User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 15

Hi BlueMoonset, I am doing this DYK review, and am unsure if the article is overly promotional. Please could you give me a second opinion on whether it is or not? Thanks, Matty.007 15:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have worked out, thanks, Matty.007 16:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Matty.007, glad it worked out. One thing I noticed while skimming that I'm sure you'll want to know: hook characters include interior spaces and the final question mark, but the count does not include the initial "... ". BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads up. Was I right to insist on the removal of those parts, it seems to have upset the nominator? Thanks, Matty.007 09:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. Hafspajen (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

But I really don't think she meant it. She was just hurt, you know . Sorry for all mess. Hafspajen (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

When Gerda tried to add a credit for her to the prep set, SagaciousPhil removed herself. I thought it was important to respect her decision, so when you readded her a short while later, I did the removal myself, rather than make her have to do a third removal (the first was from the nomination template). BlueMoonset (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't want to pass a DYK without your blessing and may have a problem with this one: Template:Did you know nominations/Byculla to Bangkok, your comments would be helpful there, thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello BlueMoonset,

Seeing to it that you've done lots of work in WP:NSONGS (even though it got disregarded with Choose Your Battles with lots of WP:ILIKEIT arguements), would you mind please clarifying some points addressed in this AfD? You don't have to vote if you don't want (though are still certainly welcome to), I just thought I'd get an expert's definition of WP:NSONGS.

Actually, I was just involved in the last revision of

WP:NSONGS because there had been questions of notability around articles submitted to DYK, and it seemed to me that this was worth clarifying. (NSONGS should be clear enough as it is currently written.) It's an exaggeration to say I've "done lots of work" in this space, or am any kind of expert. Further, as was shown to me in the Choose Your Battles AfD, the NSONGS revision didn't mean a thing, so I've given up trying to enforce a consensus that disappears with half a dozen Keeps that don't even bother to acknowledge NSONGS validity. I'm very sorry, but I'm not interesting in banging my head against the wall any further. BlueMoonset (talk

) 22:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Blue. I've just remembered Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St Mary the Virgin, Fawsley which I nominated still needs a re-review as I have sorted the issues you brought up. Could you give it another look and a tick please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Can I also ask if you could review Template:Did you know nominations/Jesus Christ is Risen Today please because the person who raised an objection hasn't responded to my and the original reviewer's replies. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I know it's too late but is there any chance to get this article Suffragette (film) on DYK, it's making an history by filming at the House of Parliament in UK. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, not as it is. As Maile said, you can always ask at

Good Article standards, nominate it, and see it through the process, which can take months. Once it becomes a Good Article, if it's nominated within five days, then it qualifies as "new". BlueMoonset (talk

) 18:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. Thank you again for all you do! --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I have responded to your concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/2014 FA Cup Final and I have added a new source. Please re-add the tick. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on April 16, 2014. Please send me an email at [email protected] if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

BlueMoonset,

Thanks for understanding

I have just discovered enough information so that I think we can get past this hurdle.

The whole theory is that "Yank" Levy was not just a soldier and an assassin, but was a committed Socialist with a socialist's set of values, which influenced his analysis and his goals and presentations. It wasn't just all technical stuff.

Feel to free to use any this stuff. It is also in my sandbox. These are direct quotes from the material I found, so its all got to be paraphrased.

[copyright material deleted]

The point was, for Levy and the other Home Guard socialists, that the Home Guard represented the entire British people in arms, pages 37-38 . 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have no idea why you're putting all this stuff on my talk page. This is your article, it's still growing (in the 12K range, on its way to 14K, I hope), and it's up to you craft the material you're finding into the whole. I have zero interest in doing so myself. Further, it's copyright material, so I've just deleted it from my talk page—we shouldn't be reprinting copyright text anywhere on Wikipedia, even on talk pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Taking care of it. I sincerely apologize for any concerns or troubling you. Best wishes. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Bluemoonset,

Sigh!

Sorry for the template problem, but even now I don't actually see what I am supposed to be inserting.

I know that trying to get this to a 5X expansion is really hard. I knew that going in, and if it can't be done so be it. i have only myself to blame.

I actually thought that all of the following would count as it was new content, and really wasn't references:

Published works

Levy, Bert "Yank"; Wintringham, Tom (Foreword); Osanka, Franklin Mark Introduction,1964 edition (1942, reprint 1964). Guerilla Warfare (PDF). Paladin Press. Retrieved 15 April 2014.

Notes

"Id#: 0604036 Levy, Bert (Yank) 2 September 1965 Cleveland Plain Dealer; Cleveland Necrology File, Reel #129. Notes: Levy. Bert (Yank) Levy husband of Mae, father of Mrs. Toby Rosen, and grandfather, brother of Harry (deceased) and Mrs. Rose Levy (deceased), Mrs. Sadie Diamond (deceased), Mrs. Jennie Applebaum, of Cleveland, Mrs. Bessie Armour, of Los Angeles, Alex L., of Battle Creek, Mrs. Hilda Nibur, of Los Angeles, and Morris of Cleveland,Ohio passed away in Los Angeles, on Thursday, September 2. Services in Los Angeles Sunday, September 5." Roots web

^ One source mistakenly states that his date of death was 9 February 1965. However, it appears that this was due to a failure to appreciate the use of a d/m/y format, and that is was a transposition of number. See Matthews, Phil (2006). "Yank Levy Part One: The Combatives Freedom Fighter". CQB Services. Archived from the original on 20 April 2014. Retrieved 21 March 2007.

^ According to one source, Wittringham was the primary author. “Transcriber’s note: The book from which this introduction comes, was written by Tom Wintringham, based upon the experience of both Wintringham and Levy, but calling heavily upon Wintringham’s historical and theoretical knowledge. This introduction, not published in American post-war reprints of the book, acknowledges Wintringham’s authorship of the book.” Wintringham, Tom H.; Levy, Bert ‘Yank’ (2008) [1941]. "Guerrilla Warfare, Introduction Source: Guerrilla Warfare, by ‘Yank’ Levy". Marxists Internet Archive. Transcription by Phyll Smith; HTML Markup by Brian Reid (UK ed.). Penguin Special S102. pp. 5–10. Archived from the original on 20 April 2014. Retrieved 20 April 2014.

Jump up

^ The location, "By the rude bridge that arched the flood" — see the Concord Hymn by Ralph Waldo Emerson — was not coincidental, but was intended to be a call to arms and to invoke the mystique of the Minutemen. Levy, Bert "Yank"; Wintringham, Tom (Foreword) (1942, reprint 1964). Guerilla Warfare (PDF). Paladin Press. p. 7. Retrieved 15 April 2014.

I recognize that references don't count (and I've added a great many) but these were not just references, but were really content in a different place. Of course, I recognize that

I have added more content, and I suppose I could add more. But if its going nowhere (the timing is bad for me, anyway) than why bother. Let me know what you think.

Thank you very much for your help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, I'm afraid references, even with more extensive information in them, don't count for DYK as content. Lists of published works don't either. But it looks like you're making good progress, with about another 1000 prose characters to go before the expansion reaches the necessary level, and several editors are working on the article with you. Best of luck! (There's something wrong with the end of the fourth paragraph of Field service; the quote is never closed, and the sentence doesn't finish its thought.)

The problem with the nomination template you created is that it wasn't a real template—you just created a page with text, but the automated DYK process requires the template code that should be included with it. If you check out my edits on the page, you'll see that I was adding all the necessary template code that's required for DYK: it's why the instructions on

T:TDYK tell people to enter the name of the article being nominated, and then takes them to a partially filled out template that needs only a little filling out and saving to automatically create the DYK nomination page with the entire filled-out template. It's much better to do it this way, and I'm sure you did it this way in your past nominations. I'm not sure why you didn't this time, but you'll want to for future noms. BlueMoonset (talk

) 14:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I figured out my template problem. Won't happen again. Article is long enough and ready for review, if you are of a mind to do it. Thank you for your patience. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear BlueMoonset -

The article

The editor never conducted a complete review of the article, but simply abandoned the effort. When I complained, the reviewer summarily removed the article in retaliation.

What were the grounds for abandoning the review? Why was the article removed? 36hourblock (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

A new review has started, with a new reviewer. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I started with a stability review (as usual) and an image review. The editor has not touched the nomination, except to ABF on my intentions and essentially say "I don't want you to review this article". I regret that we gave him/her this chance for a speedy review, since he/she clearly does not want to take advantage of it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've just replied on the review page. I hope 36hourblock reconsiders—I didn't think how he might take Adam's comments on your talk page, but I know you will be impartial and a good GA reviewer besides. Either way, thanks for intervening at my request, and your clear desire to do the right thing—taking on a GAN is a major commitment. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I know... I've done a few, though none since Khazar2 retired. FAC has taken up much more reviewing time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492, sorry for dragging you into this. I appreciate your being willing to review the GA, and wish it had turned out better. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• No worries. We tried. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, BlueMoonset. You have new messages at Ethically Yours's talk page.
Message added 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ethically^Yours! 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is ready to run aside from the uncited third paragraph under Dictionary gimmicks. I looked through the other sources, and also did some Google searches, but was unable to find this information in a source. Since

Yoninah, I just answered on the template. My vote is to reject: given the errors in the section, and the fact that Maury has refused to follow D2 before (and those nominations had to be rejected), I wouldn't feel comfortable putting this on the main page. Furthermore, I found a couple of errors in this one section, and for all I know, there may be others. I'm not willing to spend the time doing a thorough check of the entire article, bringing myself up to speed on the subject and checking the sources to make sure this is completely accurate given the problems already found. Are you? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

	Eagle-eyed Award
	Kudos for picking up a silly error in mine - I was just about to post something that we all take more care and I goofed myself.....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Cas Liber, thanks. We all need to take more care, but none of us is perfect and things do slip by. I have to confess I'm nervous every time I promote something to a prep area now, and am wondering what I might have missed. I've just posted a further note to your talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, me too - the issue is it all works as long as most folks are reliable enough to be generally ok with sourcing and thus spotchecking is enough to cover sourcing, but if errors occur frequently then the review process has to be much more thorough...which is not fun and maybe not sustainable by volunteers. It seems to have had a big chilling effect over DYK, and coupled with the reduced activity of more experienced editors has left us in a bit of a situation. And then I kick an own goal with my own one :P Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't pleased with a remark someone else had made so, rather than say so or shut up, which I should have done, I ended up being rather grudging against the suggestions you made. Even at the time I knew your suggestions were intended to be helpful (and indeed they were helpful). Even though this hardly amounted to an ANI offence I have been feeling bad about it since yesterday so I have come to apologise. I rarely do more with DYK than look at its results but when I have become involved I have seen you taking a very active and constructive role. Thank you very much for all this. Thincat (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thincat, thanks for posting. Apology accepted. I can see why you might not want to go with the current name of the firm—I did hesitate before proposing it, since the current name doesn't go all the way back—but it seemed a better potential solution to me. I'm sorry you didn't have an ideal experience at DYK; it's sometimes hard when people are changing what you proposed, especially if you don't like it as much. I hope you're at least reasonably satisfied with the ultimate hook. I'm hoping Rod returns to give it a final approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, although I still prefer the original hook, that in itself wasn't the problem. The objection to the nomination[1] was that the hook was about the house but the article was about the firm. But the rules say 'The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article' not that the fact must be about the subject of the article. Looking at recently promoted DYKs I see they are all directly about the subject of the article (i.e. the bold link, if it is piped at all, only has cosmetic piping). If this is desirable (and it might be) perhaps the rule should be changed. Had I known I could easily have made the house the title and topic of the article. But none of this is a very big deal! Thincat (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

		The DYK Medal
		For all the work you do on DYK including filling prep areas, double checking hooks, pinging people who need to respond to messages, and so on, I hereby award you this medal. Keep up the good work. ThaddeusB (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I won't bother asking you to submit an RfA since you have declinbed many times in the past, but I think you would make an excellent candidate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. Matty.007 18:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

ThaddeusB, thank you very much. I especially appreciate your wording of the medal. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello BlueMoonset,

I currently have the Katy Perry article nominated for GA, and if it passes I thought I'd ask: if submitting a recent GA for DYK, about how long the DYK process take? How long is an article displayed in DYK after being accepted?? If it passes the GAN, I plan to have something like "Did you know..... that singer Katy Perry grew up in poverty before rising to fame?".

Thank you in advance for input.

XXSNUGGUMSXX, once the GA passes, you have five days to nominate it for DYK. Once that's done, it could take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks (or even, in some cases, a month or two) before it is reviewed, promoted, and reaches the main page. (In other words, it's impossible to predict.) It depends on how quickly the nomination attracts a reviewer, and whether there are any issues with the hook or its sourcing. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk

) 23:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have changed it. I was trying to use it as in "the lyrics are as follows" but I think that it still works with the full stop. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The C of E, my point is that there is nothing after the colon. The article now ends with "This has been changed over time though to:" and doesn't show what it has been changed to. That's just as problematic. If there are newer lyrics for the Rangers version, show them. I'm happy to work with you on this, since there isn't much time, but at the moment it isn't quite ready to be approved. Among other things, neither version of the lyrics is referenced, and they both need to be. And the name of the song is inconsistently given with and without an initial "The"; this needs to be corrected. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the issue. Sorry I was unable to do it sooner as I was out for most of the day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The C of E, you may have fixed some things, but problems remain, and time is running out for this to run today—the last set this could run in hits the main page in under two hours. A major problem is that the lyrics of both versions fail to match the sources you've given—if you're using a source you have to follow its version. "Hullo" sounds nice, but your sources have it as "Hello". (The alternate version: who created it? Was it sung at games? Was it acceptable or also banned? Is this even from a reliable source, since it varies from the wording you've been using?) Also, every instance of the song title in the article needs quotes—note that by titling rules on Wikipedia, if "the" is included in the title, it must be capitalized, but since you've listed the primary title as "Billy Boys", you should go with that and, in general, not include an initial "the" in the article body text. I've also noticed there's something funky about the "author" field in some refs: "Time to create page" and "Please enter username" need to be dealt with. Please reply on the nomination template when you've fixed everything. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing the ping template isn't working. I've done as you've asked on Billy Boys and also on Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The C of E, I've just gotten back to you on both. "Billy Boys" uses some sources that don't strike me as reliable, being one person's assertions without any editorial review that I can see. The painting article, on the other hand, I think is ready to go, though it needs an independent reviewer to check it. I did remove some information that I think wasn't supported or was misinterpreted or didn't connect well—the copyright assertion, for example, and the 1998 print sale—and made some significant edits and source consolidation. The one thing that puzzles me is why two sources give a sales price that's £80K higher than the others (£680K vs £600K). That's a major gap! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed the Billy Boys sourcing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you please re-review it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't include the Charles Inman hook in prep 2 (which you did) because having it with the Will Straw hook in the same set makes two about politicians/voting. Do you think it would still be ok? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 23:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123, thanks for pointing that out. I initially thought it wasn't an issue, but on second thought it might be a bit much. Since Will was supplanted in the quirky slot by another hook, I moved him to the next set's quirky spot, and (eventually) replaced that hook with another bio, but separated from the actress bio.

Incidentally, I undid your change of "Example" to "Wikipedia:Example" on the DYK /Clear page: I find it confusing to have such a long, bold wikilink there, and the "Wikipedia:" part is non-intuitive. No one should be clicking on it anyway, at least no one who knows anything about building prep sets. I've modified the comment/explanation section above it to show what goes in that field (ArticleName), in the hopes that it might add clarity, but if that's confusing, I'm happy to revert to Example there. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll stop now. Just trying to help. Yoninah (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll try for a bit. Yoninah (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

On 18 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Untitled Rachel Berry Project, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Glee's fifth season finale completed shooting 11 days before it was broadcast? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Untitled Rachel Berry Project. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this nomination is already in the Special Occasions queue, but it doesn't look like anyone actually reviewed it for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, i saw the queues were looking bare at DYK. It is years since i did some queue prep and it seemed a lot harder this time, with instructions on how to actually udnertake certain steps hidden in a few different spots. I hope i havne't made a hash of it. Can you check my work and let me know if I've made mistakes? Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

...is here. Did you meet User:BlueMoonlet? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• 11k edits in almost 10 years. Impressive brother. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sounds to me like he's the elder brother, and I'm the busier brother. Or would be if we were truly brothers... (The ratios are similar and everything.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• I saw him edit something on my watchlist and thought of how did you wander there. Then found that you two are different. How did both of you think of having "M" capital? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Blue Moonset, the second article proposed there was not nominated at the time, but would make a nice double nom none the less. Would passing it after resolving issues as a double nom be OK? Thanks, Matty.007 16:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Matty.007, it looks like the proposal to nominate didn't come until May 15, after the second article was over seven days old, which is really too late. If the creator had been new to DYK, there might have been leeway, but a DYK vet should know better. I think the best that can be done at this point is to have the other article as a non-bold link in an Økern hook. As a general rule, articles can be added to an existing nomination only when they're still new or newly expanded (five day max) at the time they're added. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my query. Best, Matty.007 17:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey BlueMoonset! Could I trouble you to have a look at my above DYK nom? It was approved several days ago, but has hit the skids due to the review's supposed lack of detail and the original reviewer doesn't appear to be active. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Pinging again. I think the reviewer misunderstood, and ended up adding details to the article itself, not the DYK review. As I'm afraid he's gotten too involved now to review, could you please take a look? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Bloom6132, the edits don't look like enough to disqualify further review. It's important to get Zoupan engaged again, as I see you've attempted to do. Let's give it more time. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• I notified him again. He re-reviewed it, but gave a question mark this time instead of elaborating his review (again, I think he's misunderstood what Yoninah and I were asking him to do). Giving him more time is not the issue here; we could give him half a year, but what's the use if he doesn't understand clear and simple instructions we're trying to convey to him. Because of this third time I've notified him already (and to no avail), could you please help give the final tick? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Bloom6132, he has a point: the source article and the anthem translation do not use "last", and for that word to be included in quotes in the original and ALT1 hooks is incorrect. (Both source and translation use "only".) That's why you got the question mark icon this second time around: your hooks include misquotes. I'm not impressed with the rest of his review—no mention of neutrality or close paraphrasing—but as long as the hooks are inaccurate, there isn't going to be a tick. Are you okay with ALT2? If not, and you want "microstate", then redo one or both of your hooks with "last" changed to "only". Looking at the article, you'll need to give a source for the lyrics section, and if the translation isn't your own, for the translation as well. And there appears to be a dead link in the external links, which should probably be removed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the ALT2 hook he suggested, and I was not objecting to the fact that he gave the question mark. I was only concerned with the review he had made. I've fixed my misquoted main hook (and struck out ALT1), and also added sources for both the lyrics and the translations. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Could you have another look at it please? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Bloom6132, I unfortunately do not have time right now for a proper job, so I've put the "review again" icon on it. (I'm not expecting Zoupan, but pretty much anyone else.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Template:Did you know nominations/Ejector Seat (game show) - you added a detailed comment here. The page creator suggested another hook 2 weeks ago; what do you think?
• Template:Did you know nominations/Mischief Makers - I am really put off by Czar's abrasive attitude, and will not comment on this nom further. Would you mind commenting on whether or not the close paraphrasing issue is valid?

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yoninah, I frankly thought the new hook was so ludicrous that it wasn't worthy of a reply, and the original hook's "ejected" vs. eventual reality's "tipped" rendered the first wrong. I seem to be a "reality check" on far too many of Launchballer's nominations, hence the detailed comment, but I'm limiting the time I'm willing to spend on his nominations, since so many seem to have issues.

• As for Mischief Makers, I've posted there, and punted it over to Nikkimaria, who is the DYK close paraphrasing expert. I'm never sure where the line is on this particular issue—though my experience is that there are always more changes that can be made—so I call in the pro. I'm sure she'll say whatever needs to be said. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I know you must get asked this a lot, but could you please weigh in on Template:Did you know nominations/Widener Library. I'm so sick of people making stuff up as they go along. (BTW I wouldn't mind a delay before main-page appearance, however, since I'm hoping a key image will become available next week.) EEng (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• EEng means me, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Duh. EEng (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• And that reply is where I lose my
  GF. Considering Blue asked me to look into this nomination to try and break the deadlock, he has a right to be told that you have taken issue with that. — Crisco 1492 (talk
  ) 06:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you're now making up not just DYK rules, but general WP policy, for yourself [2] I think it would be best to wait until BMS has had a good rest with his family. EEng (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• And you have passed the troll threshhold. Considering I spent 20 minutes earlier massaging your massacred paragraph into something readable, I think this nomination should just be failed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• And while we're at it,
  WP:PROVEIT (aside from WP:CITE) clearly imply that citations should be immediately after a quote, particularly statements such as "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". Include being the key word. Something is not "included" when it is five paragraphs away, or three sentences away. It is outside the quote. But then you'll just accuse me of making up stuff, so no point in continuing. — Crisco 1492 (talk
  ) 12:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

According to you [3] it is unacceptable for a cite to be even one sentence away, though a glance at today's TFA [4] shows that, here again, you don't know what you're talking about:

"Egbert led an army against the Northumbrians as far as Dore, where they met him, and offered terms of obedience and subjection, on the acceptance of which they returned home". This event made Egbert the first Saxon to claim to be king of all of England.^[32]

Had I known BMS was vacationing I wouldn't have bothered him. Please, leave him alone for now, though I'd like to discuss this with him when he's available. EEng (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• And I would have raised a voice against it had I reviewed this at FAC. Now please focus on your nom, and we can both let Blue be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

And you would have been laughed at. Your judgment is in serious question, so I'd rather wait for BMS. Please leave it at that. If you want to get the last word in (here or at the nom) please be my guest, but I won't be responding to you until BMS is available again. EEng (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

EEng, when I saw that the Widener review had stalled and why, my recollection of previous reviews where the issue of whether Notes counted as prose was raised was that I was pretty sure they didn't. However, I couldn't remember which reviews were involved—not surprising since I've seen thousands at this point—and didn't want to trust "pretty sure" without checking, so since my original DYK mentors have been around far longer than I have, I asked one of them to take a look: Crisco 1492. His post to the nomination template, at my request (since I was leaving for a long weekend and wanted to clear the decks), has confirmed what I recalled. If I had posted originally despite my imperfect surety, I would have said the same thing: Notes don't count toward a 5x expansion. I see that you've subsequently expanded the article, and I've just posted a call for someone to fully review the nomination now that it's now well over a 5x expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I expected better from you. The point of the exclusions is to make sure that expansion comes from real editor creativity, not filling like citations and headings. Clearly notes are prose. If either (a) the exclusion of notes made any sense or (b) there was some written guideline to put editors on notice of such a stupid exclusion, I wouldn't mind. But there's neither (and neither have any of you pointed to any earlier discussion of this that might shed light) and so it comes across as just another DYK perversity. there's little doubt in mind that this comes completely and soley from the fact that this little click-tool someone make up happens, through an accident of html, to mistake notes for citations, and everyone's just slavishly following it. Combined with Crisco's random complaints about e.g. image placement and it's really too much. Anyway, moot at this point. EEng (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, given that you are one of the editors I respect most at DYK, I would appreciate it if you could give your view at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Template:Did_you_know_nominations.2FJos.C3.A9_Mar.C3.ADa_Pinedo, you know more about this kind of thing than I do. Thanks, Matty.007 17:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This article has been recreated. I am considering beefing it up to 1,500 characters (currently about 1,200) and renominating it; would I title its renomination Template:Did you know nominations/London Buses route 414 (2nd nomination) like AfD or is there another procedure?--Launchballer 18:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Launchballer, I wouldn't bother. The article was clearly improperly recreated given how recent the AfD was that resulted in the redirect and that the material reuses the old sources, which were found inadequate to establish notability. I fully expect the article to be gone soon, or at the least back at AfD. Single bus routes just aren't notable by Wikipedia standards, except in rare cases, and this isn't one of them. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. In the very, very unlikely event that it is, the nomination will have been kept within seven days and I'll still have another three days to nominate; if not, it's on its way out now because I've sent it to AfD myself.--Launchballer 18:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Launchballer, even if it's kept, this would be considered a 5x expansion rather than a new article, so it would need to be quite large indeed to qualify: it was 2726 prose characters before the redirect, so you'll need 13630 prose characters, which I doubt is possible. Regardless, you'd need to nominate it within the usual five days of creation, not wait until after the AfD closes; by then, it will be too late to be considered. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If it ever reached 13,630 characters it'd be a de facto good article, so to all intents and purposes I'd have all the time in the world to get it to that length! But that's if it's kept, and if the sources are there (which they are not).--Launchballer 19:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I did look at your comments on the talk page and tried my best to change what was there to be in line with your comments. I do feel that it is better to improve what is there instead of just blanking because it is not necessarily in line. If copyediting was the concern, couldn't you have done it on the recent revisions I did instead of just reverting? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• The C of E, my concern has been with both the content and the way it was phrased, so my edit addressed both in a single edit. I'm frankly worried about the quality of the work on this article: the original discrepancies found in the DYK review were clearly problems, and now you're changing one sentence into its opposite because of misunderstandings of the sources: first the hymn is different from Bell's other hymns because it uses Celtic Christian style, now it's similar to them because of it. The source you've used doesn't even go that far: it mentions that Bell and Maule have written about "particular saints and Celtic themes", but not how much of their output is like that: you're generalizing based on inadequate information, which is why I removed that line in the first place, and still believe it does not belong. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

If phrasing was the problem, surely it would be better to just fix it rather than blanking it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"...both the content and the way it was phrased": Anything I blanked I didn't think belonged in the article (content issue). Anything I rephrased I thought could stay with the improved wording. Where the content itself was problematic, it was removed regardless of its phrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The DYK nomination for the above article had a picture which is now in PD (released in 1914). You have promoted the nom to prep area 1 without the picture. Dear friend, this is my first DYK nom with a picture. If there's a reason why the picture hadn't been promoted please tell me. Thanks in advance.--Skr15081997 (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Skr15081997, we always get far more nominations with pictures than we have slots available—right now only one in seven slots can accommodate a picture. Sadly, most pictures are not used because there are too many to choose from, and all of them properly licensed, as yours was. I hope you'll continue submitting to DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I will continue submitting nominations to the DYK.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It is edited by a bot? OccultZone (Talk)

I believe that particular one takes on the name of the article page when the DYK credits are placed on the creator's and nominator's page(s) at the time the hook hits the main page. In any event, the process has been working properly for quite a while. As it says right at the top of the nomination template page once the nomination has been promoted, you shouldn't be editing the page. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully. OccultZone (Talk) 00:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you seem to have (ostensibly) more knowledge on my bans than I do, may I respectfully ask for a clarification? My understanding (which may well be wrong) is that I'm banned from nominating any article for DYK. But what about other DYK-related actions, such as reviewing nominations or responding to issues on DYK? If I'm allowed to do anything else DYK-related except for nominating an article, then surely I am eligible for a DYKmake credit (tell the difference between nom and make?) Could you please clarify what exactly this DYK ban entails? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

WT:DYK page. The "Topic-banned editors" section, where you've already commented, would seem to be the ideal place to determine the extent of your topic ban, whether it's just nominating or whether it's active participation of any kind. Perhaps start a new subheader there? Or you could start an entirely new section if you think it will get more attention that way. (Note: if an article of yours is nominated by someone else, as has now been done by Andy Dingley for that one article, then that's being allowed—though I'm unsure whether you can get a DYK credit via a DYKmake, as I imagine you saw from my post on the templation—but commenting on that nomination template would likely be seen as a violation.) BlueMoonset (talk

) 17:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I got a rather nasty shock when I tried to nominate A+E for DYK, because A+E (album) had been at A+E at the time of nomination. What is the procedure here?--Launchballer 19:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, I seem to remember Crisco saying you could call the nom page anything, so 'A+E first nomination'? Thanks, Matty.007 19:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being daft, but are you saying move the current nomination to Template:Did you know nominations/A+E first nomination or to create my new one there?--Launchballer 20:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Launchballer, please leave the existing nomination where it is. Your nomination is the one that will have to have a different name. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned that my edit preventing the multiple image from squashing text in the above article has been reverted while it's in the DYK nom queue. I passed the article on the understanding that the picture issue had been resolved - and now it has been unresolved. I don't want to get into an edit war. Help please? Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Storye book, you can always try again (it's only the second time), and drop a note on Sdee's talk page explaining why this is important. With any luck, it will hold.

I am, however, wondering why image placement would be a DYK review criterion that could conceivably stop approval. Maybe at GA this would be an issue because of the layout standards, but the only image criteria I'm aware of for DYK are that the selected image in the nomination template should be free, and that all the article images must have valid licenses whether free or non-free. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the nomination in prep, I realize that the picture is not of the current (permanent) museum, but of one of the temporary museums, so it's not accurate as is. Trying to decide what to do... BlueMoonset (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for kindly considering this question. I'll leave the response to you, then. --Storye book (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I modified the text of hook to clarify what the picture was of. I will, however, leave the article's picture placement up to you on the article itself. I would hope that if you explain to Sdee the reasons why it the pictures should be above the text, he will understand the layout issues involved and leave it, but that's up to you. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the advice. Hope it works :-) --Storye book (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have pinged you, Orlady and Materialscientist at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 60#Asking_for_Noting_bot, because I do not have enough bot knowledge to answer the question as to whether a bot, rather than user Preferences, can be employed for an opt out on the DYK notification bot. Hopefully, one of the three of you has such knowledge. — Maile (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello BlueMoonset, I left an alternate hook for the above nomination at its page. Would you check back once? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Finally, to use edit summaries such as "copy edit" when changing a redirect to a texted article is, frankly, inaccurate. You are creating new versions of articles that had been deemed

May I respectfully ask what you suggest, surely "new article" would be an equally inaccurate edit summary? Its always frustrating when another editor takes the glass half empty view on articles. Yes they may have failed

WP:GNG and may still do so, but surely adding the refimprove hatnote in an attempt to promote further activity, and revisiting if no further action is taken, is more positive than just reverting. Ibsiadkgneoeb (talk

) 07:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:GNG before restoring them. If there had been any sign of a new reliable secondary source this time around things might have been different regarding reversions, but you didn't have any and apparently decided to go against notability guidelines anyway. It's never pleasant when Wikipedia's stated guidelines are against what you want to do—which is apparently to have separate articles for almost all bus lines—but you're fighting the tide here. Articles for Deletion generally deletes (or redirects) individual bus articles because they are almost always non-notable. Under the circumstances, I thought it would save a lot of time and heartache to revert, since if you'd had reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability you would have used them. PS: let's keep this conversation on one talk page or the other; it's too easy to lose context when split. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk

) 20:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As most of the participants have since moved on, I was proposing to crank the project page up again with current editors to try to refine the criteria, but if any consensus reached on that is going to be overruled, maybe be an exercise in futility. Ibsiadkgneoeb (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If an across the board policy that had been reached by consensus were being applied, I wouldn't have a problem. There is an across-the-board policy that applies to all articles on Wikipedia: the

general notability guideline

. This seems to be what you fail to understand. You're arguing that improving the text of the article is enough; Wikipedia says that without demonstrating notability through significant coverage sourcing, all the improvements in the world won't be enough. This is a concept central to Wikipedia, and is one that new editors frequently have trouble understanding, or that seems unreasonable.

Regardless of what a WikiProject may consider to be additional guidelines for their special area, such as major arterial routes, these routes must also have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. No project consensus can overrule this. You'll note that in some of Alzarian16's redirects, the edit summaries mention that the route has been around for a while, or is a major route, but that without the necessary secondary sources, it wasn't considered notable by Wikipedia's standards.

At this point, since the articles were previously identified as non-notable, you should not be bringing them back unless you have the sources to show that they are. Your desire to improve them, while laudable, is running up against Wikipedia's guiding principals of notability and reliable secondary sourcing. (Primary sourcing is fine for certain things, but never sufficient in and of itself, and never an indication of notability.) Source quality matters: unreliable sources like London Bus Routes and the photo and eplate sites do not count and should not be used.

Ibsiadkgneoeb, this isn't about Alzarian16 or Jen, it's about notability. If you had, even once, found and supplied those secondary sources with significant coverage, I wouldn't have reverted. Indeed, I would have had no basis for reverting.

I have no idea what's up with your current block, but if/when you come back, I hope you'll take secondary sourcing more seriously as a core requirement for articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding these edits: [5], [6], [7], can you offer your opinion in this discussion? It is sorely needed. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)