User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 17

Thank you, Gerda. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

In one of my earliest reviews for DYK, I disapproved a nomination that was submitted under the same provisions as I used to nominate the above. The nominator got another reviewer to override my decision; the DYK passed and ran. It was not a 5X expansion, but passed as a "new" article.

I don't understand why unsourced text counts toward the content of an article being replaced, but so be it. It must be valuable enough to preserve, I guess, despite its lack of credibility. Now that I realize that the "new article" loophole only applies to others, I will no longer nominate articles under that rule, but shrug my shoulders over the usual WP bureaucracy.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Georgejdorner, thanks for replying. Do you mind telling me which nomination it was that you disapproved and were overruled on? I'd like to know what the arguments were, since articles that are expanded in place, even by what amounts to a complete rewrite, should not count as new. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It has been a while, and I could not say offhand. What's done is done, anyhow. I just had to learn that worthless unsourced text still counts in these matters, that loopholes are the prerogative of other editors, and take it into account. And so, with a shrug, I return to writing. I feel it's time to accept the fact that equity does not a cogent argument make when dealing with WP. But thank you for your concern.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your note on my talk page, which finally spurred me into action regarding the QPQ (the points regarding references were, I hope, addressed in some earlier edits). Kind regards. Paul W (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Paul W, I see that Rosiestep has already approved the nomination, so any issues she may have had with the references have clearly been addressed. I'm glad that everything's all set. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledged with thanks. Thanks for taking your time to explain the procedures and I will consider whether to submit a reassessment or GAN2 at a later date. I need time to recover from the sudden hostile response that I got from the reviewer. Mr Tan (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I took your lead from a previous article and nominated Dreams Come True (Glee) to be included on the main page's "Did You Know" section. I did include both of us as "creator" since we seem to have been the main responsible editing parties on the article since its main revision after the episode aired. Since you have more DYK experience than I, perhaps you could look it over and see if it needs any help or to get the QPQ review started. Sorry, I don't have the nice pre-made template that you seem to use.  :)

Thanks! -- SanAnMan (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

SanAnMan, I appreciate the thought, but I've pulled myself out of the nomination template: my only contribution was to the Guest actors list in the infobox, and that's not nearly enough to qualify as a co-creator. (The original "creator" who set up the article also doesn't deserve credit, because the plot section was a straight copy from the season 6 article; there isn't enough original material to qualify for him or her either.)

Since this is your first nomination, and only the second DYK you've been involved in, a QPQ (quid pro quo) review won't be needed. (Only after your fifth does the requirement kick in.) However, there are a number of issues you'll need to clear up, and rather than waiting for a reviewer, I thought it would help if I mentioned them. I'll use numbers for clarity:

1. I've suggested an alternate hook that specifically mentions "the final episode" to use as the link to the article. Since there has to be a bold link to the episode article (which Mandarax has added to your original hook), it helps if the wording makes it clear that the link is to that article. You may have another idea altogether; if you're not fond of my proposed wording, feel free to say so and to propose your own.
2. You'll need an inline source citation for the first Production paragraph. Generally, each paragraph in the body of the article needs at least one source citation, except for Plot sections, which don't need any citing. (The episode is its own source for the plot.)
3. All the facts in the hook must also be in the article. Many are not, and for this hook, I recommend that they be added, with valid inline sources, to the Production section. Note that for DYK, inline sources must be placed by the end of the sentence that contains the fact(s) in question:

• Six seasons. Yes, this needs to be specifically mentioned and sourced, preferably in the body of the article.
• 728 musical performances. This definitely needs to be added and sourced. If you can't source it, then you can certainly fall back on "over 700", since the 700th musical performance was ballyhooed; I think it was the final one in episode 6.
• Last song sung on the series. This also needs to be specified and sourced (that "I Lived" by OneRepublic was the last one in the last episode broadcast).

Best of luck! I'll give you all the help I can! —BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the tips BlueMoonset, they're appreciated. I modified the hook slightly based on your alternative and suggestions, and I added some additional details and cited them as you laid out. We shall see what happens now. SanAnMan (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the inquiry. I won't be able to review the article. My Wiki time is very sparse and I don't have the time I used to have to devote to GA reviewing. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The nomination has been returned to the GAN reviewing pool, and the review page deleted. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi - Thanks for reviewing my DYK nom at Template:Did you know nominations/Tygerberg Zoo. The article Tygerberg Zoo now passes the hurdle of being in mainspace, in case you could look at it again. :) --doncram 07:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to go ahead and revert the Boeing one. Based on his couple reviews it's clear the guy doesn't seem to get how the process works yet. I'd do it but I'm kinda done with GA for some time. Wizardman 14:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ideasthesia, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

On 15 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article We Built This Glee Club, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although "We Built This City" is sung in a competition during the Glee episode "We Built This Glee Club", it is not performed by the group that the show is named for? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/We Built This Glee Club. 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.

Thanks from the wiki for your help Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your intervention. I'm sure you're right in your thoughts about this; I don't want to say anything that I haven't already, so please do something sensible. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it may be best simply to fail it now, so interested editors can work quietly on the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, would you be able to help out here? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For the massive amount of work you put in at WP:DYK. Keep it up! Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

On 26 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2009 (Glee), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the first part of Glee's two-part series finale, "2009", was initially announced as airing three weeks prior to the finale date? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2009 (Glee). 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.

Harrias ^talk 08:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your great participation on DYKs. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log ) 07:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I saw your comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Military on Gotland. Does that mean that the article can't be suitable for a DYK until the article itself has been reviewed by someone since it is the first article for the user? I have not encountered this practice before when I post DYK nominations. I coached and helped this new user during the entire creation of the article, and when the draft was done I asked them to move it to main. Best, w.carter-Talk 06:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

W.carter, this has nothing to do with the newness of the user. All nominations for DYK have to be reviewed to the DYK criteria, some of which do involve the article—you can see a basic list above the edit window when editing the nomination: it involves hook, article, and images. At the present time, this DYK review hasn't happened, and my post was made, with icon, in the hopes of attracting such a reviewer. As one of the active editors on the article, you wouldn't be eligible to review—and proposing an ALT hook would also disqualify you from reviewing. (It's a good thing you did propose that ALT hook, though, since the original hook is over 200 prose characters and thus ineligible.) I'll be happy to answer any further questions... BlueMoonset (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. :) I do know that I can't review it, I was just uncertain about the review article vs. review DYK thing, since the review side of the DYK is still a bit new to me. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 07:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to sabotage anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.55.157 (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I Never Meant to vandalize pages. Please don't block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.55.157 (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your DYK revision of my self-nominated Waldemar Hammenhög article. I wasn't quite aware that additional revisions were required, but I'm currently reviewing the Arikamedu article for the DYK. Thanks again, --Bruzaholm (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I would have fixed it a fortnight ago if I'd known! All issues are resolved re the Peter Wilmshurst article, I believe. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I am contacting you to ask that you close Sleaford's GA review due to it bein abandoned and, if possible, retain its place in the list. The review was opened by a very inexperienced editor on the day I nominated the article; his brief comments were clearly insufficient, so I posted at WT:GAN to report the issue. Ritchie333 came forward and said that he would review it [1], which I was very pleased with, given his experience and competence at GAR. The GA Cup had just finished and he was burnt out by it, while I wasn't expecting a review for a couple of months, so it lay, unattended to. It's since received a good copy-edit by an experienced editor, and he seems happy with it too. I've contacted Ritchie to ask whether he's still interested and you recently asked him again at the GAR page; he replied to both, suggesting he'd get to it in about a week[2] [3], but on both occasions that hasn't happened. It's a shame, but I feel that, with his new RFA and one of his own articles being reviewed (a couple of days after it was nominated), it seems unlikely Sleaford will get looked at anytime soon. Therefore, if you wouldn't mind doing whatever you do to close the review but keep its place in the list, that would be much appreciated. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC).

Noswall59, done. I'm sorry it didn't work out. I hope you get someone interested and competent soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC).

Yes, catching up with this, I got stuck with the RfA and my own GA reviews, and although I would like to GA review Sleaford, I never managed to get round to it. Which is typical of me, if I say I'm doing something on here, I end up doing something else :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: gosh, I forgot to unwatch this page... As it happens, Sleaford is in the process of being reviewed at the moment. If you did want to take a look over it and make any comment's at it's review, I'd be more than happy to hear them - the more voices the better, especially when it's experienced editors such as yourself who are speaking. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC).

Hi BlueMoonset. Can you please give a second opinion for my review on this nomination since I'm a new reviewer.

Thanks ya. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I can't recall pulling a DYK hook too many times before. Is there a documented procedure of how to do it other than cut and paste another nomination and hope for the best (which is what I did?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner; last week was not conducive to writing how-tos.

I don't know of a documented procedure; I was either taught or learned from checking histories before I tried the first time. Generally, if you need to pull a nomination from a queue, you'll want to replace it with another nomination so the queue remains the same size (we're currently at eight): in that case, admins typically take an already-promoted hook and its associated credits (DYKmake and DYKnom) from a prep set and move it to the queue, leaving the empty "... that ..." in the prep so it eventually gets replaced there.

This is how I pull nominations from prep; the same principals apply to queues:

1. Open a new tab/window with the nomination template page (from the particular prep/queue page, open a separate browser tab/window from the Credits section's "View nom subpage" link). You'll need it later, but it's easiest to get to now.
2. Edit the prep/queue page to remove the hook first:
   • Remove the hook text, leaving "... that ..." in its place. If it's the lead hook, you leave "... that ... (pictured) ..." instead, and also remove the picture by replacing it with "File:example.png|100x100px|<! -- THE ROLLOVER CAPTION GOES HERE -->" inside the brackets (only without the space after "<!").
   • Delete any DYKmake or DYKnom credits in the Credits section.
3. Then reopen the nomination:
   • Using that nomination template page from the first step's new tab/window, click on View history. Generally, the most recent edit will be the promotion; what you want to do is undo the promotion, which means undoing all the template substitutions that were done. Simply compare that latest revision with the one before (sometimes it's two or more before; it should be obvious which edit did the promotion), and then use "undo" to get that earlier pre-promotion version of the nomination into the editor. In the edit window, just above the bottom line, add a "problems" icon (usually the slash) and your explanation that it was pulled, what's wrong that needs fixing, sign, and save it.
   • It will automatically show up back in the nominations page unless the date has since been removed because all nominations were processed. In that case, the date will need to be added back on
     T:TDYK
     , but this is an infrequent occurrence.
4. Note that the nomination was removed:
   • At Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed, add a new entry to the top of the current month (or add the latest month if it's new one), starting with the pound sign, a link to the nomination template, whether it was removed from the main page directly, queue, or prep, and then the reason for the removal.

I think I've covered everything. Apologies if I've over-explained; it's an easy process once you've done it a couple of times. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

T:TDYK#How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue. BlueMoonset (talk

) 01:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought I saw that "rule" mentioned somewhere, but I couldn't find it. Personally I'm glad to hear that it doesn't exist; IMO it's a terrible rule. --

With regards to you posting to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#London bus routes:

1. Thanks
2. If you do submit a sockpuppet report I suggest that you file it under Ibsiadkgneoeb as this will save having to alter the entries in category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ibsiadkgneoeb

-- PBS (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

PBS, I'm working on it now, and it's under Ibsiadkgneoeb. Thanks for the advice. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is this DYK still not moved to the queue when the review process was completed long ago? Vincent60030 (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Vincent60030, I'm sure there isn't any special reason, just that no one has noticed that it has been sitting around for a long time. We're promoting 102 per week, and there are 100 awaiting promotion even as I type this. While the average nomination gets promoted a week after it was approved, the range is going to be from less than a day to two or even three weeks. I'll be putting up a list of those that have waited over two weeks in the next 24 hours, and Imperium will be included there, so people know it's been waiting far longer than average. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks! Vincent60030 (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've been basically inactive for the last year because of uni, but I'm interested in going back to helping out at DYK over the summer. Is there anything I should be aware of when reviewing or building preps that has changed since I was around last summer? Thanks :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Gilderien, welcome back. I think the change in QPQ requirements may be new—all nominations must have provided QPQs (except for the first five freebies), not just self-nominations. So if you nominate a DYK and you have five previous DYK credits, you (or someone else) must provide a QPQ. Reviews are still expected to be complete—if they fail to consider all the criteria, including basics like neutrality and close paraphrasing, then the reviews need to be completed before promotion, even if they were approvals. And there have been complaints about the accuracy of hooks and how interesting they are, as well as articles being passed even though they are poorly written. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks - that is new, and I'll remember that when doing reviews. I see we've gone down to 2 sets a day - is that temporary or has that been going for a while?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been two sets per day for a while, Gilderien—we actually went down to one per day for a couple of months—and even with the large number of nominations, we've had trouble getting the preps filled; there are fewer people doing that work (and I've been too busy to do it myself), and not quite as many doing prep to queue promotions. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks- I did worry I'd make a mess of that... Josh Milburn (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If you've got a problem with my review, please complete it yourself. If it's such a problem that I didn't list every single criterion, please just complete it rather than stopping by every couple of days to criticize. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

. . . that you will not object if I complete these reviews before someone else completes begins reviewing them? I am in the process of finishing my comments on Vratislav Lokvenc now. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Dirtlawyer1, if someone else begins a review for either of them, then that person becomes the primary reviewer of that nomination. If that happens, you are welcome to add your comments to their review, but they will have the final authority as to whether the article is listed as a GA or not. So in such a case, they would have every right to object to your completion, and I would support them in that. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I have completed my review comments for Vratislav Lokvenc, which I have been working on for the last several days. Likewise, I have significant comments in progress for the championship article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1, I'm very glad to see that it's finally done. if you are prepared to commit to prompt responses for any further issues in the Vratislav Lokvenc review, I'm prepared to restore your review as active. Typical responses are expected to be no later than seven days, both from reviewers and nominators, even if it's a request for more time. The idea, of course, is that the review be concluded as quickly as possible while making sure all the criteria are met. You can understand that, given recent experience, I'm chary of giving you free reign without such an assurance. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the requested commitment is given. The article is generally well written, footnote/source issues were resolved early on, and the edits to be made should be relatively painless for the nominator. There is only one minor structural issue, whether to integrate two small sections into the chronological narrative. I will post my comments for the championship article later today; it requires much more work than the Lokvenc article, and therefore the comments are more extensive. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Thanks for your prompt reply. I admit I was puzzled by his insistence to nominate an article that was over the seven day limit and wasn't sure where the ten day figure came from.Autarch (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping to shoot you an email about something related to DYK that I'd rather not discuss on your talk page. If you don't mind, would it be possible to include your email at Special:Preferences and enable emails from users, at least long enough for me to send a quick one your way? ~ Rob^Talk 12:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Rob, I don't do email on Wikipedia. If it needs email, you might want to try one of the other regulars. Maybe Crisco 1492? He's also an admin, and was one of my mentors at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries. It's specific to you, so I guess I'll just discuss it here. Have you considered throwing your hat in the ring at

WP:RfA? DYK could use more admins, based on the somewhat regular "DYK is almost overdue" notices, and you appear to be a good candidate based on what little digging I've done. If you've been asked before, my apologies. ~ Rob^Talk

12:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and no need to apologize—it's actually something that has been broached here a number of times before. I'm not interested in becoming an admin, however. Far more headaches and stress than I'm willing to deal with, and I expect I'd burn out of Wikipedia altogether in short order. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, certainly wouldn't want that. ~ Rob^Talk 17:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	I don't think you get enough appreciation for what you do over at DYK. Thank you so much for your contributions over there. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Keilana. You're very kind. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me out with an SPA and an IP who are repeatedly blanking this page and replacing it with an unsourced puff piece about a young professor notable for a pair of plagiarism scandals.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory, this has been overtaken by events, now that the article has been PRODded. I wanted to warn you that 3RR still holds sway for you, and will for a full day. Indeed, since doing a "fourth" revert just outside the 24 hours is considered a continuation of edit warring, I'd strongly advise you to wait at least until August 21 if you plan to undo the PROD, since that's itself a reversion. (It can't close before seven days have elapsed, so you have plenty of time.)

Given the trend of the posts on the talk page, where said professor's notability has been doubted, if you do remove the PROD, I think you should be prepared for a listing at Articles for Deletion to follow in short order. As for Chasehunt1, should that editor resume edit warring, now that the article has gained the attention of so many editors, I expect that it will be dealt with in short order. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding: I just noticed that you actually changed MSJapan's sig to Whitaker. What on earth were you thinking to make such an accusation? MSJapan has been editing on Wikipedia for ten years with over 15 thousand edits: do you honestly think this is the way a university professor would spend his time? I would be unsurprised if you're blocked for this; you've certainly lost credibility with me and doubtless with others. I hope you'll think long and hard before making such a clearly unfounded accusation again, no matter how frustrated you might be with events. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Srill reeling form this. I thought that I was doing the right thing in reverting and reporting an SPA and an IP that were blanking a page. Then I logged on late at night and in a sleepy attempt to respond, put an editor's name in the wrong place. I think I have a relatively short but constructive record on Wikipedia, why would you assume I was trying to slander an editor I had never met before, and to no apparent purpose? Whatever happened to assume good faith?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI/3RR. BlueMoonset (talk

) 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, people lose their cool all the time. I don't even have this article on a watch list. I started it when the guy was making headlines, and only noticed it because I got an automatic "was linked from" about the Whitaker article being newly linked with

Rogeting. This was odd, because such a link would have already been there back when I was writing the article. That was when I discovered the SPA, and a wholesale blank-and-replace by a conspicuously purposeful editor was something I had never encountered before. I do a lot of AFDs and there you do see intensity.E.M.Gregory (talk

) 16:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a new rule not to credit non-self noms (talking about this one in particular)? —Vensatry _(ping) 19:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

WT:DYK, pointing out that you never got your nom credit (which had been in the nomination template but didn't make it over to Prep 6), and I'm sure someone there can belatedly process one for you. (I'm not sure how to do it for DYKnoms, and while I could attempt it, it's better to get someone who's done it before and knows how.) BlueMoonset (talk

) 20:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding: it turns out you weren't the only person not to be credited. No need for you to post; I'm about to post to the

WT:DYK page myself, listing seven credits (including yours) that didn't make it from nomination template to prep, and asking for someone to take care of them. BlueMoonset (talk

) 21:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is a nomination meta:Merchandise_giveaways/Nominations#BlueMoonset --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Tito Dutta. I've posted there; you're right that I'm not interested in participating. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that you ce'd the quotemarks on the material I added. I think that, usually, when I quote from a source, the quote itself is not a quote, so I've not come across this very often. Do smartquotes need to be changed as a general rule? MSJapan (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

logical quotation style, so punctuation generally appears just outside quotation marks rather than just inside them, unless it's at the end of a complete sentence (the MOS presents good examples of what to do). BlueMoonset (talk

) 17:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! The quote in question was pulled direct from ref because I couldn't do anything more succinct with it, but apparently it was technically non-compliant. MSJapan (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help. It isn't always easy to see whether curly or straight quotes are used on a quote, or to notice apostrophes, but when you do, just change the characters (or move the ending punctuation if appropriate) and everything's set. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

	Hello, BlueMoonset. You're invited to join project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I'm not interested in joining. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Per your content work, I guessed that you might like the project. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, and thanks for dealing with that situation over there at the GA Help Desk/GAN Talk page. You handled it correctly and I'm glad I didn't have to do it (I've been focused on an FAC at the moment and some other areas and may not be able to spend as much time over there). As you saw, I just handled the "encouraging" part of the process and later I may look at their GAN also (maybe you and I are like "good cop/bad cop", ha). Thanks for everything you do over there, actually. Anyway, I stopped by to give you a heads up about something in case you were interested: Yesterday, I was curious about this

The article George Washington Truett you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:George Washington Truett for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. LavaBaron (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

WT:GAN. I do hope you'll heed friendly process advice, because it's offered to help the GA processes go smoothly. BlueMoonset (talk

) 22:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey! I didn't know that you guys pinged me as i get too many notifications. I just saw that post. Please tell me what i have to review or how to review a dyk. I dont know about reviewing dyk. Please tell other criteria as well.Krish | Talk 15:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Bridget Jones's Baby. I hope i did good.Krish | Talk 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

here. BlueMoonset (talk

) 17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: When you've completed the review, be sure to post the link to it on your own nomination, so the review there can continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey! I have re-checked and re-reviewed and added it to my nomination. I had a request, if the dyk could appear on 5 September 2015, film's first anniversery, it would be great. Now please tell how to deliver this to the nominator?Krish | Talk 06:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The dyk review hasn't resumed yet. What;s the problem?Krish | Talk 14:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes the previous reviewer isn't around, and it might take a while for a new reviewer to come along. I'll check with Frankie. Incidentally, your review of Bridget Jones's Baby said that the QPQ had been done, but it hadn't been, and there was no mention of it by the nominator. What made you think it had been satisfactorily completed? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't get this? You said i did it perfectly.Krish | Talk 14:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to apologize for not doing a more thorough job of examining it at the time, as I missed some significant issues including this one. Please note that I didn't say "perfectly", I said "quite good for a first effort". However, if you'll look at the nomination page, you'll see that I saw other issues after it had been promoted. And you haven't answered my question: What made you think the QPQ had been satisfactorily completed? It's a simple question, and I would appreciate a response. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, i was not aware that he also had to add a review and i missed it. Well, now i un=derstood how to do this. I will take care after this one.Krish | Talk 15:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, BlueMoonset! I saw on the DYK nom for Cincinnati chili that you fixed for me (thanks!) that your edit summary included: fixing...credits (only DYKmake should be used for self-nominations);

I don't know what this means -- I can find a template called DYKmake, but the various instruction pages and rules pages for nominations don't seem to refer to it. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks! valereee (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

valereee, I don't have time to check right now, but if I'm remembering correctly, the template as it was created had two credit templates for you: a DYKmake (which is for the creator/expander of the article), and a DYKnom which is for the DYK nominator if someone other than the creator/expander(s). In this case, the nomination page had both a DYKmake and a DYKnom for you; I was removing the DYKnom since it was redundant. It probably had to do with how you filled out the original nomination form; I was just fixing things. What DYKmake does is it tells the bot to add a credit message to your talk page when it's moving the hook to the main page. If you have any further questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them later. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)