User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 29

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, BlueMoonset. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Aldus Manutius/GA1

Thanks for reminding me. I've been busy IRL, & it keeps slipping my mind to write up my comments. I'll get to it today. -- llywrch (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Persuasive writing

Hello, BlueMoonset – What do you think of these edits to Persuasive writing?  – Corinne (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Corinne, the article as it was before was no prize: there are issues throughout and it's completely unsourced (I don't understand why it uses a refimprove template when unsourced is clearly the template to use, but that may be a holdover from a time when the article might have had a source or two), and while it does give something of an explanation of ethos, logos, and pathos, the word "appeal" is grossly overused. Both the lead and the intro to the Traditional structure section stop in mid-sentence, which is clearly problematic. However, if the lead's final sentence was completed, the lead could be a reasonably full general explanation, even if there is no verifiability. I didn't mind losing the Commercial and non-commercial section, as it seems to say very little of use. I'm less sure about the loss of Traditional structure, though it's far from ideal.

The new version has a poorly written intro, and two sections of three numbered bullet points each, which is not what you want in a Wikipedia article (problematic formatting aside). However, the explanations of ethos, logos, and pathos are clearer, and seem reasonable, and would work as three separate paragraphs. The "Three common techniques" section is more problematic, and the writing uneven: beyond the prose, the numbering of points is unhelpful, I also wouldn't use the "Three" as part of the header. Better to do this section as a paragraph or two.

I found it helpful to take into account all three of the recent edits by the new IP, when figuring out the issues. It might be a good idea to combine aspects of the texts into a new whole, but without verifiability, it's just a few general ideas on persuasive writing—and, unfortunately, ones that are being quoted. I did Earwig copyvio checks on the prior and new versions of the article, and the old version, at least, turned up some "according to Wikipedia"-type versions (and also some unattributed text versions that, by their dates posted, were clearly copied from Wikipedia).

I'm not sure what to do here, but it doesn't seem to me that a simple reversion is warranted. (If you did, it would need a copyedit template along with the unsourced template mentioned above.) It's too bad that the new text is as unverifiable as the old. Best of luck with it. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for taking the time to look at the article and for your detailed reply. I hadn't looked at the article that closely. I did, however, nominate this article for Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement about a year ago. I don't know whether it was approved for adding to the queue, but perhaps Northamerica1000 could tell us.  – Corinne (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	Holiday barnstar
	You deserve a holiday barnstar, but this snowflake was as close as I could come. And best holiday wishes to you. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, 7&6=thirteen. The snowflake is lovely. I hope you also have very happy holidays. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

My DYK nom entry

Hi, I see you moved my Southport Pier DYK entry date, which is fine as I entirely expected someone to anyway. When the instructions say, "the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began, not the date on which you make the nomination", it comes across just as that - the date which it was created and/or expanded. For someone not too familiar with the DYK process, it's not too clear, I must say. I see you put it in the date GA was done, and whilst this isn't noted in the instructions, I'll assume it must be right. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Bungle, unfortunately the instructions haven't everywhere caught up with reality. The inclusion of GAs is a comparatively recent development, and the eligibility for a GA starts from when the article is listed, but that wasn't stated where you read. It should probably say "created or on which expansion began or when it was listed as a GA" or something like that. I'm sorry you were caught in the confusion. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have posted a suggestion at DYK to see what others think regarding reworking the instructions, to ensure enhanced clarity. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, K.e.coffman. I hope you are having a very happy holiday season, and have a very happy New Year as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the the very best of the season!
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia, here's to hoping your holiday time is wonderful and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old. CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Shearonink (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Shearonink. Best wishes for a very happy holiday season, and a very happy New Year as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

dammit you stole my joke

Woscafrench :) {-like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 18:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello BlueMoonset, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, Chris Troutman (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Dear BlueMoonset, Thank you for keeping DYK running smoothly all year. I really appreciate your attention to detail, your intelligent way of explaining things, and your ability to defuse crises. Wishing you a wonderful holiday season and a very happy new year! Sincerely, Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Yoninah. Much of that smooth running is down to you, tackling so many reviews and also building prep sets. I hope you, too, have both a wonderful holiday season and a Happy New Year! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Torslunda plates

Thanks for the fix. Was thinking I was pretty clever with that move, only to realize I'd just messed it up further. Deleting the main page can go on tap for tomorrow. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll take the day off then, Usernameunique, to avoid the carnage. ;-) As it says in the "How to move a nomination subpage to a new name" section on the nominations page: Don't. The general rule is to leave DYK nomination pages where they are, but adjust the contents to reflect any move made to the article. There are even more adjustments to make when the nomination page moves, unfortunately. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Requesting copy-edits

See User talk:Corinne#Beaumont children disappearance and my comment. Then see User talk:EEng#Murder of Heather Rich. This editor is going around asking for copy-edits and not placing requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I don't know if you think we ought to say anything to him.  – Corinne (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Um, well, Corinne, Wikipedia isn't a closed shop with The Guild of Copy Editors the union you have to belong to or you can't work. EEng 17:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've pointed him at the GOCE, and noted that you don't take individual requests but are happy to look at ones on the Requests page, which is all I think you can do. (I believe Jonesey95's talk page has a notice to that effect, doubtless after receiving many individual requests over the years.) I've noticed that there are a lot of people out there who ask for copyediting help from other editors, including many who don't do GOCE work, without ever going to the GOCE for help, which probably keeps the numbers lower than they might otherwise be. That kind of informal help is always around. Either editors will be willing to provide those copyedits or they won't; if they are, more power to them. That said, it seems pretty clear that he got a number of the names from scanning the Requests page; it's up to the individual editors he contacts to decide whether they want to concentrate on GOCE requests or edit whoever comes along. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

O.K. I understand. Actually, I copy-edited articles for about three years before I even heard of GOCE.  – Corinne (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

And a good job you do, too. EEng 19:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought this one was like the earlier one, User talk:Corinne#Iveta Mukuchyan, but I guess not.  – Corinne (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Automation bias

Hello

I beg pardon for the misplaced symbol in the above GAR. I am new to the GAR process, but I'll catch on.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Georgejdorner, not a problem. Everyone's new at some point, and things occasionally go awry. If you haven't already ready through the Good Article instructions, it's a good resource for what needs to happen at each step for both reviewers and nominators. I hope you're enjoying doing the reviews.

A very minor point: the acronym GAR typically refers to the Good Article Reassessment process. GAN (Good Article Nomination) is more typically used for GA nominations and the resultant reviews. To make things even more confusing, the Featured Article process is FAC (Featured Article Candidates). BlueMoonset (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Boy, am I ever a rookie at this.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

After 12 years I'm such a novice at DYK

Thanks for keeping an eye on this important front door for Wikipedia. Don't think I'm not watching. Everything you do to fix my mangled template up I will learn from and not repeat soon. I've submitted DYKs in my time but it's been several years. Now that I've asked for reviewer tools you'll likely see me more often. (and I thought myself lucky to spot an unescorted nom this morning so I could get my QPQ). My recollection is that this used to be a busier process with more to review. Is this just a slow time of year? BusterD (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

BusterD, I don't think it was you, because even with the two edits I made the bot still didn't pick up that the nomination had been approved; I ended up having to move it by hand. If there is something wrong with what you did such that the bot couldn't figure out that you had approved it, I don't know what it is. (I typically don't use that DYK checklist template—it isn't required, and it's easy enough to write out the various criteria without that much typing. The top of the DYK editing window reiterates everything that needs to be checked.)

DYK used to be significantly busier: we would typically do three sets of six hooks a day, and now we're down to a single set of eight hooks daily, with occasional intervals where we go up to two sets of eight per day to burn off the backlog—our last such was back in September. We have to do eight hooks per set now in order to balance the main page, since both ITN and OTD have expanded a bit in the past year. It was a bit slower in December, but with the WikiCup having started up, we're averaging a couple more a day since the New Year. It's still slower than you'll remember. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	It is really great to see you dealing with stalled good articles. Keep up the awesome work! Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Adityavagarwal (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} ~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the procedural assist

Thanks for the procedural assist on the Good Article nominee Congress of the Confederate States. It is important to me that the article be taken in turn, it is only four months old in a six months queue. Further, I want the article to meet WP collaborative standards using reliable sources using the preponderance of contemporary sources. The attempted review by an unqualified editor gives me pause.

My fear is that the article will be highjacked by neo-Confederates of Lost Cause scholarship — and all mention of the anti-Jefferson Davis peace party that developed within the Confederate Congress might be dismissed -- the caucus among representatives of officials elected from among unoccupied residents, not of those elected by voice votes in pro-Davis army units standing in formation, --- or the cartoon illustrating widespread contemporary draft resistance during the wartime Confederacy might be suppressed in the article, --- or the flag of the political government with a circle of stars and three bars, might be supplanted in the article info box by the neo-Confederate “Bloodstained Banner” authorized by a rump session of legislators fleeing Richmond after the dissolution of the Confederate government --- that never flew over a quorum of either house of the Confederate Congress.

On this last point, is there a procedure to globally ban and revert the never-ending imposition of the "Bloodstained Banner" in the info boxes of those WP biographies of historical figures among Confederate officials and military. The consensus of WP editors grounded in contemporary scholarship holds at Confederate States of America, but the neo-Confeerates have a persistent campaign across many IP addresses to impose their particularist agenda. David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the Blood-stained Banner was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the Blood-stained Banner. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for being proactive about fixing a DYK I submitted after I accidentally abandoned it. Chetsford (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy to do it, Chetsford. I made the equivalent edit to the article itself, so we should be all set. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

GA COI review

I just caught up with my current GA review workload and took a look at the page you mentioned, and I see you've posted a note there. I'll hold off for now, but I should be able to pick up a review if you would like me to. I'm afraid my GA reviews will slow down a bit now as I'm about to nominate a FAC, and I need to do some FAC reviews in order to contribute there, but once that's done I hope to come back and do a few more from the worst of the backlog. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike Christie. I'm glad you're caught up and about to start with your FAC nomination. Best of luck with it! They do rather consume you once the reviews start coming in earnest.

As for that Symantec article, I feel we have to allow seven days for a response. That leaves four more days, but if there isn't a response by then, I'll immediately request a speedy deletion of the page; after that, there isn't any urgency in getting the article reviewed, though you're welcome to take it on if you'd like. I've just added a note to the GA nominee template that reads "COI nominator"; I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) that it wasn't included at the time of the original nomination.

I've just found another, even more lengthy case of review abandonment. Talk:IOS 9/GA1 was opened on November 8 at 17:18; the reviewer made two more posts at 17:26 and 17:29, barely enough time to read the article much less review it, and has not returned to it since; the review is now 67 days old. In other Wikipedia activity, the reviewer made edits on six days in December and has not yet done so this year. After two months, this has to be considered abandoned; can you please take over? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with taking it on; what does that mean technically? Do we need to CSD the original review first? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, thanks. I don't think we should CSD this one: there have been constructive comments from other editors on it, and those shouldn't be deleted. I see two routes: one is for you to just take over the review because it is clearly abandoned—start a new third-level header with your review. The other is to increase the page field of the article talk page's GA nominee template from 1 to 2, which puts the nomination back into the pool of noms awaiting review, and for you to open your review immediately thereafter. I think the former is probably more useful, since you may want to reference those comments in your review. But I'll leave the decision up to you; I'm happy to help with the mechanics whatever you decide to do. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't I leave a note for ProgrammingGeek and give them a few days? They might have just forgotten. You know the precedents here and I'll go along with your judgement, but I'd be more comfortable letting them know first in case they want to return to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, ProgrammingGeek has a history of opening reviews and abandoning them after inadequate reviews (or, in one case, passing it after same). I'd forgotten until I just checked, but I closed their Talk:IOS 10/GA1 review as abandoned last April, and other reviews have been left unfinished such as Talk:Columbidae/GA1, where the review was concluded by SpartaN. Indeed, I haven't found a single GA review opened by them that wasn't problematic. Given this record, alluded to by Bungle in the IOS 9 review, it would be advisable in the extreme to let ProgrammingGeek anywhere near this review again. If you feel uncomfortable taking over the review in situ, I'll put it back in the reviewing pool for you to pick up. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I’d prefer that, if you don’t mind. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, it's done and ready for you to start the review. The bot has refreshed the GAN page, or you can go from the article's talk page. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I've taken the review; it'll be tomorrow or the next day before I can start, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Reassessment for the Brymo article

Hi BlueMoonset, I am writing you to inform you that I have made the necessary changes to the Brymo article. I completely removed the statement that talked about the subject quitting school. I replaced the terms "partake" and "deliberate" with words I feel are appropriate. I removed the three consecutive sentences that talked about the case being adjourned, and fixed the statement about the legal teams. Moreover, I moved the second paragraph in the Early life section to the next section. With regard to the M, D & S album, I only included information that is sourced. I don't see how that section could be improved. With regard to album sales, Nigeria (and much of Africa) doesn't have a structured music industry. The country doesn't have platforms in place to determine how many records artists are selling, so the article published by The Nation isn't relevant.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Versace1608, I've copied the above paragraph to the GA reassessment page, where the discussion on said reassessment belongs. I will reply to it there when I can, but feel I should let you know immediately that significant issues do still remain. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

What significant issues are you referring to? I fixed all of the issues you addressed in your post. You mentioned something about the CC departure section sounding repetitive as far as dates are concern. I changed some of the wording in that section, and don't see anything else wrong with it. The addition of the month and year helps readers piece things together. Omitting the month and year from some of the sentences in that section will cause readers to speculate about the time of each event.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 04:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this should not be discussed here. I hope to post details to the reassessment page in the next 24 hours, and request that you only post there going forward. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Backlog

Didn't the old Statbot update the backlog list automatically? Any reason why we couldn't ask if Wugbot could do it? Or is there a necessary manual component? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, yes, the ten oldest unreviewed GANs list page was part of the nightly StatisticianBot updates that also included the GAN /Report page; it's hard to believe the last update by bot of the backlog page was 14 months ago today. There's no reason why WugBot couldn't add the functionality; we could ask Wugapodes if he could add updating Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items to WugBot's GA report duties, though I believe that as it means editing a new page, he'd have to go back to the bot permissions page in order to be approved to add that functionality to his bot. It hasn't seemed that urgent to have him do so over the past many months, since the list has moved so slowly; your herculean efforts of late have meant many more updates, which is great: thank you so much for taking on so many 10- and 11-month-old GANs. Since WugBot only does daily updates, it wouldn't change the during-the-day updates that have been done all along and that we'd likely continue to do anyway when we happen to notice that any in the top five have been claimed. Wugapodes hasn't been editing that frequently of late, so I don't know how soon we might hear back, but there's no rush at the moment; I'm happy to continue updating the page as needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

No great hurry, as you say. Thanks for the complimentary comments; I do hate to think of editors waiting so long for reviews, and as I'm between FACs at the moment I thought I'd try to knock out some of the old ones.

I have a related question: Meatsgains doesn't appear to be responding to my review, so I plan to close it as a fail in a few more days. He has another on the backlog list. Knowing he isn't responding, I'm not sure whether it is appropriate to review it. My inclination is to wait till the current one is closed, and pick it up a few days after that if I'm still in review mode. That gives him a bit more time.

I'm also skipping Josh McCown because it looks like Wizardman will pick it back up, and I'm skipping Planar transmission line because I am not technically competent to give it a thorough review, though I'm fairly scientifically literate. I could ask SpinningSpark if they'd like a lay review, but do you know of anyone who might be a good reviewer for that? Maybe Maury Markowitz? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Meatsgains has apparently been traveling recently—this is a tricky time of year with regard to getting responses to reviews—and has also had two other very old nominations come up for review this month, which can't have been easy. One of them was closed a week ago although some work was being done; I see work has also been done on Denomination effect, the other currently active review, which was opened prior to yours. Perhaps you can query on their talk page to see how they'd like to handle things, and whether they'd prefer Jay Obernolte not be taken up until the other active reviews have closed?

For Planar transmission line, I'd hope that anyone who took it on could handle it, even as a lay review. SpinningSpark's other nomination, Air stripline, is currently the oldest extant nomination and becomes a year old tomorrow; when the original reviewer—a first-time reviewer who clearly didn't know what they were doing and were in over their head—left it open despite various pronouncements, I called for a second opinion. The new person, Spintendo, has made a great many additions to the review page, but in terms of edits there were a few by them in November that were reverted. Said new person completed their work a few days ago with an offer to work with SpinningSpark on updating the article; there is no reply as yet. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

That's good advice. I'll post to Meatsgains' talk page in a week or two and see what they say. I'll keep an eye on the SpinningSpark articles (and yes, I saw the air stripline review). If I can help on either one, let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, it looks like Jay Obernolte was taken by another editor. I hope Meatsgains resumes more active editing soon, and can start working on all these nominations. I see you decided to take Planar transmission line; I hope it goes well.

I was wondering whether you could take a look at Talk:Symantec Endpoint Protection/GA1. It was taken by a first-time reviewer who posted a single line back in late November and hasn't been back since. The specific reason I'm asking you is that the article was written and has been nominated by a COI (paid) editor, and as such we need someone who knows the ins and outs of GA reviewing and has experience in looking for NPOV issues: not only whether there is more praise than there ought, but whether an appropriate range of facts are included and other viewpoints are adequately represented. I don't think it's wise to ask this of a new GA reviewer who hasn't been editing regularly for all that long either. Thank you for however you can help here. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look, but I do have ten open GA reviews at the moment; most are not responding, but if they suddenly do I'll be busy for a while. Plus the planar transmission line article will take me a little while to review (I asked SpinningSpark and they said they were fine with a lay review and thought it would actually be a plus). What did you have in mind, though? The reviewer has over 1,200 edits; I guess these days that's a newbie. Do you want me to post a note to the reviewer's talk page, politely saying that a bit more is required of a review, and that I'd be happy to pick it up if they are too busy to continue? I could do that once I've done a pass through SpinningSpark's article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I don't think there's a huge rush; like I said, it's been sitting for over a month. So whenever is a good time for you is fine. At the time they opened their review they had barely 400 edits and had been editing regularly for about a month, though they first signed up in 2015. That's pretty new. If you're going to tell them that a bit more is required (and it's rather more than a bit), please be more specific if you feel you can, and note that this is a COI nomination, which needs extra care and scrutiny and (probably) experience to do well. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I was travelling to and from a conference and just got settled. This seems very easy to add so I should have it done by Monday. As for a bot request, looking at the original BRFA (can't believe it's been two years!) I pitched it as a replacement for the old bot, but for specifics only said it would edit /Report and /Report/Backlog_archive. I think that it's in the spirit of the BRFA (replacing StatisticianBot, which this would fall under) but not the letter (this would be a new page being edited that wasn't listed in the original). @Xaosflux: reviewed the original request, do you have any opinions or insight on whether a new BRFA is required to update this page that StatisticianBot used to update but that WugBot doesn't yet? Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks OK, see Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/WugBot. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. You can see the test output at User:Wugapodes/GANReportBotTest/items. The bot runs at 01:00UTC so it won't be live until tomorrow. If you see anything go wrong, let me know. I'm looking into Mike Christies suggestion on my talk page to automatically update the count on the GA list, but will respond to that on my talk when I come up with something. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Wugapodes, thanks. There are a couple of formatting changes that need to made, however, so that what you write is identical to the current file:

• The first hook in the "next 5" section needs to have the "•" at the start of the line, because when it moves into the top 5, it will need that bullet character before it. The only line that doesn't have it is the very first line.
• The closing --> needs to be on a separate line, not on the same line as the last of the next 5. Again, this is because it's easier to move it into the top 5 (if all the others have already been moved) if you can move an entire line at once, rather than have to move the line except for the end-of-comment string.

As long as I have you here, there's a very minor change to be made to the Reports page, in the Exceptions report section, Old nominations subsection: both the review and hold icons have a space between them and the article, but the 2nd opinion icon doesn't have a space and needs one. If you could add the space after the 2nd opinion icon too, that would be great. (The Gliese 581g nomination, currently 23rd on the list, is a 2nd opinion and a potential test case.) Thanks again! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Done and done. Should run in less than 2 hours. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Wugapodes, thanks for the update. The new set was added and that part worked well. However, for some reason the links are to the GAN topic section, not to the appropriate GAN subtopic. This list should be basically identical to the Oldest nominations section at the top of the Reports page with the same links, which uses subtopics: "Geography" rather than "Geography and places"; "Other music articles" rather than "Music", and "Economics and business" rather than "Social sciences and society". Can you please adjust this for tomorrow? The idea is that people clicking on the display near the top of the GAN page are taken directly to the subtopic section where the nomination is located; people have to do a lot more searching if there are several subtopics and the link deposits them at the beginning of the topic section. I've taken the liberty of restoring subtopic links by copying the version from before the bot ran; I hope you don't mind. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

My bad, my numbering was one off. Should be fixed for the next run. Thanks for the detailed eye! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 07:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Wpgbrown and GA reviews

Hi BlueMoon – I see you left a message for Wpgbrown regarding his incomplete and months delayed GA review of missed call, which was deleted due to inactivity. They also started a GA review here on Symantec Endpoint Protection, but there only comment is The article is too the point and explains a technical topic well. It has a lot of references for a article its size and is laid out well. which was left in November 2017, its been over two months. Can we delete this review, relist and have an experienced GA reviewer do a review on it? This user should not be reviewing GA articles with the lack of experience and knowledge that they have in regards to the subject, IMHO. Thanks. CookieMonster755✉ 16:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that you mentioned their review of Symantec Endpoint Protection. There Their (I need some coffee) last contribution was on January 3, 2018. I would recommend deleting the review and relisting. Thanks, CookieMonster755✉ 16:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

CookieMonster755, I was just waiting for a full seven days to elapse before I initiated the deletion that I mentioned on their talk page. It has now been done; I imagine that the page will be deleted in the next several hours, at which point I will adjust the article talk page accordingly. I absolutely agree that this user should not be reviewing GANs; it's clear that they don't understand what's required and don't know how to apply the criteria. (They certainly aren't ready to handle a nomination made by a COI editor, and the subtleties that entails.) Thanks for the ping! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Abandoned DYKs

Hi, thanks for joining me in cleaning up the stagnant DYK nominations. Yoninah (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Samuel Abu Jinapor

I didn't want to appear prejudiced against this editor after rejecting several of their hooks for subpar work, so I donated one of my own QPQs to this nomination and promoted it. I did see the POV problems that Fram mentioned at WT:DYK#Unacceptable source for hook in prep 3 and agree that the hook should be pulled. (I also removed the source from the article.) But I also think the nomination should be rejected. The nominator has not edited since January 16, and no one is going to read through this article and find all the problems with it. Yoninah (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah, I have also been concerned about this editor's submissions—the hooks tend to be uninteresting, and the sourcing either primary or potentially unreliable. In this case, since I have posted a DYK problem template to their talk page, I think we should allow the standard seven days before marking for closure, since this is a newly posted issue for this nomination, but otherwise I agree—given the severity of the issues and the amount of work required, it seems unlikely the article will be improved to DYK standards. BlueMoonset (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Pictured

... your user name, sort of ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, Gerda Arendt. Looks like it was a beautiful event to see, if I'd been anywhere near totality and the skies had been clear, neither of which were the case. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

same for me --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Random thoughts

Seeing Gatoclass being criticised and somewhat misunderstood recently saddens me. The atmosphere at DYK isn't really the most encouraging nor supportive for any admin to patrol regularly I think. It wasn't always like this, and some of these days only makes me miss Allen3 more. I think the DYK project will be stronger if you and Yoninah ever shows any interest in adminship, but I agree it's probably never worth the unnecessary stress. Alex Shih (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih, I have no hankering for the mop; I need no extra stress in my life. The atmosphere at DYK hasn't been encouraging for quite some time; I still greatly regret the loss of Orlady and Crisco 1492, my mentors, the former of whom clearly left after similar unpleasantness. I wouldn't want to be Gatoclass for anything right now. Allen3 is also greatly missed; whenever the bot was down, he could be counted on to regularly do manual promotions of sets until Shubinator got things working again. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Abandoned GA reviews and holds

I've been focusing on the backlog, but I see there are some very old holds and incomplete reviews. If there's anything you'd like me to pick up, let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I was wondering whether you'd like to take up the very old incomplete review, Talk:Invasion! (Arrowverse)/GA1. It has just undergone a GOCE copyedit. The official reviewer is Esprit15d, but their most recent edit was January 1. I posted a list of fairly significant issues back on December 12, a few days after Esprit15d had said that "Everything looks good", but neither reviewer nor nominator did anything until the nominator pinged me today. At this point, I think it would be best to have a completely new eye on the whole, and after over a month, we pretty much have to consider this abandoned. Please let me know whether you think you can take this one. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to apologize; I wasn't expecting to follow up on this one myself, but I realized after I looked more closely that the copyedit didn't address the primary issue, which was overuse of very long quotes in the Critical reception section, and also the copyeditor removed the blockquotes despite WP:Blockquote, which I've queried on their talk page. I do hope you'll still take this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can take it on. I'll leave a note at the review offering to take it over and if the nominator has no objections should get to it within a day or two. Does Legobot need to know about it in some way, or can it continue to be processed under the old reviewer's name? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I just realized I never answered this, and you've been given the go-ahead. The review can continue to be processed under the old reviewer's name; Legobot doesn't care. Even if the name were to change, I don't believe it would affect your review stats, though I'm not sure. If you prefer that the name be changed, I'm happy to fix it up for you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No need; I was just checking that there would be no problem with the bot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Legobot notification oddity

See Talk:Teresia Sampsonia/GA2; any idea what could have caused the notification to fail? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, there is unfortunately a long-standing Legobot error that if it sees a FailedGA template on the page from a prior failed GAN, it will send a failure message even if there is a newer (passed) GA template. As Legoktm, the bot's owner, has been generally inactive for some time and completely unresponsive to requests for fixes or other updates—at one point they were trying to find someone to take over the bot, but it never happened—we have to take what we have until some new botrunner comes along who's willing to take over that function of the bot or to write a new one. Losing the rest of the functionality would be disastrous for GAN; we did once when the original bot owner abruptly left and shut down their bot (which Legobot eventually took over). There's actually a backlog of fixes and enhancements that it would be nice to have, but no possibility of same until someone more energetic comes along and is willing to take over and improve the code. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I see. Is it worth posting a request to BOTREQ? Is the code public, so that another bot operator could pick it up? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, my apologies. I thought you had passed the nomination and were referring to the failure message that would have occurred. In this case, the bot should have sent the message to Louis Aragon at the same time it transcluded the review onto the article talk page. Let me check to see what might have happened; this is not typically a problem. (Note that another notification is sent if you put the review on hold, which you might want to do to increase the odds that someone is indeed notified once you've finished the review and are waiting for them to act on it.) I see that you'd opened a review for Morphsuits at the same time, and that one did successfully get both transcluded and a notification sent to the nominator. I'll let you know if I find any other indications of what might be another bug in the bot.

In response to your question about BOTREQ, I believe that at the time there was a potential that someone else might take it over, I looked to see whether I could find the code, and I think I found it (so it must have been public since I have no permissions of any note). So it could well be worth it, provided we don't lose what we have now. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I've just now replaced the FailedGA template with the Article history template. Let's see if that avoids the failure message, should the GAN be listed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I need to do a better job of checking things. Morphsuits was an "on hold" message, not a "starting review" message done at the time of transclusion. Still searching to see whether I can see a pattern to why the review messages weren't being sent out. It seems to happen a fair amount, but I don't yet see why. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hah. You can't be less thorough than I am at that sort of thing. I'm just glad you're around; you have a great deal of tribal knowledge about GA. I'll post a note at BOTREQ, either tonight or tomorrow, and we'll see if there are any takers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, well, sometimes I can be thorough. I just went through the Legobot logs, and it looks like Teresia Sampsonia was one of only a couple of reviews that should have generated a message but didn't. Yellow Evan has blocked the bot from posting to his talk page, which is why the bot didn't notify with his nominations when their reviews were opened, and it looks like another reviewer was adding "onreview" themselves rather than letting the bot do it, which is why notifications never went out on their reviews (but did when they did "onhold"); their reviews are never closed properly by the bot, and I think it's because they preempted the bot and prevented the initial review transclusion from being done properly. I'm going to keep an eye out to see whether matters improve once they let the bot do its thing. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that Legotkm has been active recently, so I left a note on their talk page asking if they'd mind if someone took over the bot. I'll give it a few days for a possible reply before going to BOTREQ. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, Mike Christie. I was amused to see the immediate tps response pointing to the attempt by Legoktm to find someone to take over the GAN-related bot tasks. Of the two who were going to do so, samtar is completely gone with account wiped or moved and people blanking his talk page if something should be posted there, and Dat Guy is barely active at all. I hope Legoktm does reply; while they just ignore regular requests regarding the bot, there is typically a reasonable response if the bot is actually down. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Bot request now posted; let's wait and hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Legobot and GA stats

Any idea what might have caused Legobot to suddenly go mad and up my GA stats to 123? It looks like it kept incrementing the count with every pass for a few hours; it ought to be 105, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, a number of GA nominators, instead of substing the GAN template on the article's talk page per the GAN instructions, create their own GA nominee template. They don't always do it correctly, as happened with the Indigenous Environmental Network GAN: both the status and note fields were omitted. So Legobot comes along, looking to transclude the review you've just opened, but there's no status field in the GA nominee template to add "onreview" to, so it chokes on finishing the transclusion, even while it adds the review information to the GAN page and increments your review count by one. The next time Legobot runs, 20 minutes later, the same thing occurs. And so on, until I happened to notice the every-20-minute listing of Indigenous Environmental Network as on review on the GAN page history, checked the article's talk page, and noticed the problem with the GA nominee template, which I then fixed by adding the status and note fields. The next time Legobot came along, it finally succeeded in doing the transclusion of the review page and adding "onreview" to the status field, and made its final increment to your review count. Legobot could be smarter about this, and perhaps even add the status field itself if there isn't one... but then, we'd need someone who can give some time to upgrading the GAN functionality. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Would it be possible to find these broken nominee templates by searching? (While waiting for a maintainer for Legobot, that is.) A search for any GA nominee template with a missing status parameter sounds like something that some other bot could probably do quite easily. Do we know exactly what situations cause this? E.g. invalid status parameter; invalid topic parameter; other errors? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, Mike Christie, what causes these situations are editor error. Someone copies a GA nominee template and edits it improperly, someone types their own and forgets a couple of fields, someone typos a subtopic or even gets the capitalization wrong (the bot can be fussy), enters an unparseable date, typos a field name, and so on. Leaving subtopic blank actually results in the nomination being put into the Miscellaneous topic section; inserting a subtopic value is something a bot can't handle, since it's human judgment as to what subtopic is correct for a particular article. As far as I know, if you subst the GAN template and include the subtopic, so long as the latter is valid, you're good.

There are two points where you'll get the "bot tries again and again until someone fixes something" problem. The first is when the GA nominee template is first created. If there's a bad subtopic, it will keep trying each time the bot runs (though it may skip a run unless there is another nomination being processed in some way) until the subtopic is fixed. A missing status field is not an issue at this point. However, when a review page matching the GA nominee info is created, it attempts to add the "onreview" status and transclude the review page at the article talk page, and without the status field available, while it will update the GAN page with the review information—including incrementing the review count—it doesn't know how to update GA nominee without the status field (the obvious thing, of course, is to add the status field along with "onreview" if it's missing, something to ask of any new bot owner), so it aborts that part of the procedure and starts all over again the next time the bot runs, with the same dreary result until, again, someone intervenes manually.

As for other situations, there are many ways someone can bollix up a GA nominee template. I've seen ones where the date field wasn't filled out properly (causing a timestamp error on the GAN page), a messed-up nominator field (typoing the field name or entering an unparseable sig, causing a username of "Example", which can also happen when a reviewer tries to edit the Reviewer line above the "don't edit above this line" comment on the review page, or typoing the field name), and so on. Typoing field names is quite rare, since even if they don't use GAN, they're more likely to copy a GA nominee template and go from there, rather than roll their own. There aren't that many field names, though, so it couldn't hurt to check.

I think, if we aren't likely to get an updated or new GA bot in the next month or so, it might be worth having a bot check and insert missing status fields. (This is a sleeping problem: the review might be started a couple of hours after nominating or many months, but no one will know until then.) If the note field is missing, it doesn't harm anything, and for those rare events when someone wants to add a note, they can also add the field name if it's not already there. The subtopic field is the one where the effects are immediately seen, though it won't mess with review counts. (The bot really needs to be smarter about them, too.) Okay, that's enough for now. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

January 2018 GOCE barnstars

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, and you're welcome! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Another weird GAN situation

What happened to Robert J. Cenker? It appears Legobot decided that Balon Greyjoy's review of an unrelated article meant Cenker was a GA too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, that isn't what happened here. A reviewer, User:Codyorb, posted the Talk:Robert J. Cenker/GA2 review and immediately passed it, but changed the page number from 2 to 1 when replacing the GA nominee template with the GA template, instead of leaving it at 2. The review didn't find a single issue with the article (though it did violate the MOS:LEADLENGTH section of MOS:LEAD, as it happens), and I'm not sure how much time was spent on the review, given that the editor's GA review from the previous day, Talk:GhanaSat-1/GA1, was completed in seven minutes based on what it says on that page, which is quite concerning, and I've posted my concerns regarding both on Codyorb's talk page in the hopes that the reviews will be reopened. Would you be willing to provide a second opinion if they are reopened? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure -- just let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bugging you with GA questions, but another one came up. After promoting Engineer boot I noticed that the GA template on the talk page wasn't linking to the subpage of GAs for the topic, as it usually does. See this version. I noticed it was missing a comma ("Culture, sociology, and psychology" vs "Culture sociology, and psychology"), so I fixed that, but that didn't solve the issue. (And I thought bad topic names caused Legobot to cough on transcluding the nomination?) I eventually found a short code, "Socsci", in Template:GA that did the trick, but I don't know why the subtopic name didn't work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I don't understand that behavior; the subtopic should have worked. The thing is, I don't know the governing code here. I knew that "socsci" works in the Article history template, but the GA template is supposed to accept valid subtopics as well as valid topics (in this case, "Social sciences and society" is the full topic name, but "Culture, sociology and psychology" should have worked as a valid subtopic. There are two places I've found that might be responsible for doing that translation: Module:Good article topics, which uses Module:Good article topics/data to get the topic/subtopic data, and Template:GA/Subtopic, which seems to offer something similar. Template:GA/Topic says it's used by the Article history and GA templates to get correct topic. If I understood how all of these worked, it might be possible to add new subtopics even without a new bot owner, but it isn't worth the risk of breaking everything since I don't understand what uses what and/or is dependent on what. One thing, though: as a rule of thumb, topics and subtopics do not use serial commas. The parsers may allow for the comma before the "and" in addition to without that comma, but if you'll look on the GAN page, you'll see that the extra comma is not used. Sorry I couldn't be more help. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, if we get a replacement bot, we can solve the problem that way.... Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Three copyedits

Sorry. Thought that the Scarlet Spring copyedit was finished. Removed The Last request.Tintor2 (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Question about GAN

Hello again! I hope that you are doing well. I have a somewhat stupid question about the GAN process. I recently passed the "Write on Me" article as a GA, and I am uncertain about how to add it into the large "articles milestones" part of the talk page. I was wondering if you could show me how to do it. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a stupid question at all, Aoba47. The Articles milestones part of the page is created by the "Article history" template (sometimes written as "ArticleHistory", which does the same thing). I've just updated the article's talk page by taking the information from the GA template and inserting it into the Article history template, so you can see how it works.

The documentation for the template can be found at Template:Article history/doc. Basically, for a new entry under Article history, assuming that the template is already on the talk page, you take the last set of "action" fields and increment by 1—in this case, since there had already been an "action2", I used "action3" and the other action3 fields. (This is not the same as the page field, though in this case the numbers happen to be identical.) Lots of different events go into this template: GANs, peer reviews, GARs, FACs, FLCs, etc. (The FAbot takes care of adding everything in the Featured Article space.)

The date field is taken directly from the GA (or FailedGA) template in full (including the UTC bit), the link field is the name of the review page, and the result field is either "listed" or "failed" ("not listed" also works as a synonym for "failed") for a GAN. The tricky one to find is the oldid field. Basically what you do is you look at the edit history of the article, click on the last edit before the article was listed as a GA (per the time in the GA or FailedGA template), and use the edit id number from the URL for that particular edit.

Please let me know if you have any questions. There's a lot of detail in the Article history documentation I linked to above; you may find it illuminating. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response! That actually covers all of my questions. And thank you for fixing the talk page. I hope that you are having a wonderful day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Appeals of a GA review. An experience with an impulsive reviewer.

Hello, I am contacting you since I have close connections and we have edited in the past. I recently put up an article Taconic State Parkway for GA review in hopes that a reviewer would post issues and I would solve in order to reach a passing level. The reviewer impulsively failed the next day without giving me a chance to do any work or see problems. I am reaching out to you as I do not feel this was in fair jurisdiction for an article I put a lot of effort in. I have taken a look at the reviewers previous work and it seems this is a trend. There was no effort on the reviewers end. The reviewer was "CycloneIsaac". Thank you AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

AmericanAir88, while I don't see any evidence of close paraphrasing as claimed by the reviewer, there are other problems. It isn't only that there weren't enough source citations throughout, it's that some of the sources are questionable. For example, the johnlearn.com and smjohn.com articles don't make any sense: both are just phrases strung together (resulting in incoherent text), and both are dated late 2017, meaning that they were almost certainly strung together while copying from a Wikipedia article, probably the very one you were nominating. It's circular sourcing: they copy us, and we use them to cite our information. That's not how it should work, and problems like this make an article unreliable and not ready to be a GA. The geocaching.com site goes back to 2012, but that paragraph in the lede of our article that cites geocaching.com predates the geocaching post; in this case, a Wikipedia copy is being used as a source to cite extant text, which is a verification problem but not a close paraphrasing one. But that's a big problem: there's no reason to assume that geocaching was reliable, and you didn't notice that it was virtually identical to the article, meaning that one was almost certainly copying the other—again, we were being copied by them.

I did post to CycloneIsaac's page, noting the issues with his diagnosis of close paraphrasing; however, there was a post there from another Wikipedian who had done extensive work on the article in the past, indicating significant issues with the article as it now stood—which had been the reason it wasn't nominated earlier—ought to prevent it from becoming a GA at the present time. These issues seem to involve verifiability and the need to locate important source documents.

You can always nominate the article again, but doing so while the article is still templated is a sure way to guarantee it will fail again. You also need to get rid of the problematic sources, especially the ones I noted above. I don't believe that the close paraphrasing template is tenable, and expect it to be removed with the next 24 hours or so. However, the additional citations template should not be removed by you, and there are so many uncited paragraphs—the bulk of the very long Route description section—that I'm frankly surprised you thought it was ready to be nominated. I may have my disagreements with how the review was worded, but the lack of citations was so severe that had I been reviewing, I might have quick failed the nomination. I realize that this is not what you wanted to hear, but the article just isn't ready at the present time. Best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you so much for the response, I realized that my responses may have been out of quick anger and sadness for seeing the quick fail. I understand now why it quick failed, I will try to fix all the present issues. Why can't the additional citation template be closed by me? AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)