might want to scan through WP:DYK for the general rules and required formatting; more detailed explanations for many facets can be found at WP:DYKSG. Best of luck! Feel free to let me know if you have any further questions. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
DYK again
I don't understand the purpose and precise use of the "subpage=" parameter in the DYK prepset template. Is this needed for all creators in a multi-creator hook? If you look at Prep 6, which I completed this morning, "Rock-Olga" only has the subpage parameter for the first creator. Do I need to add it for the other creators? Is it needed for hook nominators? Meanwhile, I added subpage parameters for both "Lauren Rowles" and "Laurence Whiteley", choosing to make the subpage "Lauren Rowles, Laurence Whiteley" because otherwise it gives a red link when previewed. Was this right?
Cwmhiraeth, I'm running out of time here, so I'm going to answer your first question now, and the other later. The subpage parameter is only required when the article name in the second field does not match the name of the template page (which can be found in the first of the DYK nompage links parameters). It says that the link back to the nomination template should be based on the subpage info, not the article name. So for Rock-Olga, the subpage parameter wasn't really needed in any of them because the article name and DYK nomination page name were the same (though the template page creation process automatically adds a subpage link to the first DYKmake only); for the Rowles and Whiteley DYKmakes, both needed the subpage parameter because the template page name was different from each article's name. Note that even a minor difference in article names, such as capitalization, will require a subpage parameter. I'll try to get to the rest later today, but it will be another six hours, if not more. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Macrinus
I see that Emir of Wikipedia has gone ahead and passed the article for GA, regardless, as I strive to improve my project articles as much as possible, I'd still like the "full" prose review if possible. You can leave it on whichever page you wish, my talk, your talk, my sandbox if you'd like it off the talk pages, or the review page for Macrinus even though it has been completed. I appreciate the time you took to give your second opinion, and, like I said on the review page "prose is generally my main concern" with my submissions. I think research and coverage are my strong points here and I strive for NPOV and stability. Brevity, also, is a weakness as you will notice that even the simplest request ends up being 5 lines longer than necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Mr rnddude, thanks for letting me know. I was very surprised to see that he'd listed the article, and also somewhat disappointed. I have posted there, but it will be my last post; it is not appropriate to run what's effectively a post-review shadow review once the nomination has closed. However, if I find there are significant issues when I work through the article, I may open an individual GA reassessment. This is no comment on you; I'm sure that, if requests had been made in the course of a typical review, you would have made all the fixes and the article ultimately listed anyway. The goal will be, as such reassessments are meant to do, to get the article to the point that it meets all the GA criteria. By its nature, an individual reassessment gives a chance for the article to be covered in a systematic way by reviewer and editor. I'm not a fast reviewer, but whether as comments on your talk page or as a GAR, I'll do my best to be as expeditious as possible. Speaking of GARs, will you be opening an individual one on Tycho Brahe soon? I think it makes sense given what you outlined on Emir of Wikipedia's talk page (he's just responded to you there, by the way); it might help future reviews to show where previous ones missed issues with the criteria. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I intend to open an individual re-assessment for Tycho Brahe, it however, has to wait till probably the weekend as I have other duties to attend to that impact my actual life. I would appreciate an individual re-assessment (for Macrinus) if you'd like to commit to one. I haven't performed an individual GAR before (community GAR's are quite different), but, I believe that it is almost the same procedure as a standard GA review giving the editor the ability to make necessary corrections before the review is closed, the main difference being it will either be closed as Keep or De-list rather than as Pass or Fail. That is at least how I will run Tycho Brahe's GAR as I don't think it would be fair to the nominator to quick-fail it. It's also a well written article and fails only some of the criteria. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Great. Glad to hear Tycho Brahe is still on your radar, Mr rnddude. Based on my understanding of WP:GAR, a quick fail is never appropriate on an individual reassessment. In addition to notifying the primary editors and the GA reviewer (if still around) of the just-opened GAR, you're also supposed to let the WikiProjects know that a reassessment is underway. Once the full review is posted and the notifications made, allow at least the standard seven days for work to begin. As for Macrinus, I'll get to it as soon as I can. I do have other projects that should have first dibs, some of them off wiki. As for eagerness in the drive, one of my concerns when it was proposed was the person proposing it, Jaguar, because he had done some pretty superficial reviews not that long ago, including one I ended up taking to GAR. (It ended up being delisted.) One of the things that's supposed to happen in these drives is that the person or people running it are supposed to at least spot-check the reviews to make sure they're up to standard. I haven't seen any evidence that any of the reviews done this month have been checked, and the time to check them is as they're being done, not after a month has passed and many more have followed, perhaps with the same issues as the first. I just hope there haven't been more issues along these lines. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
If it matters, I myself did spot-check some randomly picked reviews as I was looking for a little guidance in how editors approach quick-fails, the quick-fails were at least appropriate. I have good faith in most of the involved editors at the drive as most are quite experienced. Ritchie also spot-checked one of mine, he had concerns with 3a but we realized that the source he'd linked had been used in the article under a different name (well, publisher) and despite it's short length, I think it really did meet 3a. Otherwise, only a couple non-review comments were left on the reviews I did and they were directed at minute details such as a source being left in that hadn't been used. Of course, just ping me when you get to Macrinus, no rush. You may want to take a skim look of the one last article that Emir of Wikipedia has passed, I didn't notice any major issues, but, I think you're probably a better judge for the 1a criterion than I am. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Mr rnddude, I've finally completed writing up a reassessment page for Macrinus, and posted it at Talk:Macrinus/GA2. I'm about to do the mandated notifications to you and Emir of Wikipedia, and the various WikiProjects. I'm sure you'll be able to address the issues I've raised, and I'll try to be responsive, though things will be busier than usual for me over the next week or so. Thanks for your patience. I noticed that you started the Tycho Brahe reassessment; thanks again for doing it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
No problem and thanks, I've jut had a read through of your re-assessment. Generally I shouldn't have problems fixing things up according to your comments, though, a couple things are vague in the article because they're vague in the sources, will post comments on the re-assessment talk page if necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Having chanced on this thread while about to post on this page about another topic, can I draw your attention to this GA review? I don't believe the reviewer had any intention of considering whether the article met the GA criteria, or the purpose of doing a GA review as mentioned by you above. I believe the motivation for this delisting was of a purely personal nature. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, this is from 2014. I realize you and Fram are going through a bad patch right now, but to bring up something this old doesn't strike me as useful. The article was delisted over two years ago, and whenever it's ready, it can be nominated again to be a GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I had no intention of doing anything about it, I just gave it as an example of a poor GA review. It came to mind today when I happened to see you were discussing inadequate reviews with Mr rnddude. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonset. I looked at the proposed wording you left at the nomination page and have no issues with it. Sorry that my count was slightly off and made you jump through hoops. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Not a problem, Giants2008. I'm glad I could help. I've added a call for a reviewer there now that the hook is set. For future reference, the hook's count starts after the "..." and space, and goes through the ending "?", including all spaces. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Andrew is very clearly trolling. He refuses to answer questions about what, specifically he dislikes, but thinks he has ther right to asink nthe nomination anyway. Can you please give him a warning? Or, preferably, a topic ban from this page? Adam Cuerden(talk)11:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there any chance for my DYK nomination to be used for Halloween?
For most of this year I have been working on a very thorough and comprehensive timeline of pterosaur research that I recently nominated for DYK. Because the hook mentions pterosaurs having been thought to be an infernal creation of the devil I was hoping it could head one of the Halloween sets. I know it's really last minute but is there any way this could happen? I'm willing to take on extra QPQ loads or something if there is a way we can expedite the review process. We could also break it up and, say, have multiple users review a decade of the timeline each or something. Abyssal (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Abyssal, we're currently only posting one set every 24 hours to the main page, so there will be only a single set for Halloween day. What you need to do is to post a note to the DYK talk page, noting that you have a nomination you've just made that you were hoping could be posted for Halloween, preferably as the lead hook, but it would need a review quite soon to be promoted in time. (I'm not able to take on the review myself.) Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers on the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future.
I would like to invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via either Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.
You can reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu if you are interested or have any questions.
To be honest, I was so annoyed by his approach and attitude to the Konnan article that I stepped away from it while he was working on it, I've jut kept an eye on vandalism but not actually done anything to it since then. MPJ-DK12:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
MPJ-DK, that's understandable under the circumstances. But without a reasonably knowledgeable assessment, I'd feel uncomfortable closing it. Do you think that it's a GA-level article at the moment, or is it short of the criteria? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, BlueMoonset. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Since at least three people have contested the wording you have just replaced, I would suggest the nomination is re-opened for further work. Otherwise this will simply end up in a wall of argument at ERRORS in a couple of days time. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, if you still have issues with it after the subsequent changes, I suggest either pulling the hook and reopening it yourself, or bringing it to WT:DYK, where it should have gone in the first place. However, the wording that I changed was flawed, so I'm not sorry I made the change even if I had thought it was Cwmhiraeth acting alone with second thoughts about the wording that had been promoted; we seem to have come to a wording that works, which is the desired outcome in such cases. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The wording still makes no sense to, at least, British readers, so I imagine it makes no sense to other English speakers outside the US. I will boldly reopen the nomination when I'm not on my phone, although it would be better if you or Cwmhiraeth took that step as you have both been actively involved in modifying the hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads-up on the latest 'bot down' note, it looks like User:VeblenBot went down as well at the same time, so given that both bots are down looks like it might be a problem on the toolserver's end; not sure who I'd contact about that. Wizardman15:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Wizardman, even if it's a toolserver problem that caused it to go down, it still may require Dvandersluis to start it up again, so please send him an email. There have been odd problems for various bots—Shubinator's currently having problem getting DYKHousekeepingBot to log in, and I'd reported the VeblenBot issues a couple of days ago—so letting the bot owner know is a good first step; if they track the problem down to toolserver, I imagine they know how to pass on the news. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I concluded that the original state of the Snow article no longer passed GA muster. So, I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Item 6. and 7. say, "6. Wait for other editors to respond. Do everything you can to improve the article during this time. During the reassessment discussion, you must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria." During that period, I substantially rewrote the article to where it bears little resemblance to the original. I feel that it is close to GA eligibility, but feel awkward to be the one to declare it so, without input from others, given my extensive editing. Please leave your thoughts at Talk:Snow#Comments on rewrite. User:HopsonRoad12:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the first ping; I was busy outside of Wikipedia then, and while I'm sure I intended to get back to it, I'm afraid I forgot it was waiting. This one absolutely needs a citation; we can't use uncited information in another article to support a rather extraordinary claim in this one, especially at DYK. It would almost certainly be challenged. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I want it to appear on the main page on 17 Jan. But the DYK process is lagging, mainly due to the reviewer's long absence. What do I do to finish the DYK process, and have the article appear on the desired date? Kailash29792(talk)15:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Kailash29792, I'd suggest posting a request on the DYK talk page with a link to the nomination page, asking for a new reviewer, pointing out that you'd like it to appear on January 17, and also that you nominated the article well in advance, back in November. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello BlueMoonset, there were few DYK nominations by me (that you were reviewing) which were not attended to on-time and as a result they were rejected. I just wanted to thank you for your time and inform you that it was not my intention to abandon the nominations; from October to December 2016, I was travelling extensively (mostly in Ladakh where internet connectivity is very poor) and could not manage to clear my watch-list. I wish no further action on the old DYK entries (this is not a request to open the nominations), but just wish to share the reason with you. Thanks once again for your time and sorry for the delay. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
But time was getting close, issues hadn't been addressed in almost 24 hours, and disrupting the DYK process seemed better than letting a hook with issues reach the main page, get pulled, and then never make it back.
On a related note, something I've wondered about for a while: any reason you don't go to RFA, get the bit yourself, and solve a lot of the problems you're always looking around for admins to fix? You appear to be a DYK expert, from what I've seen you're cool under pressure, and don't appear to have a strong desire to block people who annoy you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I asked him that here but BlueMoonset didn't want to say. I have come across other good candidates like Johnbod that don't want to be an admin either. It is rather puzzling. Andrew D. (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of those threads; I didn't mean to pester you, BMS. One final thing and then I'll never mention it again: it would certainly be OK for you to be an admin who only used their tools on DYK, and never tried to protect a page, block anyone, delete anything, or (worst of all) post to AN/ANI. So depending on what the source of anticipated stress is, keep in mind you don't have to get involved in anything you don't find rewarding {of course, RFA itself often isn't rewarding... but after that, I mean). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I have worked on several DYK, GA reviews and cleanups with you, as you know. I strongly endorse @Floq, @EdChem and @AD's suggestion, particularly "just use the tools on DYK" idea part. We really need more cool headed admins, with the goals of the project in their heart. You fit. Happy New Year BTW, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
+1 you look to be a solid candidate and I think you'd do well. I know that adminship is often seen as a stressful position but it doesn't have to be. I've been an admin for over 2 years now and have dealt with almost zero stress as a result. Sam Walton (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I do appreciate the many votes of confidence, but I will not be running. I know myself, and I know that being an admin would be stressful for me; that's the key. I will continue to help out in my own way. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
VeblenBot is down and...
Per my conversation with the Bot's previous manager here, and the appeal for a new maintainer here it doesn't look like another Bot is taking over VeblenBot's task of removing reassessed articles from the list of "Good articles needing reassessment" any time soon. For instance, I delisted Crazy Eddie from a GA to a C on January 3rd but yet, it still appears on the main WP:GAR page in the Articles needing possible reassessment section. I would go ahead and remove Crazy Eddie manually but don't quite understand how... Shearonink (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Shearonink, thanks for letting me know. VeblenBot maintained the page of GARrequests—adding new requests and removing ones when the template was no longer on the page, such as when you removed the request from Crazy Eddie and initiated that GAR. I have manually edited that page to remove Crazy Eddie from the list, but as long as there isn't a bot checking, new requests aren't being added to it or old ones removed from it. There's a manual way to find all the current requests using the related Category, but I don't think it's worth the effort to monitor and add the new requests given how many of them from before the bot died are still outstanding.
VeblenBot was also responsible for adding new community GARs to the GAR page and also deleting the closed community GARs from this list. I have been monitoring these, and manually adding and deleting community GARs here as necessary over the past month or two. This doesn't include individual GARs, just community ones. The page works to display all of the GARs listed at WP:GAR no matter when they were created, but on its own page won't display any of the ones from 2017, oddly enough; there's something unknown in the software that keeps them from showing up. With any luck, someone will eventually volunteer to adopt the VeblenBot functionality. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Shearonink, VeblenBot has been replaced by AnomieBOT as of about 17 hours ago, so both the "Good articles needing reassessment" and the "Wikipedia good article reassessment" pages are being updated on an hourly basis, and all of the peer review pages are being updated as well. (AnomieBOT uses its own page schema, so the old VeblenBot pages will no longer be used.) We should be all set going forward. Let me know if it appears something isn't working right, or you can post to AnomieBOT's talk page directly. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I changed "six hundred species of vascular plants" to "six hundred species of vascular plant" because I thought it was grammatically more correct. If you were talking about books you might say "several types of book" rather than "several types of books". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, this may be one of those oddities of British vs. American English. I use the latter, and I thought "plants" was grammatically more correct, but I did some further checking, and found the article on vascular plants, which despite having its article title in the singular, used the plural throughout. (In American English, we'd typically say "several types of books", though "several book types".) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Corinne, where were you when the hook was first being reviewed? ;-) (I know, I know, busy over at GOCE, doing stellar work as always.) Thanks for stopping by, and congrats on getting the copy edit backlog to the point that nothing has been waiting longer than a year. By contrast, the oldest requested check to see whether a GA reassessment is necessary is now 2.5 years old.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, BlueMoonset - Thanks! I guess I don't have the DYK page on my watchlist. Can you give me the link? I haven't really been working on the backlog, only on regular requests. I guess I don't have that page on my watchlist, either. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests page was starting to get a little long, so I thought I'd better buckle down and get to work. A copyeditor at work – Corinne (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Corinne, the page where promoted hooks can be seen is T:DYK/Q. The Preps can be edited in place—though hooks are supposed to be under 200 visible characters, so there's that to be aware of. Queues can only be edited by admins, because a bot promotes them to the main page, so if there are real problems in a queue, then WT:DYK is the place to point them out so an admin can do the work before the hook hits the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
DYK Prep/Queue 4/5
We just got our wires crossed a bit as you happened to move things around prep areas at the same time as I was doing similar and uploaded to queues. I think I've sorted it to how it should be now, but could you take a look? Harriastalk21:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Harrias, I think we're good. Thanks for promoting prep 4 (and prep 3 before it) to queues. Queue 4 looks right, and that's the key: I managed to get that special occasion hook moved into Prep 4 before you promoted it. If I'd done a better job initially of picking the hook to swap it with, I wouldn't have gotten the number of bios out of whack and still been working in parallel to you. Sorry about that latter, but I'm glad the special occasion hooks are going to run at good times. (There was another one that I just moved from Prep 1 to Prep 6 so it runs at the right time as well.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Harrias, I take that back, but only slightly. The third and fourth hooks in Queue 4 are both bios, and should be separated. If you swap Laudato si' and Elizabeth Plankinton, the second and third hooks, then you keep the bios separated, and don't have two US hooks in a row, which would happen if you swapped the fourth and fifth hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey BlueMoonset. I'm whole-heartedly sorry for my words with you the past 24 hours. I was angry and acted rudely towards you, so I apologize. I would love to have a clean slate with you, and will do anything possible to carry this out. I was angry and let it out on you (and that's not okay). I'm sincerely sorry. Carbrera (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC).
RHaworth, thanks for the warning and reminder. In this case, I didn't think that the nomination would have been transcluded on the article talk page, because it hadn't been transcluded on the DYK nominations page, but should have considered the possibility that the person getting the process wrong could have nevertheless done the optional transclusion while not doing the required transclusion. I'll be sure to add the noinclude tags next time. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned nominations
Hi, I would like to review more of these. I did Template:Did you know nominations/Wayzata Bay Center before I noticed on the page creator's talk page that you were asking his/her permission to move it forward. Are you doing that on every orphaned nomination? I just jumped into Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Stanislawska; it looks pretty good and all it needs is a new hook, which I can provide. However, I notice that the page creator stopped editing Wikipedia after nominating this article :( . Can I go ahead with it anyway? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yoninah, absolutely you can go ahead with Anna Stanisławska. (I've just transcluded it.) In the case where nominators have gone inactive, I think we need to have someone express interest in carrying it forward; for nominations where the nominator is still around, I figured we ought to ask the nominator if they want to take it forward, which I have done also with Saturday Night! – The Album, and plan to do with the others that haven't yet been struck. I'll try to finish them in the next couple of hours; I think I've already taken care of all the ones that needed to be deleted or closed. I'm glad you want to do this one, too, and hope you and some of the others will take the rest. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
At best, there was a mistake during the assessment of the article leading to failure. Most of the issues with the article were resolved. However, the reviewer raised concern over the reliability of Rai al-Youm. Hence, he took that to WP:RSN twice, and received feedback only the second time. After all, no one said that the source was unreliable. The first user at RSN said that the material could be removed, if it was not important. The second user, who's an admin, on the basis of RSs' pointing to Rai al-Youm, suggested to use the material based on the narration of those RSs and not Rai al-Youm itself ([1] and [2]). I did based on the admin's suggestion, as the material was important enough to be included int the article.
I did this, i.e. removed materials solely supported by Rai al-Youm, while I had already shown that the source was not unreliable and the RSN outcome was not against the source. Even after he said that the source did not have "any editorial board or fact-checking," I provided clues showing otherwise. However, he failed it. --Mhhosseintalk20:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
A reassessment won't help you with finding out why, since that was the reviewer's decision. Another reviewer may well look at the matter differently, which is why I'm suggesting a new GAN, since you feel the article is ready. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. But can the reviewers act as rulers without receiving comments on their unfair decisions? In my case, I had done all what he said. But he failed that! --Mhhosseintalk20:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Mhhossein, it is a weakness—and a strength—of the GA system that the one reviewer makes the final decision. Anyone is free to comment about that decision on the review page (before it's closed) or on the reviewer's talk page, but that seldom changes the outcome. If the reviewer decides to reopen the review after some feedback, they can do so, and have done so on occasion, but there's nothing to compel them. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks re Jessica Curry DYK
Hi,
My apologies for any inconvenience caused by my recent DYK entry. I genuinely don't understand how I managed to overwrite/erase another entry and can only apologise profusely. In terms of the date, I used the date when TheBigJagielka basically created the article from a stub. I simply expanded it later, which I thought was a less substantive date. Thank you for fixing my mess up. danno_uk23:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
SMILE!
Hello BlueMoonset, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Have you heard from Shubinator in recent days? I don't think the bot is yet up and running. I'll stick around and do a manual update this evening, if necessary. But I'll be offline by the next time it's supposed to update. If you have any reliable admins that might be available at that hour, you might want to give them a heads up. — Maile (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Maile, Shubinator isn't on line every day, so we may not hear back from him before that next update. If you're still around, you might want to promote Prep 1 so we have a set ready to go. I will drop a note on MaterialScientist's talk page; he's the only other admin I know who has done manual DYK promotions to the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Wording
That you believe:
It must already be in the article; and
It must be relevant to the article.
to be suitable underlines that this project needs help. The whole section on images needs rework and needs to be enforced rather than summarily ignored "because it's too difficult". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, that you included those exact numbered points in the section dealing with what has to be in the article underlines that your edits were problematic. Before you go about revising parts of the DYK wording, especially in ways that do not make sense, you should make wording proposals on the talk page, so they can be vetted and either agreed upon, disagreed with, or modified so that they're workable. If you truly want to help, perhaps you should be more collaborative and less insulting. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The point is the project regularly abuses the use of images and nothing is done. A simple "oh, it's too difficult" hands-up, give-up approach seems to be the way it's handled. Those points I've noted are truly stupid and really need not be indoctrinated in codicil. Particularly when the project is so massively rule-over-burdened. Can't you see that? Licensing checks need to be applied to all images in all DYK articles. Fair use in particular. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up
I've heard conflicting reports, in a manner of speaking. I do wonder why people would use their user page to advertise the number of GAs they have nominated if they don't actually have to have edited the article to nominate it, but if you're right you're right. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri 88, I imagine most of those people are listing articles they worked on that became GAs. The GA nomination instructions page says the following: Anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, although it is preferable that nominators have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with its subject and its cited sources. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination. Most people who do drive-by nominating don't end up following up during the review process (or the pre-nomination consulting step), so unless someone else steps up, the nomination ultimately fails (and unfortunately wastes a reviewer's time). BlueMoonset (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
With GA Reviews I've gotten so that, before deciding to take up a GA Review I will 1)check the article's editing history to see who's been editing it, 2)check to see who the nominator is/if they are among the top ten contributors, and 3)check to see if the nominator is still active at all on WP and if any of the Top Ten editors are still active. Editors do not understand how much work a Review can be, they read an article and think that it's pretty good and deserves to be a GA and so they go ahead and nominate it and, meanwhile, many times they've never edited the article and can't be found when a Review starts.
Sometimes I think that people shouldn't nominate an article for GA unless they've actually reviewed at least one article for GA or if they've gotten an article to GA. Shearonink (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Ideally they shouldn't review one either, without the same flying hours, though of course you have to start somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd rather have someone go through the GAN process as a nominator before they ever attempt a review, and preferably more than once, because that way there's at least a chance they're exposed to the full criteria and what a review ought to cover. There's nothing like having to fix the ways in which your own article falls short to make you aware of what others need to achieve in their own articles. One of the things I like least is when I have to start an individual GAR because the article just passed by a novice reviewer is so far from meeting the criteria it's mindboggling, yet they're unwilling to reopen the review so others can point out issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Mhhossein, it's an unfortunate bug with the bot that does the notifying: if there was a previous failure, it sends a failure notice even though the most recent action is a pass. The bot owner is trying to find someone new to take over the bot, since they don't have time to work on it; I'm hoping that someone volunteers, because it's needed some attention for quite some time. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Done as suggested, and thank you very much. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
