User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 11

Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I noted with interest your rv of a recent edit of mine wherein you entered the summary "The actor is not sufficiently notable to warrant a red link, or likely to be so." You seem to miss the point here. Any internal link serves to inform a reader that there is further information on something elsewhere on WP. Nothing has to be "notable" to 'deserve' a link here, the very existence of a term/name/item which a reader might wish to know more about and which is not self-evident from context or 'common knowledge' may be linked. The fact that there may not currently be a target for that link (ie, an article) is not directly relevant. It is, however, very useful when investigating the creation of an article at a later date because it enables the use of What links here to find other articles where further knowledge about that item/name/term is desired. In this particular case the individual may well not be likely to get a full article at the present time (there are, for example, only two inbound article links) but it may change in the future, and it is not for either of us to pre-determine that. --AlisonW (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

AlisonW, there are so many things that a reader "might wish to know more about" that pages could easily become a sea of red.

WP:REDYES advises the following: "Create red links everywhere they are relevant to the context for terms that should exist in the encyclopedia." I think the key here is "for terms that should exist in the encyclopedia": is Dijon really one of those terms? Should he have a page? As the advice quoted above is from "a generally accepted editing standard" (per the top of that page, WP:Red link

), I'd be hesitant to follow your interpretation of when a red link is warranted.

In fact, Dijon Talton is best known for having been a recurring guest on Glee, but despite appearing on 18 episodes, he only spoke two lines over that period, and has not made any more prominent acting appearances since. I think that in the case of someone who is not notable—and that's true of the huge majority of actors who make minor guest appearances—it's not appropriate to create a red link. It has been three years since Dijon made his last appearance on Glee, and I think it's a pretty safe call that he's unlikely to become suddenly notable in the future. If he does, I'll be among the first to start linking him up, but I just don't think it's appropriate to do it now. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Will try to return to the review soon. Thanks for bringing into notice that edits were done in the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

We have merged 12 new articles into a total of 6 hooks to avoid hook congestion. With only 6 hooks would you reconsider your

Hi BlueMoonset, can you have a look at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_May_14? Poor old Writ Keeper's nomination seems to have been forgotten. I can't really take care of it since I've edited the article, but I think it should be unproblematic. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• BTW, I checked the rules before I went to town on
  Wikipedia:Dyk#How_a_DYK_suggestion_makes_its_way_to_the_main_page specifically addresses that. Drmies (talk
  ) 16:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• The rule is at
  WP:DYKSG#H2: "You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article." Proposing is fine, but you then can't also approve it. I had just been looking at the article at the same time you were cleaning it up, and thought it was a mess prior to your edits being posted, but you did a good job of turning it into readable English. Might you do so again? There has been significant expansion, with similar issues in the new text to those that you fixed before it was promoted to prep. I have to say I was a bit non-plussed to see the review characterization changed from "positive" to "mixed"... BlueMoonset (talk
  ) 19:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know if you pinged someone or not, but thanks for your help moving Writ Keeper's article along. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't ping anyone, but adding the "needs reviewing" icon may have helped. I hope so. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, BlueMoonset. As I've finished expanding the Holly Holliday article, I was wondering/hoping if you could read trough it and polish where you see fit. Regards — Robin (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Robin, I'm not sure how soon I'll be able to get to it to do a reasonable job. I'm currently stealing Wikipedia time in dribs and drabs, not enough to work on an article. Maybe Saturday, but I can't make any promises... BlueMoonset (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that editing in general has been sparse lately, while my vacation has just begun.. :/ — Robin (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please reevaluate

TonyTheTiger, it's very difficult to give this a QPQ credit on the basis of the railroad review when you never finished the review—an icon indicated the review status is needed and should always be included at the start of the review entry; I don't know of anyone who will promote an article without one of the two approval icons, and if something is wrong, then the severity should be indicated by one of the three other icons—but the fact that another reviewer pointed out real problems with the article and the main hook almost immediately afterward leaves me unwilling to give you that credit. I'll make a note of this on the template. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

QPQs are generally given for reviews in progress. Why is this case different?--

WP:FOUR

) 17:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. note hook swapped.--

WP:FOUR

) 17:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of it being for reviews in progress; it's for a completed review. (That completion doesn't mean approval, but it does mean that a full review has been given, and everything checked.) Quid pro quo means that the two things are equivalent: I've never allowed incomplete reviews to count. If you think this is an incorrect interpretation, you're free to post on

WT:DYK to see if others agree with your understanding. BlueMoonset (talk

) 19:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK this when you posted? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Thanks for pointing it out, Gerda. I'll put a note on the nomination template so it isn't concluded before he can get back to it. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, nice! How about contacting the author, Andy was only the nominator as far as I can see? I would offer help but am still delayed with my own projects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, sorry to bother you but if you get the chance could you have a quick look at

SagaciousPhil, I'm just about to head out for the weekend, so I'm going to leave this one to Crisco. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem - have a nice time!

SagaciousPhil - Chat

16:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony, since Nyttend did the review, that's the place to ask. I'm only on for very short periods of time today, and can't finish a review right now. Sorry. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that.[1] I didn't have time to do that last night and thought I'd leave it till today but you beat me to it. Gatoclass (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have to admit I thought you'd forgotten it would be necessary—the second editor in recent days to make a hook fix that pulled an interesting fact directly from the source, and wasn't (yet) supported in the article. All's well that ends well. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Can you review the first hook if the ALT 1 is not good enough? If the first one is ok then it can go with that hook? Thanks. --Zayeem ^(talk) 10:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could possibly comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs in Glee (season 1)/archive1. Robin (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Robin, my problem with commenting is that I really don't understand the Featured List process—the only Featured List that the Glee task force has was obtained before my time, so I haven't had any experience with it or with its criteria. I have been making some edits to the article, mostly formatting, in the hopes of fixing or improving things before people point them out (if they are evening FL issues). Best of luck with it: you've been doing fine work there.

You had, a while ago, asked me to look at

WP:LEDE is a requirement for GA status.) I hope this gets picked up soon! BlueMoonset (talk

) 02:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've implemented your point (thanks for the reminder!). As for the FLC, I really appreciate your edits. Robin (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Blue, I think this article is ready for final review. The sourcing (My only remaining concern) is acceptable to one and likely two other editors, but they did not affix the "tick". The nomination has been there for the better part of a month, and I'm sure the author (who I don't know other than interaction on this nom) would appreciate a determination. Thanks for your consideration,

Thanks for cleaning up my mess; I noticed almost all the DYK queues were empty so tried to build one for the very first time. I hope I didn't F--k up too badly. Any future tips much appreciated... Montanabw^(talk) 21:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The article Anatomy has recently been expanded and I have nominated it for DYK here. Please could you adjudicate as to whether it is a fivefold expansion. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Agne27 was there before me, and she's absolutely right that it qualifies as fivefold. (It's actually a sixfold expansion.) I've posted my opinion there. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey BlueMoonset

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I understand your reasoning, however I don't think your reasoning is sufficient enough to delete the entire chart. The chart would help give a visual to show the changing in Character status throughout the series. Charts like this are in many different Television series pages and it is highly challenging to find specific information on this specific page. It is also very rude to delete the entire chart instead of altering it to your standards, such as simply deleting the Season 5 changes as you do not find the multiple reports to be credible. So, next time when making decisions like this, be considerate of other people's work and next time alter the work to your liking. Just because you don't find visual aids helpful does not mean that others do not. Signed, Person Whose Work You Deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.112.123 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

synthesis

and original research to put together, and as such run afoul of Wikipedia's rules. I recognize that it takes quite a bit of effort to make such a chart, and some of my early edits met similar fates as I learned how Wikipedia worked and what was acceptable and what wasn't. Altering the chart wouldn't deal with the fundamental issues in it.

I'm not quite sure why you think it's "highly challenging to find specific information on this specific page", since it's right there in the very first paragraph of the article's intro: main characters, and season by season changes. Once they finish that paragraph, they know what's happened in all four broadcast seasons.

As for the multiple reports on the upcoming season, I have found in the past that early reports are not always accurate. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: it should not state that people have appeared in season 5 until they have actually appeared in season 5, just like the article's infobox only lists the seasons and total episodes that have appeared. There's nothing wrong with mentioning press reports of cast changes, but practice is not to list them as having occurred until it's verifiable as having happened, which is when the first episode with the change has been broadcast. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks for correcting the placement of my DYK nomination! i even read the name of the heading stating it was for articles created/expanded on that particular day, honest! i just wasn't thinking, i guess — this is my first nomination. anyway, thanks again! ~ Boomur [talk] 01:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's an easy enough mistake to make. Best of luck with the nomination! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, as I noticed you are about at the moment, could you have a look at the new nomination on 5 July for RV/MH Hall of Fame? I was just about to put my review comments on it but the template doesn't seem to be right? I have left a brief note on

• The / mark is borking the template. It is properly part of the title, but the link is trying to break it off as a subpage. I'm not sure of the fix. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The creator nominated the article on the 2nd day and then posted on the 4th day that expansion will done within the next few days. It is now the 8th day and the article is still a stub. It is not alright to nominate an article for DYK in order to hold its place so that it can be expanded after the 5 day deadline. Template:Did you know nominations/Wa alaykumu s-salam. SL93 (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I probably would have given it a week, so I certainly won't reject it for another couple of days, but I remember noticing that nomination and thinking that it needed watching, given how little was there. Faizan didn't edit on Wikipedia for a few days, and only just came back earlier today, so perhaps we'll see movement. You might want to ping his talk page as a courtesy. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I did as you suggested. SL93 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you have nothing better to do than criticize other people's DYK reviews, especially mine, I won't be doing any more. Maybe you should approve some noms yourself. PumpkinSky talk 19:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If there's a problem with a review, when I go to promote the nomination, then I point out the issues rather than promoting it. That's what someone building a set is supposed to do, which you know perfectly well. In this case, I'd trusted your Opernhaus Wuppertal review when I was in a hurry—my fault entirely—and ended up having to unpromote it for very good reasons. So I made very sure to double-check Bluthochzeit when I came to it shortly after that, and when I found problems despite your unelaborated tick, I noted the fact that you'd given no guidance as to what you did check when pointing out the problems in the article. You might consider looking to your own reviews ... should you ever resume doing them. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Nah, they're all yours buddy.PumpkinSky talk 23:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll remember that when you start again—feel free. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I get second-guessed in many of my reviews now PumpkinSky, I guess because reviewers these days are trying to improve quality control. I might add that I also frequently check other users' reviews. It can be a little irritating at times, but overall I think it's a good thing. You shouldn't take it personally. Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought you were going to change the cycle rate from 3 sets per day to two? There seemed to be consensus for that solution, have you changed your mind about it now? Gatoclass (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I still think it's a good idea—if we had a reasonable number of reviews completed we'd have half a dozen prep/queue areas filled and be down below 120 unpromoted noms—but didn't think we'd achieved consensus quite yet. (Though, as you can see, I wasn't impressed by the reasons given by the two who argued against two a day.) I also can't change it myself, since it (understandably) requires an admin, but I can ask Shubinator to do it (since it's his bot), which is what I did the last time, back in December. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2013‎ (UTC)

I forgot you need to be an admin to do it. It's so long since I've done it myself I've forgotten how, so maybe a request to Shubs would be the best option. Gatoclass (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The end of the hook for Priyanka Chopra in prep area 3 is a problem because the last link ends with a question mark - "...that Priyanka Chopra is the first actress in the world to portray 12 distinct characters in one film which was What's Your Raashee??". I can't think of a good rewording. SL93 (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There is no way that I could have tried rewording it when my eyes have been hurting for a long time from playing Bleach: Soul Resurrección. SL93 (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me know if you like what I did; I think it works and also reads better. Your immediate task, however, is to do something with the Hampton Roads Conference hook. When there are additional open prep areas, the thing to do is to not unpromote a hook, but move it to an available spot in another prep. When too many of one kind o hook end up in a set: too many bios, too many U.S. hooks, too many of anything, really ... the hook gets placed somewhere else. Unpromoting should be reserved for hooks that actually have problems, or if all four preps are full and there is no room to move an overlapping hook (and no good hook to swap it with in one of those other preps). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The hook sounds fine and I added the Civil War hook to a prep area. It is interesting to me that you reverted my removal of a talk page section that only I edited. It will be archived, but I don't see why it has to be there. SL93 (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's because you asked for help there, and I, at least, was in the process of responding to it when it disappeared. It's good to have a visible "paper trail" of requests on a group talk page; in this case, I was on the verge of responding to it when it suddenly disappeared, so I restored it so I had something to respond to. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with it, but I just didn't know why it was re-added. SL93 (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could help with something else. There is a DYK nomination for St Peter's Church, Ropsley. It seems like there should be St. instead of St like usual. I nominated the article for DYK so I will change the article name, change the hook, and change St to St. within the article if needed. SL93 (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

All of the similar articles are like this. There is no problem then. SL93 (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct, there is no problem. In England, they don't use the period for "St" or similar abbreviations. Since these are nominations for articles about British venues, they should adhere to British format (including spelling, like "colour", "centre", and so on), so "St" is fine. In the U.S., though, it would indeed be "St. Peter's Church". Canada is a confusing mixture of the two varieties of English, and I haven't figured out Australian or New Zealand rules. India's closer to the UK. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

So I take it that I was correct in using "in honour of" in the hook? SL93 (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "honour" is the UK spelling for "honor". BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I said that a nominator's articles have close paraphrasing. The nominator said that it isn't close paraphrasing, despite my examples, and tried bossing me on my talk page into removing the close paraphrasing tags from his articles. I was wondering if you had any insight into the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Editor closely paraphrases sources. SL93 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree about it being in very bad form, but there is no use in debating because there are better things to do on Wikipedia. I am curious as to why my section on the DYK talk page about promoted articles with close paraphrasing never had a response from anyone. I'm wondering if it is because prior nominations that were promoted with close paraphrasing can't be changed. Previous promoted articles with such problems will repeat themselves in future articles by those nominators if not resolved now. I was hoping that someone would post after the nominator started demanding me to remove the close paraphrasing tags with a section titled "Some work for you!" and my problems being called crap by that same editor. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

As it says on WP:Did you know/Onepage, "When possible, it is also best to avoid promoting the same article that you reviewed, nominated, or created." (N1) I didn't see any compelling reason here to fail to avoid.

I didn't comment on the close paraphrasing because I wanted to get Nikkimaria, who's the expert in this space, to comment on the current nomination's paraphrasing issues: she's far more knowledgeable than I am, and is simply far better at identifying instances of close paraphrasing. I was very unimpressed with Strike Eagle's response to your note in

WT:DYK, especially considering that it took a number of iterations for the close paraphrasing to be fixed during the Template:Did you know nominations/INS Kamorta review process. As for his demand, it's frankly his responsibility, if he sees close paraphrasing in an article, to put the tags on himself, or delete the offending phrases. That someone else has used close paraphrasing is no reason that he also should be able to do it. BlueMoonset (talk

) 00:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess my comment relates to any editor that is active with the DYK process not responding. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was aware there were two bio hooks together in prep 3 (now in Queue 3), but I felt the update needed a short hook amongst the first three as the first two hooks have multiple clauses, and in this case I felt having two bio hooks together as a result was the lesser of two evils. It's not always possible to get the ideal update, and an occasional juxtaposition of bio hooks doesn't do much harm. Incidentally, I noticed that many of the currently approved hooks at T:TDYK are bios, so thought it would be a good idea to get rid of an extra one in that set lest we end up with an update full of bios later on. Gatoclass (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess we disagree on which was the lesser of two evils, but de gustibus and all that. I imagine it will be possible to build prep sets with three bios each until the glut recedes; if sets are built with a dearth of bios, we can always swap non-bio hooks to later sets and fill in with a decent number of bios. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought about it and I will take your advice. I was going to respond earlier, but I had to deal with a vandal (indef blocked, talk page access revoked) for around 3 hours. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Very sorry to hear about the vandal, and I appreciate you taking the time to set things right: three hours is a lot to spend cleaning up after someone's damage. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you know if there is a mentoring program on Wikipedia that specifically helps with how to correctly paraphrase articles in a formal manner? My writing was said to be worse than an 8th grader's. Apparently, my teachers during throughout high school and during my short time in college did not know what they were talking about. Either that or they just didn't care. The high school teachers not caring does make sense though. The graduation rate was low and the majority of students in my graduating class had only the bare minimum of credits. I had a B average in high school and I was one of the top students in my graduating class which is absolutely ridiculous. SL93 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

West High School (Sioux City, Iowa). SL93 (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

(

Guild of Copy Editors: they may indeed have a mentoring program or something along those lines. (I know that they exist, and that they will copyedit articles if asked—though not necessarily in a timely fashion.) I imagine that someone there would be willing to mentor you in paraphrasing if you asked. Good luck! BlueMoonset (talk

) 18:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The fourth QPQ review is woefully incomplete; please let me know when it's fully done, and I'll be happy to revisit and reconsider. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it O.K. now.--

WP:FOUR

) 02:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

A close paraphrasing spot check is generally in order; as you'll see, when I went to check one citation, I discovered a sourcing issue. But without the source, it's hard to do a decent check, as the two missing sources are the ones that are the logical choices to be checked. So I think this is good enough for QPQ, and am about to post same. Thanks for being responsive to my requests. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now fixed this article for this DYK? nomination of mine --

Insofar as I'm concerned, the review is still in Antidiskriminator's hands—I was just reminding you that you had promised to update it per that earlier review, yet hadn't. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The reviewer at Template:Did you know nominations/Sharknado accepted two similarly worded hooks. I'm not sure if that was alright. SL93 (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you that you can't review a hook that was your own suggestion, especially when it was just a minor change from the one I suggested. And if you don't want to review your own hook, wouldn't it be better to ping the the original reviewer to come back and say that "Lysvoll scored the 100th goal is in the article and is backed up by a reliable source" and give it a green tick? Alternatively you could review the ALT1 instead, which has only minor changes from the ALT2. The average time for a new reviewer to come is approx 10 days, and I believe the red light with "needs a new reviewer for a hook", which you adds to a lot of nominations do stall the DYK-nominations to much. P.S. I orignally wrote this in

I see that the nom has already been reviewed and promoted, so there isn't an issue here now. However, I have to disagree with you: I added a new fact to previous hooks—that Lysvoll himself scored the record-breaking 100th goal—and any new fact is by definition a significant change. I take

WT:DYK.) BlueMoonset (talk

) 03:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony, I'm not an admin, so there's nothing I can do to hooks once they've been promoted to queues. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

I just want to say a big thanks for all of the help you've given over the years at DYK and trying to solve issues. I'm afraid I mean it this time, I'm not going to contribute to DYK any longer, but I'll never forget the time and effort you've put into trying to make DYK work. I've long thought that DYK needs reform, but you're really doing a great job keeping it running as it is. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

HI BlueMoonset - Thanks for letting me know about the nom's issue as I hadn't watchlisted that one. I've added refs. Hopefully, it's ok now but if it needs something else, I'll work on it. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, I suggested a new, much shorter hook and an alternative image. Best Voceditenore (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In light of your objections to ALT2, I've re-jigged the article and added 3 inline citations to the sentence which is the basis of the hook. See the nomination page for details. Voceditenore (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi BlueMonnset - I just added the tick. So sorry for not including it earlier! It's gtg. Cheers, -Rosiestep (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosiestep. Good to know. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you have a look at

You were pretty active at DYK today. Why didn't you stop in here?--

WP:FOUR

) 00:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony, I made but two posts this morning subsequent to your request, both of which were caught in edit conflicts, and spent far more than the 15 minutes I had available messing with that. I've had a very busy week and the weekend isn't looking so great; since you're in such a hurry, I've dropped a note on Nikkimaria's page, since she was the one who objected to the approval due to overlap affecting minimum length. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Promoters are not responsible for doing a second review that was done by someone else. For example, I should not have to review articles by Blofeld's group when the reviewer should have done that. SL93 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from saying things that are not anywhere in the DYK rules. SL93 (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No. I have no idea why you're so resistant to learning how DYK typically works, but if you are doing something that doesn't accord with written or unwritten rules, I'm going to mention what's best. I may not always remember if I learned something from the rules or from someone who is more experienced from me and who I respect (and who told me about them), but I'm going to pass on what I've learned. If you don't want to read it, that's your lookout. Promoters should check the articles they're promoting. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not resistant to it. However, no one including yourself has stated that it was an unwritten rule. You simply had to state it. There is no need to assume bad faith on my part. I have been participating in DYK since 2010. SL93 (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Please point out where I have assumed bad faith on your part. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

"I have no idea why you're so resistant to learning how DYK typically works". SL93 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is that bad faith on your part? You seem to be checking against the rules, yet when someone mentions something that isn't a rule you know, instead of saying "I hadn't noticed that as a requirement" or "why would you do that" or even "are you sure", your response is that it's not the case because it isn't in the rules. This isn't bad faith, but it's a limited viewpoint that doesn't take into effect that rules tend to come out of experience, and codification on Wikipedia tends to come when practice over time is challenged, and the new methods are written down as rules. DYK is behind in updating the rules and regularizing them between the many places they are listed—I may be misremembering, but I believe I pointed out to you where the rules only refer to a single prep area, or in some cases two, even though there are now four of them—so there are bound to be discrepancies and omissions. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I know plenty about Wikipedia having unwritten rules from participating in AfD. The blame can go both ways as you could have said that it was an unwritten rule instead of saying "keep checking" in your edit summary. The only reason that DYK is behind in putting this unwritten rule down is from pointless debates when it is supposed to be a regular rule. SL93 (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

My responses might be from an AfD mentality. I had the account Schuym1 which I created in 2008 and then abandoned in 2009. I had to learn how to defend myself when my first articles were thrown into AfD with no regard for me, the creator. At first, I approached all debates the same way as in AfD, but I have started getting myself off of that. Most people in AfD are out to win. SL93 (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're assuming I remember what is written and unwritten—as I noted above, I don't always remember if it's something I learned or read while reviewing or promoting at DYK, but it's my experience of how DYK works. I honestly don't understand why blame needs to come into it at all: we're all working toward a better DYK. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer earlier about the kind of checking a promoter should do, but I can't be embarrassed about not remembering that this was an unwritten rule if Crisco 1492 also wasn't aware that it was: Crisco was one of my DYK mentors when I first started assembling prep sets. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is any blame in this situation, but I think that blame can be placed to someone or other people (I'm not sure who) because of a common rule being both unwritten and not known by experienced DYK contributors such as Crisco 1492. SL93 (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oh boy. I knew the rule, just didn't know it was unwritten; when you've seen enough of the rules in action, you forget which are codified and which are not. SL93, you've made a very good suggestion at WT:DYK which will likely (bare/bear?) fruit if you follow through with it. I can't see this thread resulting in much besides heartache. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

First, I was lectured for not following an unwritten rule when promoting. Now, I am being lectured for following the written rule of everything needing to be verified, that has been on the main page for years. Not in-depth gets me Template:Did you know nominations/Information technology in Bangladesh and in-depth gets me Wikipedia talk:Did you know#WP:DYK statement should be removed or changed. Is there some middle ground that I'm missing? I'm asking you because you're the first one who mentioned the unwritten rule. SL93 (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I fix that article tomorrow? Today's kinda hectic and I could use a few hours to recuperate. Abyssal (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm closing it as Failed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, please take a look at this. --

Sorry, this is my first DYK candidate in, literally, years, so I was wondering if I've done everything needed for it, or if I should do more to make sure it's promoted? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You're done at this point, now that it has been approved. It's up to an independent editor to promote it to a prep area, an admin to move that prep to a queue, and in due course a bot to move the queue contents to the main page. The next step could be hours or days away. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Right. Thank you very much! Fingers crossed, then! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I just realised we're both filling different prep sets at the same time and I've inadvertently added some of the same hooks as you. So I'll leave prep 1 be and let you finish them up (the lead in prep 1 is the same coin as in your prep 4 atm, and I figured you could decide where it was best placed). Miyagawa (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently we're also messaging each other about the same thing at the same time! I'll stop editing (in fact I'm going to head off to bed) and you can sort the two sets out without me messing it all up! :) Miyagawa (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, will do. I think Louisiana's probably better in prep 4, because prep 1 is overnight in the US. I'll finish both prep sets, then. Thanks! (Timing is everything, it would appear... we just crossed in posts to our respective talk pages!) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

... to a process near you. You may wish to comment on this before it goes live - I am just waiting on Newyorkbrad to confirm his is still up for closing it after a month or so.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat|What I've done23:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, would you like to elaborate on your !vote? :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Any special reason why I should when the Support votes are universally unelaborated? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, and I have asked them as well.--Gilderien Talk to me|List of good deeds 00:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't comment because no one else seemed to be. But I am very interested in your opinion, BlueMoonset. You are, in my mind at least, the closest thing we have at DYK to a coordinator or delegate or whathaveyou, and, as the person who does the most work at DYK, your opinion is very important. My rationale is that it incentivizes improving a much wider range of topics. Currently, only stubs or uncovered topics can make it. The Interior (Talk) 01:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed your message with the edit summary, "Remove. I didn't notice it and yes, I know what the template is. I have used it myself in articles. So rather than saying that I meant to be impolite or rude, don't." It might not have been best, but I am really tired of what has been going on lately. Apparently, I enjoy being treated like a dog and licking the asses of other DYK contributors to get their approval..but I'm still a good guy. That wasn't paraphrased either. SL93 (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've revamped Egg fossil to deal with the plagiarism. It should be good to go now. Abyssal (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

dinosaur eggs, which has a close paraphrase template on the article for the same reason that egg fossil did. We can't proceed until both articles are in shape. BlueMoonset (talk

) 19:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've cleared up most of the plagiarism in Dinosaur egg and rewrote some of the content. All it needs are some citations and to rewrite the introduction, which I can handle tomorrow morning. Abyssal (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've revamped

Dinosaur eggs. Everything should be all set now for this nomination. Abyssal (talk

) 17:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey BlueMoonset. I saw you needed a few things reviewed. I can tick this one off, but the hook needs tweaking, to something like "that "Tuya Soy", one of Ivy Queen's better known songs and frequently included on compilation albums, failed to reach the Billboard charts?" Of course I can't tick off and approve a new hook, and I don't want the most recently proposed hook on the front page, so you'd need yet another reviewer--unless you agree that the change I'm proposing to the hook is purely syntactical, and then we can move right along. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• And I took care of Template:Did you know nominations/Ted Andrews. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Drmies, thanks. I've just suggested an ALT7a along the lines of your tweak, but with minor differences. If you're okay with it, then I think you're safe to give the tick. (I think "frequently" might have caused an issue, which is why I used a less definitive term.) Thanks for taking care of Ted, too. I was worried that with the RfC going on, no one was going to take a look at the review list. RfCs always seem to suck out all the oxygen while they're going on. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Here's another one for you, Template:Did you know nominations/Meka Whaitiri. Consider a slightly tweaked hook, "that Meka Whaitiri, New Zealand's newest Member of Parliament, used to be a member of the national netball team, the Silver Ferns?" I don't expect any kind of titillation along the lines of "oh! what would those Silver Ferns be?", and think it best to specify what this team plays. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• The comment near the top of the nomination explicitly says that leaving off what Silver Ferns is was deliberate. Whether advisable or not (and I gather you're in the "not" camp), the article clearly needs updating to show (and source) that she was sworn in (and thus is the newest member). So this wouldn't be ready right away anyway. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• The update wasn't available yet yesterday, but it is now, and I've adjusted the article. As for the hook, I don't think the intrigue works, but hey. I'll tick it off, intrigue-less hook and all. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, you mean the GA/DYK RfC. Yeah, that's exciting. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Note my comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Infant clothing. I didn't want to put a "NO" icon on it, but unless something changes it's a NO, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• You might want to put a on it, then, to indicate that this is a serious objection, but not one that shuts down the nomination right away. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Will do. In the meantime, I put a NO on Template:Did you know nominations/Eagle Peak (Wyoming), but I'd like you to have a look there as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• And a NO (unequivocally) at Template:Did you know nominations/Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello - don't wish to nag, but just wanted to let you know that I dealt with your queries at the Edelstein DYK nomination, and wondered if you had any more comments or concerns to be addressed. Thanks so much. Mabalu (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Mabalu, thanks, and my apologies for not getting back to it sooner. Unfortunately, as the proposer of ALT3, I can't approve it myself, but I've added my comments and an icon indicating that another reviewer is needed to finish the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there BlueMoonset, I saw you posted on my talk page and I'm here to say sorry. I saw that the edit was removed and I though someone random just removed it and didn't know you did. So I just copied and pasted the 2nd time because I was in a rush. Next time I'll be more careful.Ijoshiexo (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ijoshiexo. Before you restore something that's been removed, it's always important to check the edit that did the removing and see what the edit summary has to say. (The View History tab lets you do that.) And now you know that copy-and-paste into Wikipedia is never acceptable. The nice thing about this being an encyclopedia is that there isn't any rush to get material posted. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Oh and you or someone else put seven new characters when it's reportedly nine, the new "nerdy girl" and the "school board member" also count apparently. So I've added them in there if that's alright.Ijoshiexo (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't where you added them; I had to revert it. That section was talking about recurring characters, people who appear in more than one episode. The two you refer to are not recurring, and I didn't think they were important enough to include: the so-called nerdy girl appears to be a once-only appearance with a single line of dialogue (which likely won't even rate a guest star credit), and the indeterminate school board member seemed borderline for a single episode, given how little other info there was. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Was in a rush to knock something that had been sitting on my to-do list for awhile. Thank you for dotting the i's on the template for me. —Zujine|talk 15:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's usually best (and quickest!) to use the GAN template, which creates the GA nominee template with all the fields present and properly filled out so that the bot can parse them; rolling your own template has risks. I end up fixing up to a dozen of these a month. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that this should be rejected. There are three unreliable sources and a dead link used as references. SL93 (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You might want to consider giving Faizan the opportunity to fix it, unless the sources cover a significant amount of the material. If you're not inclined to because it took a month to get the article up to proper length, I can't argue with you on it. I agree it's a bad sign when four of eleven sources are problematic. If Faizan does come up with a quick fix to the issue before someone else closes the nomination, then it should be checked. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey BM, I was away in the last few days, I had made some edits to the article and commented in the nomination page, please take a look if the issues are fixed. Thanks.--Zayeem ^(talk) 17:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestions noted and appreciated. Thanks. Alex Shih^Talk 04:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

With my most recent one,