User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 16

I did not revert to nomination number two. If you look at what I did, the resulting GA nominee template is identical to what you've now done: page is 3 and status is empty, but the template is otherwise unchanged. If there is also supposed to be another step to add to the article's review history, then that should be made clear in the FAQ, if the bot isn't set up to figure out such changes and adjust the history itself. Wizardman? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for (calmly) fixing the queues after I forgot to delete a set in prep. Cheers. Victuallers (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Happy to do it. I figured Crisco would be around soon and could take care of the minor wording change in the queue that needed an admin. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• I really am that predictable, eh? Someday I'll surprise you all. Maybe I'll write a species article or something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Heh. The odds were very good that you'd check in before your bedtime. If not, plan b was to try an active admin directly when I'd had my own night's sleep, with a subsequent post to the DYK talk page if that didn't pan out. No need for plan b, y'see... (If you did do a species article, what might surprise me would be if it wasn't one native to Indonesia.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Does it seem strange that all 8 of Carlojoseph14's first DYK noms are nominated by Shhhhwwww!!? Is there any way to check if the latter is a sock? Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yoninah, it seems odd to me that Shhhhwwww!! has so many DYK noms when he's never responded to any of the DYKproblem templates we've put on his or her talk page. If this continues, I'm tempted to propose that the account be blocked from continuing to nominate, since it's the responsibility of the nominator to vet and follow through on all nominated articles. However, that account dates back to January 2013 (with active use beginning that October), while Carlojoseph14 only goes back to May 2014, with high levels of activity since mid-August.

Shhhhwwww!! seems to nominate articles wholesale if they're Philippines-related. At least three by RioHondo have been nominated (which puzzled the heck out of RioHondo), and I found two reviews by Carlojoseph14 of Shhhhwwww!!'s nominations of other users that don't match what a sock would do: Carlo gave Template:Did you know nominations/Betty Go-Belmonte an X, and a slash icon for Template:Did you know nominations/Aserradora Mecanica de Tuason y Sampedro. There's also the ? icon on one that you commented on: Template:Did you know nominations/Sampaloc Church.

If you ever do believe that there is compelling evidence of sockpuppeting, the place to report it is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. You'll need to provide supporting evidence; here's the one I was recently involved in, the PapaJeckloy case. (Another Philippines-based user, but I imagine that's coincidence given how long the others have been around, and the different topic interests.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation, and thanks for keeping an eye on Shhhhwwww!!. I'd like to go ahead and propose to Carlojoseph14 that he start nominating his own articles and doing QPQs, so he'll get better acquainted with policy. Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I am a new editor and it seems that Shhhhwwww!! is nominating most of the Philippine-related articles. It also seems odd to me that s/he keeps on nominating my articles. My purpose on writing those article is to have a start-class article and later expand it, without the idea of DYK (because I did not knew it). Just like RioHondo, I am also puzzled of what he has done with those nominations and I am on the track answering all those DYK nominations. I am working on those type of article because I am a volunteer of Wikimedia Philippines nationwide cultural heritage mapping project that started since May 2014 (reason why I signed up last May). If you will check, after I knew DYK (because of the nominations done by Shhhhwwww!! and later was approved), I started to self nominate my articles which were later approved like Kawayan Torogan, Gavino Trono and Indang Church. Only Paete Church nominated by Shhhhwwww!! was approved as of the moment. I am in great trouble right now, because of his nominations and I tried my best to answer all of those. Carlojoseph14 (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yoninah and BlueMoonset, Shhhhwwww!! is back. Check nominations of Template:Did you know nominations/Hofileña Ancestral House and Template:Did you know nominations/Lichauco Heritage House --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Carlojoseph14, thanks for the heads up. I'm continuing to monitor the situation, and if there continues to be no response from Shhhhwwww!!, I'll ask why there isn't any follow through on the nominations. Sorry I took so long to respond! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

(Sorry late) Minor point - the nomination of articles is a good thing! If we have someone doing it via a sockpuppet then thats sad as it should not be that difficult to nominate an article. Why would anyone bother? You can nominate your own articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victuallers (talk • contribs) 09:17, 28 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Victuallers, the odd thing about Shhhhwwww!! is that the account nominates large numbers of articles but never responds to any issues that come up during nominations. There is also clearly no check of the articles before nominating, since so many of them are too short or have other issues. All in all, it's an odd situation, and if there's no response to the latest DYKproblem template, I'm going to post a request to the user's talk page. The only practical reason I can think of to create a sockpuppet nominate your own articles is to avoid the QPQ, and if that's someone's reason, it's a very bad one. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, its odd. Avoiding a QPQ seems a very silly reason as I would volunteer to nominate these and move them through. These articles are "thin" but the ones Ive seen have notable subjects and merely lack easy good sources in English... which is a problem but nothing to get excited about. Its just a problem that needs solving. If we can find the owner or puppetmaster then we should aim to turn them being kinda useful into being very useful. Thanks for investigating this odd occurence. If the community decide to "take action" then I would volunteer to help curate the resulting orphan hooks so that we don't lose the articles. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Shhhhwwww!! again nominated a PHL related article, these time: Template:Did you know nominations/Lichauco Heritage House. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(This place) - The article talk page is not the place for general discussion of infobox yes or no, like or not, - that was the

Instead of reverting (and not even to the attempt of a compromise) you should explain why you think the particular work by Bruckner should not have an infobox while most of his other works have one, those of the symphonies dating back to 2007. Reverts are past, additions are present, please compare

A heard a new argument: the infobox is unneccessary. Yes, of course, so are images. Both are mentioned in the standards for B class. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Gerda, this has left a very bad taste in my mouth, and for you to come here to lecture me—that's what the word "should" conveys—is not helping. Since you've used bold above, it would appear you think that I was attempting to turn the discussion; I was, in fact, simply pointing out that infoboxes were not required (which was what I thought the GAN invocation was supporting). If some WikiProjects want their B-class articles to have infoboxes, I suppose they can require them for their projects, but the more rigorous Good Article standards do not mention infoboxes, though they do have a section on images. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we have misunderstandings which I would like to clarify. If it comes across as lecturing I am sorry. I saw that you didn't discuss but revert. - The term GA was brought up by Nikkimaria, please address her for why. - Infoboxes are not required for B-class, nor any other, nor did I ever say they are, but for an article for which I wrote most of the content I would like one. I have to go now, sorry for being brief. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Gerda, brevity is fine. I did explain why I was reverting when I posted, so I did participate in the discussion. I read the discussion already there, thought the argument for retaining the infobox was very weak, and removed it with an explanation. It seems I misunderstood you above to be citing B-class article standards as a point in favor of infoboxes; if you weren't, then I'm puzzled as to why you mentioned it at all here—it seems to be irrelevant. However, I don't want to keep rehashing this; as far as I'm concerned, the matter is now closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset. Thank you very much for your comments and advice on the above nomination. I'm quite interested in the process, do editors now have a period of time to clean up the article and is that what {{subst:DYK?again}} is for or is it simply the article won't pass? -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 11:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

LookingYourBest, when we point out issues with a nomination—I'd say the majority of nominations have some issue or other that needs fixing—we expect the nominator to work on fixing them, and we keep the nomination open while they do. Only if we don't get any response in a week or two might we close it. The red arrow is used to call for a new reviewer; usually, if initial reviewers raises issues, they'll have the nomination on their watchlist and go back to it when the nominator posts that the issues raised have been addressed (or asks questions). Things can go back and forth a number of times during the review process. Some nominations don't end up passing, but that's usually due to a failure to respond by the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I added sources to the article where missing. (In fact the source material was provided by the original project manager as images, but OK I added the ref tags.) Please have a look again to reconsider.Keizers (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm slammed with real life work but really feel this guy's article is deserving, and working in Mexican aviation I think the subject is so incredibly cool... I made the additional changes that you pointed out. Let's see if this is a go now? Thanks! Keizers (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Blue,

I have fiddled with this nomination every way I know how, with no result. How about deleting it so I can try again?

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Georgejdorner, I fixed it up so it's now all set; it took a couple of steps. Did you want to reinsert the transclusion on the nominations page, or should I? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please review

Complete misunderstanding on my part. Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding and for DTR.

AldezD (talk

) 12:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, HelenOnline. AldezD, not a problem. I just didn't want you ending up with a block because you didn't understand that, whether you think of it as an edit war or not, the three revisions to an article in a 24-hour period was a bright line you should not cross, except in those very specific and limited circumstances listed on the page, which these clearly weren't. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	A random act of kindness such as fixing my DYK nom deserves a directed act of gratitude. Thanks for the help. Georgejdorner (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

George, you're most welcome, and thank you. I've just inserted it back on the nominations page under October 10, so it should show up there again. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for resetting those icons in reviews. I'll try not to trouble you with that in the future.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I misinterpreted your prior helpful message on this. You must have the patience of a saint to keep harping on me. Thank you for the help.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

All refs fixed, thanks for the reviewing by the way.--Catlemur (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Remade the delete sections.Any more issues?--Catlemur (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Catlemur, I'm not sure why a November 3 entry is placed in the middle of the Operations section, since that's almost a month and a half before the beginning of it, but that should be fixed. After that, we can get a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed it and added the needed citiation.Thanks again for pointing out issues in the article.Cheers.--Catlemur (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello BlueMoonset:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Hi! Herewith, I want to thank you for your efforts to get the DYK nom passed. Unfortunately, I couldn't be engaged in the process because for a long time I had no access to WP.--CeeGee 16:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, I have been trying to do some DYK reviews. Just now I took a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Czech language and have received an interesting response, that it is not required to check all the online citations in the article for paraphrasing/copyright violations. Is this right? I may have been doing too much work :) I'd be grateful if you can let me know what the best practice is for fulfilling the instruction that you get when you hit "edit" for a nomination ("Within policy – meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism"). Thank you! 184.147.131.89 (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Care to point out which sentence didn't make sense in the article? What do you know about military equipment? Khazar (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the GA review of the article, I pointed it out there. If the English doesn't accurately convey what's meant, it's a problem regardless of my level of knowledge of military equipment. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like we have near-consensus. When can we implement the new rule? :) Yoninah (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yoninah, while I'm all in favor of the idea, I think we need to let this run for at least a week before a consensus can be declared. It's only just starting day four. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. (Hope it doesn't get archived first!) Yoninah (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be—archive checks the latest sig date in a section, and only archives those where that date is at least a week old. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been 15 days, and we have 19 Supports and 2 Opposes. The hook list is up to 352, with only 22 approved. Can we implement the 5 QPQ rule for everyone already (after the first 5, of course)? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:AN to get a non-DYK admin to close it. After two weeks, I think it's clear how the DYK community feels, with only a couple of exceptions. BlueMoonset (talk

) 20:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You might be interested in giving input here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The central discussion on which of

Hi. I see that you commented on this. I removed the fair-use image, as you suggested. If you can do anything to move this DYK along, I'd be grateful, as it's been sitting there for a long time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ssilvers, I'm going to give Panyd a chance to weigh in; if nothing happens in a day or two, I'll put up the "review again" icon and add it to the "oldest" list on the DYK talk page, which should get some attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Panyd has put a message on the item stating that he or she has abandoned the item. Can you possibly review it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone reviewed and approved this last week, but it is still sitting at nominations. Colleen Ballinger will be appearing on Jerry Seinfeld's show Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee starting on November 27 -- is it possible to get it into the queue? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to say thanks for birddogging that GAN for Danehill Dancer and for giving me time to let the lead editors have a shot at it. Though we may spat a little bit from time to time on stuff, I'm glad you do what you do and I just wanted to say that I acknowledge your hard work and the way you keep an eye on things. Wikignomes are not always appreciated. Montanabw^(talk) 03:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Also thanks for your work on the DYK noms. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The reviewer and I seem to have reached an impasse. I think the remaining bone of contention, which I think will result in a fail if we can't see eye to eye, is that the reviewer thinks that there are too many quotations in the article. See Talk:David Hume/GA3. S/he said that s/he would ask for a second opinion, but I've seen no sign of this. Is there some way out of this? Myrvin (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This has been failed, and is on review again. Myrvin (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, Please take a look. Trying to move this along. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, thanks for pinging me. I think at this point, given the heroic level of work you've made on this article, you are a contributor rather than a reviewer—I added a DYKmake for you—and someone else should do the review. I also think that first Background paragraph does need a citation per DYK requirements, and it's something that Bruin2 should easily be able to supply. I've called for a new reviewer—the nomination is still on the DYK talk page as one of the oldest needing review, so I hope someone will come along fairly soon. (ALT1 will need an independent reviewer anyway.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I knew all that. Thanks for adding me as a contributor. Just trying to get the moldy oldies out the door. {:>{)> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your care supervising the review of The Manchester Rambler, and sorry the first reviewer did a somewhat skimpy job. I think the (eventual) reviewer will find the article pretty thoroughly prepared with good sources. Anything I can do to help... Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I agree. I just nominated it at AFD. Yoninah (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the process of adopting the numberal style for episode aboe 10. Please stop following me & reverting. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Manual of Style, it is not appropriate for anyone to decide to change it without finding out whether there will be objections. As it happens, there are objections to your blanket change, so it is beholden on you to stop and discuss the matter. In the meantime, I will continue reverting your unnecessary changes. BlueMoonset (talk

) 20:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This is apparently more important to you, then it is to me. I honestly thought my changes were harmless. Anyways, I don't have the time to fight over something insignificant. In otherwords, have it your way. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: FWIW, My goal was to adopt consistency across those articles :) GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

GoodDay, it will be better to have them consistent: I hadn't realized how varied they were. (They were supposed to have been cleaned up to written ordinals long ago.) Thanks for continuing the work. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No prob, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NUMERAL allows one- or two-word numbers ten and above to be written out either way, it requires numbers that would need three or more words to be written only with digits (plus the ordinal "th", "rd", etc.), just a numbers from zero to nine are supposed to be written as words. So we'll need to mix them after the one hundredth episode: the normal words for episodes within the season, but numbers for the total episodes starting with the 101st. Oops, I'm wrong. I missed this in the "Notes and exceptions" section: Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures. Never mind. Carry on. I'll revert myself. BlueMoonset (talk

) 21:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned this is ready to be sent on. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello BlueMoonset, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, The Herald : here I am 11:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hello. You may want to take another look at the

Good Article criteria are considerably stiffer than DYK, and to my eye the article needs more work in its prose, and also in the broadness category: from my reading of the sourcing, it seemed that the reason he went to Stoneridge Prep was because it was a good basketball school, and Stoneridge was limited in what they could do for him when he became ill—he got tired while playing basketball: while I imagine they could give him a full scholarship, plus room and board if it's a boarding school, there seems to have been an issue with the school also paying for his medical bills. This is one example; there are other places where the article could be more robust. Best of luck with the review, but expect to be told that the article needs more work. BlueMoonset (talk

) 02:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! Where would DYK be without you? (Nowhere, that's where.) I appreciate your level head, firmness and friendliness in keeping the DYK engines oiled and running. Wishing you a warm and wonderful holiday season. Best, Yoninah (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Yoninah. Happy holidays to you and yours. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for improving it. I confirm that it is indeed scored for men's choir (TTBB) and three trombones. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset,

Thank you for not giving up on this article. It has taken much longer than I expected, but I think I have found at least one source that explains the logistical issue that you had asked to be better documented. I think I need to rewrite the paragraph containing the citation needed flag. It will take another day or so to incorporate the info into the article so that it reads well, but if that is the only issue remaining, we are very near the goal. I'll notify you when I have completed the task. Bruin2 (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I have revised the Background section and included more citations as promised. Please have a look to see if I have addressed the issue adequately. I noticed that the last sentence of the introductory paragraph has six citations. The information in the paragraph was only in citation #4, but I am having trouble getting rid of the other five. I'm not sure why, unless it has to do with my old Mac OS. Can you help me? Thanks. Bruin2 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

BlueMoonset,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thank you very much indeed. it is my firs DYK and I don't have enough experience. please help me if there's something else. M.Sakhaie 16:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Sakhaie (talk • contribs)

Hi BlueMoonset. I've been advised to have a chat with you by Yoninah after encountering a problem with how to sign off my DYK reviews.

I am visually impaired and edit with the help of a screen magnifier and text-to-speech software, which are great for helping me to build articles, but often mean I'm unable to use some of the tools effectively, particularly when reviewing pages. The main issue I have with DYK concerns the checking of close paraphrasing as text-to-speech doesn't bring up highlighted text, while because I see only a portion of the screen with the magnification software, comparing two versions of a document can be a slow and cumbersome process. I can pick up things such as vandalism through diffs, but anything longer can present difficulties.

This issue did come up a couple of years ago at FAC, where someone advised me to create a disclaimer page explaining the situation. I have done this, and now automatically add it to any review pages I'm involved with. I've filed several DYK reviews since then and it doesn't usually cause an issue, but I understand the rules have been tightened up a lot recently because of several problems with close paraphrasing, and I've been asked about it a couple of times.

I wondered if you could advise me on the best way to tackle this. Yoninah suggested it might be possible for me to request help with things such as paraphrasing checks, but wasn't sure about the best way forward, so thought I should raise the issue with you.

Thanks for your cooperation in this matter, and I look forward to your response. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Also I need to ask if this counts as a QPQ for me as it looks like the guy who submitted it may not review another article. Happy to pick another one though if needed. Thanks again, This is Paul (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)