User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The course is over, so the chance of student caring are... well, I left him a message, but I expect in the few more days we will archive it as failed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Piotrus. Let's give it until the end of 2015. If nothing's been done by the time 2016 arrives, I'll mark it for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Per my last comment, Piotrus, I'll be marking the nomination for closure in a few moments. I'm sorry it didn't work out. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, too. I do tell my students they have to monitor the nomination after the class ends if they want to see it on the front page, but their motivations wanes very quickly ones the grades are in :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I did take a look at that one a couple days ago, but unfortunately the issues involved and the subject matter are beyond me. Any second opinion I could provide would probably just be dismissed as a guy who doesn't get the material, and they would be right. Well, at least everything else is updated (the complete lack of reviews in general made that sadly easy). Wizardman 18:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah well. Thanks for letting me know, Wizardman; it would have been nice if the Taxonomy question had been in your wheelhouse. What about Talk:Traci Lords: Underneath It All/GA1? That's also been waiting for months for a second opinion (since September!); the sourcing questions seemed to be an issue you might be able to offer an informed second opinion on. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, good news, Wizardman: Taxonomy of Liliaceae was just approved. There had apparently been discussions on WikiProject pages over the last little while, and although they hadn't quite come to a conclusion, the GA reviewer decided to approve the article as it was, with the thought that if later consensus is that the section in question does not belong in the article after all, it will then be removed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look. It is past time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with the approval. I did strike ALT9 since I agree with EdChem's comment. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Please voice your opinion on the page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you recently "invalidated" (for want of a better word) a GA review at Talk:Track and field/GA2. The same reviewer performed a review of a page I nominated at Talk:Hyōgo-ku, Kobe/GA1. This is my first time nominating an article for review, so I was not expecting to pass first try. The article is not as important as the track and field article, but I feel that this review was nevertheless inadequate. Could you please have a look? Thank you, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

GA criteria: the article's lead (introduction) should serve as a summary of the article, instead of a very short sentence or two that mostly ignores the rest. Given the current length of the article, it should be one or two paragraphs only. If a better job isn't done on the next pass, I'll try to give you some suggestions for improvement, but I don't have time just now. You might want to check the GA criteria; I think there were also issues with the layout, and perhaps others as well. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk

) 08:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, thank you for your response. I haven't really looked at the article since nominating it 6 months ago. But taking an objective view of it now, I can see there are gaping holes in the history section and all other areas could do with considerable expansion also. Thank you for your suggestion regarding the length of the lead, I will expand it as you suggest. But I do not have the time to do everything that is required within 7 (now 5) days. So I suppose the only option for now is to withdraw the nomination and revisit it sometime in the future. I'm sorry for wasting your time with this. It was just very frustrating to have what was basically a two word "you're close" non-review after waiting almost half a year. But before I leave you alone, I have one question regarding the layout you mentioned above. Are you referring to the structure of the sections? I adopted the section format provided at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Districts and municipalities task force/guideline. As a subdivision of a municipality, not all of the sections are applicable. But do you think there is a problem with that format? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT discusses the proper placement of images, which is what I was thinking of when I made the comment. (The two canal images don't fit within the Canal section, for example; you should probably remove one of them.) Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk

) 04:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99, we were posting to each other's talk pages at the same time. I've put in for the "speedy deletion" of that extra page and also the extra identical review page for Reince Priebus. An administrator will be along in the next few hours and take care of deleting those extra pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

My main concern about the nomination is not close paraphrasing, but whether the article accurately reflects the sources. This will require checking each source against the way it's written in the article, a job that I'm not prepared to undertake. (It would be great if Nikkimaria had some tool to do that, too.) Yoninah (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for helping me in my review of Billy the Kid to become a better reviewer. In case you have not been following along, I gave Winkelvi a list of things that I thought perhaps ought to be fixed. He has made the revisions to my satisfaction. Would you mind taking a look at the article again to see if I might be able to pass it? In addition, I left you a note on my talk page regarding another GA review that I began. Would you mind possibly examining that to see if I did a better job with it? Thanks again for your work and assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blake Jenner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supergirl (TV series). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I have suggested ALT6 on the DYK page, which is a variation of ALT1, with bold link included. I hope you find this acceptable. Blandx (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria claim that I was placing the wrong source for this sentence, and then decided that it was a close paraphrasing issue or a manipulation from my part? If that's really the conclusion, then I can say that the book Indonesian Heritage volume 6: Architecture - Balinese House (written by Robi Sularto) has plagiarized words from Julian Davison: Introduction to Balinese architecture, or the other way. It's a shame you have to cut me off before 7 days and reject my nomination for DYK for the sake of removing that nomination, just saying, because I am trying to follow and improve the article.--Rochelimit (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Rochelimit, as I pointed out in my closing edit summary, this was an issue that had persisted for seven weeks, despite many comments by Cwmhiraeth and Nikkimaria. Ultimately, Nikkimaria felt that the process had taken too long—you had been given several opportunities to go through the entire article yet close paraphrasing remained each time—and marked the article for closure; I concurred and closed it the following day, at which point this had been the oldest ongoing DYK review. I recognize that you have been trying to improve the article, but you weren't finding and correcting the close paraphrasing from when you created the article: your time ran out. (You don't get an automatic extension of seven days for every review comment.) Regarding the example: if I understand what you're saying above, the Sularto and Davison sources have basically the same wording, and your wording was taken from the Sularto. (As it turns out, both of the Davison sources you used in your article have the same sentence Nikkimaria quoted; the 2014 book appears to be a revised version of the 2003.) In that case, Nikkimaria may have misdiagnosed the source of the wording, but she was correct in identifying it as close paraphrasing (or, as you called it, plagiarism). That's a problem whichever source it came from. And I'm afraid that your newest revision still leaves close paraphrasing in its wake (identical words are in italics): These measurements are recorded on a length of a bamboo, which will serves as a kind of yardstick to create the layout of the house compound. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As a reviewer on DYK project, I'd like to get sure if the hooks can be consisted of two or three facts each supported by sources in different parts of the article? Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, hooks can consist of a number of facts. Each fact must be somewhere in the article, and supported by a source no later than the end of the sentence the fact appears in. (If it's part of a multi-sentence quote, then the source citation can be at the end of the quote.) Was there a particular hook you were concerned about? BlueMoonset (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I was dealing with this nomination. --Mhhossein (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You pulled this back from Prep. Putting aside whether that was the right decison, all of the issues you raised have now been addressed. As a reviewer I would give this another green tick, but I do not want to work at cross purposes with you. Please take a new look. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your extreme patience and kindness as I have struggled though my first GA evaluations. As an experienced reviewer of journal articles/books, I thought this could be a useful and interesting way to contribute to Wikipedia. I suspect that old Wikipedia hands have no concept of how arcane and hard-to-navigate the process of figuring out editing procedures is to users who enter a Wikipedia process for the first time. I shudder to recall the first ADFs I waded into, only about a year ago. I'm sure that I can manage GA going forward, if I decide to try it again. But the process certainly felt opaque to this newbie.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see my note to you. Yoninah (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So you know: I have not by any means abandoned the Billy the Kid article and GA review. This is a bad week for me to do much work on it. I will have some time Friday and hope to get to it then. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

WV, thanks for letting me know. We all have lives outside of Wikipedia that can take more or less of our time. Just be sure to check in on the review page to let Display name 99 that although other things have come up, you'll be getting back to it by the weekend. I've had some time crunches as well—there are still those four sections I haven't yet commented on, plus I should do some other general checks. I did find the Wallis 2007 book at my local library today, so I can familiarize myself more with Billy's life in general. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Letting you and Display name 99 know that I have worked further on the BtK article. Some things were easier to fix than others. At this point, in reference to your list so far, I have completed everything except Selected references in popular culture and the References sections. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi and Blue Moonset, my Internet has been down since Saturday because of a blizzard that hit much of the East Coast. I haven't even been able to look at anything until now. Thank you for your work Winkelvi. Please let us know on the GA review page once you believe you have finished everything that has been mentioned. Also, I noticed that one of the things that Blue Moonset pointed out in his opening-before he began listing things by section, in case you may not have seen-was the lack of definitive information about McCarty's early years. That information does not appear to have been changed yet. In particular, regarding birth dates, only one, September 17, 1859, is listed in this article, although historians believe that there are multiple possibilities. You may want to examine this source regarding the date of birth: http://www.aboutbillythekid.com/fact_vs_myth.htm Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad to know you're back on line, Display name 99. I'm still working my way through the Wallis book, to help me better understand the chronology, but I may not be able to get those final four sections commented on until the end of the weekend. My apologies for taking this long, to both you and Winkelvi. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Marano Fan has a year-long vendetta against me and is making his suggestions out of spite. He's got a long history of edit warring, bad faith editing, and disruption. In the past , he's been brought to ANI and AN for the possibility of being indeffed or site banned Each time, he's then quickly decided to put himself on months-long bot enforced wiki-breaks, escaping any possible consequences. If you are interested, do a search at the noticeboards for the history. He's also taken part in harassment and tag-team edit warring at my user space on more than one occasion. MF's sudden "interest" in the GA review is most likely unrelated to the article or the review itself but is more likely about hounding my edits (which he has been noted for previously). I'm not sure what his specific agenda is with this latest attempt to seek attention, but I've been trying to just ignore him since the last time he commented at the GA2. This, however, might give a clue to the intent. To me it looks like stirring up "stuff" just for the sake of messing other editors and possibly to put a wrench into the GA review.

On a related note, the edit warring over the photos at the BtK article was weirdly timed and suspicious, in my mind. If you look at the account history of the person doing the damage, they have only edited 70-some times in a many-year life span of the account? Smells fishy to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I finally have time today to work on the article, no interruptions. Will try and finish the first bunch of notes you laid out, and then will be ready for more. I appreciate your continued patience on this. Pinging Display name 99 as GA reviewer on record for the article (and hoping he will see the comments in the section above). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about the DYK nomination for John Kent (police officer). Although I do have an interest in British policing topics, I think I only did some basic copyediting for this one and my access to decent sources on the subject are limited unfortunately. Additionally, another user has left notes on the talk page of the article listing several newspaper clippings of the time which involve further possible discrepancies. So while it's a great fact for DYK, I don't think I'll have the time or resources to adequately resolve the issues, sorry. --Canley (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Canley, thanks for letting me know how things stand. I guess, without Factorylad, we'll have to wind this one up. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm having trouble making sense of the copy-paste and 5x expansion requirements. It seems you did a bit of rewriting in the first two paragraphs of Music Career, so I am unable to figure out the character count of what was copied. Perhaps you could find someone with a more mathematical brain to double-check your work? Meanwhile, I can go ahead and affix the Copied template. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah, thanks for checking. I think this comparison of the two articles by Duplication Detector might help: it seems to indicate that the only significant copied text remaining is virtually the entire second paragraph of Music career, 920 characters. Cunard pulled everything else, including the first Music career paragraph, which as far as I can tell was original to this article. What's now under the One Voice Children's Choir subsection there is my own creation (doubtless with some paraphrasing, but hopefully not close), which replaced the copied material from that article. A number of the cites show up in the detector, but no further actual identical strings of words until you get down to five words or fewer. These may be close enough that you think the some or all of these need to be added to the 920, or they may be common strings that don't indicate copying or overly close paraphrasing, in which case they shouldn't be. If you don't want to check this further, I can understand, but I thought it might help if I explained what my thoughts were and the origins of various material. I can still find someone else if you'd like. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, that Dup Detector helps a lot. I am going to bed now, though, so I won't be working on this until perhaps 18 hours from now. If you find someone else, I understand. Yoninah (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah, I'm happy to wait until you're ready. Thanks again for taking this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to tick some of the boxes at Special:UserRights/BlueMoonset. I mused on if you were able to edit templates it might make some DYK pages editable that aren't now. Let me know and I can tweak these. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Cas Liber, thanks. I'm honestly not sure what I would need, since I've not run into situations where I couldn't do something I needed to do (except edit DYK queues, but that's admin level, and I'm not interested in becoming an admin). I didn't have any user rights beyond the normal until a few months ago, when I was suddenly gifts with autopatrolled. I use Twinkle, so that helps with a lot of the other stuff. I've done some minor template editing along the way beyond the regular DYK nominations: Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes, for example, and also a minor modification to the Module:NewDYKnomination. I'd be hesitant to do much more without extensive experience at template coding; I don't think I should be given the Template Editor permission, for example, based on its description. What is out there that you think I might need? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok - I changed two obivous ones. Pending Changes review might come up occasionally. Given you check references etc. it'd be appropriate for you to have this if you come across something valid added by an IP and hence Accepting it on one of those pages...or the opposite. Also files occasionally need renaming - e.g. an image associated with a DYK article or something. Both of these are rare but you are entitled to them and makes less work for someone else. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"Fixing GA nominee template, which needs to have links to both user page and user talk for the bot to parse". Ttocserp 15:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, BlueMoonset. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Debopriya Chatterjee and Suchismita Chatterjee'.
Message added 06:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Another user has replied to your post there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

North America 1000, I see nothing addressed to me in particular, and looking at the article, there are still significant prose issues. I can certainly say so if you wish. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Note where a user responded stating "I have divided the article into sections and copy edited...", which appears to be a response to your request that the article be copy edited above the reply. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It's up to you to reply there or not. It may be a good idea to keep the nomination discussion moving forward. Note how the nominator pinged Jolly Janner to the discussion in their reply about having performed the copy editing, but Jolly Danner did not ask for the article to be copy edited, you did. Anyway, just a reminder notice for your consideration. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the poke, North America 1000. I've responded. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: An editor has just added a photo to the "Rumors of survival" section at the BtK article. A few weeks ago I considered doing the same, however, decided against it as I felt it would be undue weight to add to an article that's about the real Billy the Kid and his story and the history surrounding him. To me, adding the photo of a man who only claimed to be him, has pretty much been shown to not be him, is inappropriate in the section and excessive detail. The individual who claimed to be him has an article about him, and putting in a photo of someone not connected to Bonney's history and had nothing to do with his life seems to be irrelevant to this article. Actually, I was waiting for your comments on the section to see if you thought it could be paired down as undue weight. I, personally, have no qualms about paring it down and if you agree that would be better for the article to pare it down, I suggest that the image then be taken out for the same reason. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Brushy Bill is directly connected to Billy the Kid's history. If he were not, he would not have been included in the btk article. There are several images included in the article of individuals that had very small roles in the history of btk. If more editors think Brushy Bill has no connection to Billy the Kid's history, I would be happy to set up a RFC about the inclusion of the Brushy Bill image to the article so that we may reach a fair consensus. Jilllyjo (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

1) Why are you following me, especially after a well-respected, long time editor and administrator, SlimVirgin, asked you to stop seeking me out?; 2) my question is for one of the persons reviewing the article for GA in relevance to the article being GA. This isn't about consensus, it's about what a GA reviewer thinks is best for the article to be passed for GA. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Certainly not ever wanting to engage with you ever, since you have accused me of following you winkelvi, I will respond directly to your question to me. I did not follow you anywhere. That is an untrue and baseless allegation. I am an editor that is working to improve the GA nominated article. If some editor looks to be objecting to an edit I made on some page of wikipedia, I am allowed to respond and defend my edit. second response. I am not seeking you out. That is a lie and baseless allegation. You need to stop this campaign you are on and quit your disruptive behaviours here at wikipedia, or I will take further action on your harassment campaign toward me. Back to btk, it looks that we disagree about including the image. I have the right to set up a RFC if I care to do so. deja vu Jilllyjo (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Only Please weigh in with your opinion on this matter. Thank you. Jilllyjo (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A month-long RfC is hardly the ideal way to settle a disagreement over a photo, Jilllyjo. It won't delay or derail the GA review, but it's like trying to swat a fly with a grenade. It's usually possible to determine consensus without it. At the moment, however, the photo is not eligible to appear in the article because it does not have a proper non-free license for the Billy the Kid article (the license is only valid for the Brushy Bill article), and I rather doubt a case could be made under NFCC #8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I don't see how the picture's absence would be detrimental to anyone's understanding of Billy the Kid. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)BlueMoonset, any thoughts about paring the section down? After looking at it a little closer, I wonder about shrinking it. Maybe making it a subsection in the Legacy section? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Since Brushy Bill claims to be Billy the Kid I would say showing the image of Brushy Bill there would help the reader to compare his image to the btk images in the article, and indeed would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" And "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" of letting the reader draw their own conclusions. Thank you. Jilllyjo (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Jilllyjo, non-free images have to jump through much greater hoops than free ones: it's one of the frustrating, but ultimately understandable, limitations of the site. I have removed the Brushy Bill photo because it is non-free and not licensed for use in Billy the Kid; the same strictures do not apply to images of Charlie Bowdre or Tom O'Folliard, for example, because those are public domain. If you can successfully create a new non-free license for that photo to be used in this article, and it survives the inevitable challenge—they are very strict about non-free usage—then it could probably be included. Without a valid license, it simply can't be. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, those thoughts will have to wait until after I've had a good night's sleep, something I'm definitely overdue for, and a chance to consider what's there now. Sorry about that. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem, BlueMoonset. Rest is more important than any of this, any day! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I would still appreciate any tips and suggestions you have on improving the BtK article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I'll be happy to, but I'm going to take some of that reset time myself. It will help if I take time away from the article, so I can come at it fresh. I'll also need to take advantage of the Wallis and Utley sources before I need to return them to the library. It may be several days or even a week or two before I make those edits, and then I'd also like to take another crack at the croquet section: I'm not happy with my earlier edits there. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For reviewing a relatively new article for "DYK" suitability and making constructive criticism, but more importantly, for then sticking around and doing the grunt-work to address many of the problems you identified. The extra effort is appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey BlueMoonset! I know some days have passed by now, but I just wanted to thank you once again for your efforts ([1])! I watched the whole process a bit from the sideline, and I did see the article being published on the DYK page at that specific time interval you mentioned as well. Looked pretty cool. Oh, yeah, Miniapolis indeed did a great work copy-editing; I personally thanked her for that as well. :-) Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	keep it up wiki tamil 100 07:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

I just want to ask a question. Why did you take over my DYK? If you would have pinged me, I would have done it. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 17:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yoshi24517, I'm not at all sure what you meant by "take over my DYK", since I didn't do anything like that. I suggested a hook revision when I had trouble understanding the wording in one hook, one that had just been suggested by the article's creator, who was active during the course of the review (a review I was not conducting). I'm sorry that Andrew D., the reviewer, didn't get in touch with you, but he may well have thought that with the creator involved, the nomination was being covered. DYK generally has any number of people commenting on hooks and reviews, and it's a good idea for the nominator to keep track of what's going on rather than waiting for someone to ping them, because notifications don't always happen. I'm sorry if you felt bypassed by the process. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Beside making civil responses, you usually can explain things simply and correctly. That's why I usually ping you to address the cases. I think editors have to express them selves using policy pages, when it comes to discussion. Otherwise, it's hard agree on self made analysis (A: It suffers POV issues? B: Why? A: because it appears to be POV. B: Can you elaborately discuss it considering the definition we've got for POV? A: It's just POV!!!) Anyway, thank you again for coming in, when ever you're pinged. Mhhossein (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for calling attention to the problematic GA reviewing habits of 333-blue. They posted on the talk of my first GA here questioning why there are no sources in the lead. The article is already GA-class and passed as written, so I don't know why they had a problem with it. I doubt they are qualified to do reviews. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello BlueMoonset, I have noticed that you are very active user in the DYK section. Two days ago I nominated the article Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the DPRK. I wonder if you would be so kind to have a look at the nomination and share your thoughts. Thank you very much.(talk) user:Al83tito 18:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Al83tito, I'm afraid I don't have the time to review your nomination just now. I imagine it will be picked up by someone in the near future. Reviews take up to a couple of weeks to be reviewed; right now there are well over 100 not yet reviewed. Please be patient. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I appreciate your kind note. Will wait for someone else to review, just as you suggest. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 2:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what powers you may possess to stop or undo this travesty - but have a look at the GA reviews done by

I may have jumped the gun, as the issue appears to have drawn notice elsewhere: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#GA_reviewer. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering, but I'm humbly requesting your help. With your status as one of the senior administrators dealing with DYK issues, you might be able to make a difference in the above listed DYK nomination which - in my opinion - has gone completely awry. We have a nominator who is unwilling to be helpful, and instead badmouths any reviewer who tries to be of any use. In order to stop this, I have put a yellow X there and called for the closure of the nomination, because the only thing I see a continued discussion leading to is more flamewars. I reached that conclusion considering the attitude of the nominator, leading me to be highly unsure on how this could ever get approved. Anyway, since I already put my yellow X there and the bickering has nevertheless resumed, I have lost my leverage to do anything about the situation.

Could your please close this uncivil dispute, or otherwise lay down what needs to happen? —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 15:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Amberrock, it's closed. I was initially planning on a simple explanation and striking the original hook rather than a closing, in the hopes of saving the nomination (always the optimist). Then I read the article as it stands (even after the attempts by another editor to reduced the NPOV a couple of days ago) and the nomination template in full, and realized how many of the specific requested changes had never been done to address the neutrality issues and how far the article was from NPOV even after 30 days under review. At that point, I regretfully decided that closing was the only real option. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Amberrock, I just offered a one-week extension on Template:Did you know nominations/Palestinian wine‎, which you had marked for closure, since the nominator hadn't been pinged or given a talk-page notification back at the time of the review. Chesdovi does have quite a few DYKs, but they were back in 2010 and 2011, and so may be rusty about checking templates and other such. If nothing happens, then the nom should be closed after another seven days, but I thought we should be sure Chesdovi is reminded that the DYK is ongoing and needs to be worked on. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely intervention on the first front. We really needed a senior editor to resolve this, since I have committed to clearing up the backlog of DYK only weeks ago. I marked the Palestinian wine for closure, because not only was it inactive, there were also a number of quite far reaching problems which are probably going to take some resolving. In my opinion, that should have started already. I'm not too confident that process will start now and finish in a timely manner, but I guess leniency goes a long way as well. Once more, thanks for stepping up.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 19:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Now that the hook is closed. Can you please tell me why the hook is not neutral? please please do it! Mhhossein (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
• Did you even see the "hands before heads" were used in different occasions three of which were notable enough? 1- They were seized in this manner 2- Iran released the photo and video of their "hands before heads" 3- Khamenei said something including "hands before hedas" 4- Iran released the photo of "hands before heads" (this has to go out). As you see, just 1 of them had to go and the others were necessary to stay there. Anyway, I don't deem it a huge issue, it could be solved very very simply. Mhhossein (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, you seem to think that just because a piece of information is "notable" on its own, that also means that it should invariably be included in an article. There is usually far more such information available than can be used when writing an article. Part of the editor's job is to sift the reliable from the unreliable, and the biased from the unbiased, but also to determine what is truly important versus not really necessary when constructing an article. Not all facts add to the reader's understanding; some just pound points home repeatedly, or distract with unnecessary detail. It's something you still evidently need to learn.

The "hands behind their heads" event, no matter how many sources mentioned it, only occurred the once. Including it in the article at multiple junctures is not balanced, thus not neutral. The reenactment, complete with picture (including one grinning "prisoner"), is tangential and a dubious inclusion. It was pointed out to you that having a large number of Iranian officials commenting was unnecessary and not balanced. Since you were resistant to any suggestions, the solution was clearly not simple, and the conclusion was that the article was non-neutral and was not likely going to be made so. Thus the closure.

Finally, the hook had wording issues even ignoring the "hands behind their heads" issue. I'm looking at it now, trying to untangle its prose—and frankly, since the nomination is closed, it isn't worth my time to try to get something smoother. I think the seizure part and the American sailors part needs to be combined, rather than widely separated, because otherwise there's no context. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not care how many sources were discussing "hands behind their heads", rather the events were notable. Do you mean we had to

censor the part showing a notable figure (khamenei) is referring to this "hands behind their heads", the part on the release of photo and video? How can we ignore these notable events? The bigger challenge is that you (almost all) refrained from saying why the hook was not neutral instead of adhering to the very clear definition of NPOV, when it was asked "why the hook is not neutral?" Mhhossein (talk

) 05:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I am very troubled that you are referring to censorship, since you wouldn't have considered it had you understood the concepts I was trying to get across. As for the hook, I'll let the other reviewers speak for themselves; for me, with the article so clearly non-neutral in many ways (particularly the bludgeoning of the hands behind heads thing), and the hook featuring exactly those issues that were problematic in the article, the hook was not acceptable. Making matters worse, it had grammatical problems, which were pointed out practically from the beginning.

Since the nomination has been closed and will not reopen, it's time to move on. Thank you for your cooperation. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you too. Mhhossein (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 6 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Hey there. So I get what you are saying on the tool and I want to let you know that while I would state something like "9.1% so we're good" I have actually checked the various results, except maybe some of the 1-2% results. I agree it's always a judgement call, quite a while ago I saw some of the higher results not actually being violations due to direct quotes or book titles etc. so I always check to see what it gives me - I just don't really elaborate on that in my feedback. The close paraphrasing is tougher to really call, I mean they are trying to state facts from a source without copying the source so striking a balance with what is TOO close is sometimes a call and one that a tool cannot make. So I get it and I try to check the results manually every time too.  MPJ-US  12:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, hope you are well. As you may have noticed, over the past week, I copy edited the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Today, I also copy edited the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment (here is its transcluded instructions page: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines, and another small transclusion is here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/archiving). I also touched up the Wikipedia:Good articles page. My goal in each case was not to change any established guidelines but only to bring improved clarity and formatting to the instructions. In other words, I believe it still says the same thing, only clearer. In some places, I added material that I believe helps clarify the process. I trust you to review my work and either make any changes or let me know and I will make the changes. Or maybe you will say that everything is fine. By the way, I am also working my way through the templates that are used during the GA process and copy editing their documentation pages as well, where necessary. Again, I don't believe I am making any radical changes. Thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I like your improvements to the "This includes" sentences on the GAN page and have just completed further improvements; feel free to look them over. As you probably noticed, I have also completed improvements at the fifteen GA pages. Have a good weekend, Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset- I've never done a multiple article DYK before and wanted to make sure that I set this up correctly... Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Godot13, there were a couple of formatting issues with the hooks—you really need to start them with "that", and "(pictured)" must always be set in italics (including the parentheses): I also had to separate the two articles in the DYK nompage links template and there needs to be one DYKmake template per article included. You can take a look at all the changes I made. It should be possible to get all this correct when filling out the initial template questionnaire, but if something goes awry, you can always ask me or someone else to take a look as you did here. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I was fairly sure I messed up a few things. Many thanks for your help!--Godot13 (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset. Sorry for the trouble, but how many QpQs is Template:Did you know nominations/Guianan streaked antwren worth? Also, if it is worth 3 can I bank the two? Thank you. Dr. K. 23:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr.K., you get three QPQ credits from reviewing a three-article nomination, and you can use them on three separate single nominations, or a combination, however you see fit. Just be sure to specify something like "1 of 3", "2 of 3", "3 of 3", so the person reviewing your nominations can track the usage. (Or, the short answer: yes, you can bank the remaining two.) Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Bluemoonset for your advice, which is really appreciated. Best regards. Dr. K. 00:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your note on my Talk page. The fact that this user completed another GA review comes as a surprise to me. All I can say is that I have not worked as a mentor with said user, outside of the comment I left on the above discussion. I will have a look at the Milos Raonic article - at a glance it does look good, but given that there are 200+ references, and that it appears that the initial GA review took about 2 hours (GA review history), it doesn't really look as though this review was very thorough. I'll comment further after a brief and informal review of my own.

Oh - and thank you for the catch on my open Music review!

Update: I couldn't help myself, and read through the article twice just now. While there are items I would have remarked upon, and some copy-editing I would have suggested, nothing stands out to me as something that was required to be done to meet GA. As little as I like the idea of an apparently very-substandard review (again), this work does seem to meet the criteria. Just what to think about a next step for the user is a different story, however. Simply based on the user's very limited posts in his reviews, the user's grasp of the English language simply isn't good enough to enable that user to properly adjudge the work of others - full stop. How to enforce that opinion is 'beyond my ken'. Thank you!--Concertmusic (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet more: The same user turned down a draft article today

Draft:B. LaRae Orullian based on notability, without explanation, and the author is looking for help. I know next to nothing about AfCs, but I am dubious that this user should be dabbling in that space either. I had a quick look at the article and the references, and did a quick search of my own, and while the article could add a couple of points that I found in searching for just 5 minutes, the subject does appear notable enough to me, just in relation to having presided over the Girl Scouts of America. I may well be wrong, as the article was declined a week ago by an experienced user. However, the author deserves better, but I don't have advice to give. Would you mind having a quick look? Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk

) 20:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Concertmusic, I've just posted on the editor's talk page, in response to your note there. I also did a bit of editing and formatting to the draft itself. I'm not at all acquainted with the actual AfC guidelines or the level they want for articles. I think Orullian is probably notable, but suspect that AfC they want the article to establish that notability through sourcing, in part to avoid an article passed by AfC being dragged over to AfD right after it has been approved for mainspace. One thing I've suggested is asking the original reviewer to advise on what is needed for the draft to be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Four years ago ...

good articles
...you were recipient no. 61 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. It's hard to believe it's been four years already; I was still finishing my first year back then! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, it's a thankless job, so I wanted to thank you, for diligently monitoring and catching reviews that are passed by the reviewer when no real review has taken place. This obviously helps the credibility of the GA Review icon. I don't believe my efforts at GA will ever extend to that level of support, but at least I know someone's got this. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Prhartcom. My monitoring isn't as thorough as I'd like, but I do catch what I can. I also try to catch those where the reviewer opened the review but never got back to it: people wait long enough as it is, and I try to get those abandoned reviews back into the reviewing pool when I find them, in addition to nudging reviews that have gotten stalled.

I just today noticed that your

WT:GAN RfC had been archived, which certainly shouldn't happen to an RfC, since they have to stay open for a month, typically, before they can be closed. I brought it back from the archive, added a header that should prevent archiving until the end of April at the earliest, and started a discussion section; in the course of writing up some thoughts—probably more scattered than they needed to be; my apologies for that—I proposed five new subtopics for Sports and recreation. These seemed to have the largest populations of GAs, and I thought the groupings made at least reasonable sense (such as keeping American and Association football together, combining baseball and cricket, etc.), but I'd be interested in other reactions. What I'd like, if Legoktm can assist, is to have a single upgrade with new , so all the changes can be made at once. As you've seen, it's very hard to get a response from that user, so minimizing the number of times we ask for changes is probably best. I do plan eventually to !vote, but wanted to see where the discussion led first. BlueMoonset (talk

) 00:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Prhartcom, I just realized I forgot to ping you yesterday in my reply; sorry about that. I also wanted to alert you to a new reviewer who has just started GA reviewing in bulk and has passed a few nominations without a single issue found, Doug Coldwell. (I think the longest time spent on a review was a bit over 30 minutes.) He also made 31 GANs yesterday and the day before, which gives him a total of 33 in all. I have posted a note to his talk page about the reviews, which I'm hoping will result in more careful and detailed reviewing at the least. I also pointed out that GAN, unlike DYK (where he is active) does not have a QPQ requirement, in part because the standard of article and review is so much higher than at DYK that requiring reviews would put people who don't understand the criteria in the position of attempting to check articles for them. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I caught your reply, BlueMoonset; thank-you, and also your appeal to the Legobot developer (please also try to email them as well, as I have). Interesting about this reviewer. Clearly he is trying to win the GA Cup by any means necessary, possibly in a way that is against the rules and to the detriment of the GA icon's credibility. Please do continue to monitor him as you are doing and let me know if you need assistance doing so. I'm afraid there could be more like him; I interacted with a new reviewer (Terrible-someone) who I think has now disappeared after my interaction. Prhartcom (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

So far as I know, Prhartcom, the reviewer is not signed up for the GA Cup—first GA review wasn't until the 17th, two days after registration closed, and he isn't listed on their page with competitors—and is also not participating in the WikiCup, which award two points for full GA reviews. So that isn't a motivation here, and both Cups have requirements about including comments in reviews that would preclude any of them being acceptable for either competition. I had already been involved in TerribleTy27's reviews; his first review, a pass without issues raised, was reverted by him after I pointed out extensive issues, and is back in the nomination pool. I'm glad you were able to take over the other one. In most cases, I think it's generally ignorance as to what is involved. Most people will accept guidance (or realize that GA reviewing requires skills or knowledge they don't have as yet); it's the ones who persist in reviewing despite not having those skills or understanding that are the problem. As for email, I'm afraid I don't ever use Wikipedia email, so yours to Legoktm will have to suffice, along with my post to his talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Congratulations on all your tremendous work, and in just under 5 years! Wow! PS. If you ever need translation (French and Spanish mother tongues) I would be honored (...not something I offer just anyone ) all the blessings of life, Natalie.Desautels (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, thank you very much. I'm always glad when I'm able to help. If I should need translation, I will remember to think of you. It could be that I may instead ask about confirming that a particular French or Spanish source does say what an English Wikipedia article says it does, if that's all right ... though I hope not to have to bother you. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@

Checkingfax: Indeed, implementing that "...a particular French or Spanish source does say what an English Wikipedia article says it does" is what I have had the pleasure to do quite a bit of. I am presently enjoying working on pages wiki-linked to the List of flamenco guitarists. Most of these pages have sources only in Spanish so I translate from scratch or do research and create anew. The linked pages with a little English (one had as little as one sentence) are often poorly translated and the meaning of the original intent in Spanish is often lost, or vague, in the English version. This scenario is common in French as well. (I wish we had access to the wonderful software tools we have in the English Wikipedia. Refill works in French, but not in Spanish, and AutoEd exists in neither French nor Spanish.) But I digress! Indeed, I would love to help out in any way that would be useful; so please feel entirely free to ask and I'll do my best, as time permits. very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk

) 11:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, a while back, I put a necrophilia hook in the quirky slot and you moved it out, saying (justifiably) that it wasn't quirky. Now I just moved a similar hook out of the quirky slot, but someone moved it back, and it's now in the queue. Have times changed? Yoninah (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so, Yoninah, though obviously Jolly Janner disagrees, since said editor put it there originally and then moved it back. You can always ask an admin to move it, and then there will presumably be a discussion and hopefully consensus one way or the other. Fortunately, we have a couple of days to sort things out. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset. When Yoninah shuffled the hooks in Prep 3, should Yoniah have reordered the Credits too?

I notice Yohiah took out two words and added two commas in one hook. Do you think it reads better? I do not.

When I added one hook, I made a typo and left that that but when I reopened the edit window I could not see that that. I thought the system was playing tricks with me Turns out Jolly Janner fixed it while I was still proofing things.

I left a couple of extra ...'s too and Yoninah graciously fixed those boo boos.

Jolly Janner removed one of my Preps saying it was not April Fool's. I know about April Fool's but shouldn't there be an edit note in the pertinent Prep area that states such? Also, looking at the chart, that Prep area (I think Prep 4) is not scheduled to pop on April 1. Looking at the chart how can one tell which prep area will pop on April 1? Where are the hooks for April 1? Cheers! {{u|

Checkingfax One can extrapolate the chart (also remember to frequently purge the page). If all the queues are filled then the chart will actually fill out the prep times as well. I'm not sure why the chart hides this information when there is an empty queue, but it would be nice if it didn't. And yeah, a hidden comment or something would be ideal. April Fools is only once a year, so I didn't think it would be needed. Jolly Ω Janner

02:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, there's no requirement to list the credits in the same order as the hooks. Some people who build sets have both sections in the same order just because it's easier to check that you haven't omitted any, or have any that don't belong. I notice that when you finished filling Prep 3

, you didn't remove/replace the Example versions of the credits when you inserted the new versions: the original blank template starts with eight Example DYKmakes (plus a DYKnom), and as you add a new hook you should replace one DYKmake example with the actual DYKmake(s) and DYKnom(s) (if any of the latter) from the nomination template. I reordered the credits only because there were several "Example" entries still in the prep that needed to be deleted, and since I didn't know the history of the prep set it was simpler to have the hooks and DYKmakes in the same order; once I knew all of the necessary credits were there, I could safely delete all the Example ones. When a hook set is full, one bit of clean-up is to make sure there are no Example credits remaining.

April Fool's Day is going to be unusual, because there will be three sets, posted every eight hours that day (00:00, 08:00, and 16:00 UTC), rather than two sets every twelve hours, but we go back to two hooks a day on April 2 at 00:00 UTC. So currently unfilled preps 4, 5, and 6 will be going out on April 1. Normally, it's easy to extrapolate when the preps will be scheduled, because if the queue isn't filled, the prep will be posted at the time indicated for the queue, and if the queue is filled, the equivalent prep will be posted exactly three days later at the same time. I think, since April 1 is still a bit away, that they're waiting for the last few hooks that need reviews to get them, at which point someone will start building the three sets, and try to balance the hooks between them (including the best lead hooks). BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful explanatory note at Talk:The Land of Gorch/GA1.

What else can be done about this ongoing behavior pattern, while the user seemingly is still able to be active elsewhere and yet ignore messages on their user talk page about outstanding GA Reviews ?

If they were totally inactive for a while, that's one thing, but isn't it worse to be active elsewhere, while ignoring messages on their user talk page, with zero repercussions for doing so ?

What do you think can be done ?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

GAN report page

as a quite old review; even here, it's the article, not the reviewer, that is listed. (I don't monitor them closely, and then only the ones that are about a month old.) In the case of yours, since you were gone for so long at the beginning, it didn't seem worth raising a fuss since neither of you were doing anything.

If I notice that he's started a review in future, depending on how long it has been since he started the review and how much progress (if any) has been made will be to let him know that he's expected to either progress on the review or have it returned to the pool, with firm deadlines for responses. The thing about blocks or topic bans (with GAN being the "topic") is that they aren't supposed to be punitive, and it's very hard to get a consensus on such major steps at

WT:GAN, or to find an administrator willing to take such an action based on a complaint. Zanimum's actions are disruptive; perhaps, with early detection, the disruption can be minimized. BlueMoonset (talk

) 16:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay that sounds good, thank you. I wish you the best of luck with that in the future ! — Cirt (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey. It's been a good 6+ months since I was active in prep-building. Is there anything major that has changed that I should be aware of? I've been planning to return to it at some point as I get some more free time. ~ Rob^Talk 15:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back, Rob! I can't think of anything major, since I'm pretty sure we were keeping preps and queues synched back then, too. I think it's just the usual: make sure hook sets are balanced and don't have similar hooks next to each other (bios, same country, etc.), make sure hooks are in their article and sourced, if a hook seems implausible, then be sure to check the actual source as well, etc. The next couple of days will be a bit unusual, since while we're running on a two-sets-per-day schedule, April Fool's Day will have three sets, after which we go back to two sets. The backlog has gradually been lessened, which is nice, although it's still large. If you do see anything that looks different, I'll be happy to answer any questions. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to after such a long break have some more things for you to address on

Tom (LT), thank you. I'm glad to see action on the review, but it's actually not my nomination. I've posted there already, but the short version is that I sometimes look through the oldest reviews on the GAN reports page and see which ones appear to be stalled, at which point I'll post something to the review page or to the nominator or reviewer's talk page(s) to see if I can get the process moving again. (Sometimes reviewers forget they opened a review, or were working on it.) My pings there were to both nominator and reviewer, in the hopes of getting things going again, and I'm very happy you posted there and with such thoughtful comments and suggestions, since it means that such a vital article will get serious attention in the course of its review. BlueMoonset (talk

) 15:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing this out. --

talk

) 05:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)