User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 20

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.

I know you asked me to look at something, but now I can't find what it was. Did you ping me? Or did you leave a note on my talk? Something about a railway, I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, it was Template:Did you know nominations/Lawa Railway. I see they have since promoted it to Prep 5 based on Google Translate; can you please take a quick look anyway? Thanks. (If it's fine, just leave it; if there are issues, we'll have to decide what to do.) Sorry to see that after a drought, the ArbCom has a new case in the offing. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I checked it--the hook is accurate. New case? What new case? Are you secretly preparing something? Drmies (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, thanks for checking. Glad the hook is okay. As for the new case: it looked to me like the Wikicology request had more than enough "Accept" votes to be constituted, including your own. It just needs a clerk's action now to become official. (My view of ArbCom: watch from afar, never become involved. I can't imagine ever doing anything that would require me to be there...) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that one. :) Actually, it's great fun. K-stick makes Bacon explosions, Keilana cocktails, and Courcelles tells jokes about bears and Marines (or something like that; I don't really listen when we're on conference call). All the real work is done by GuerillaWarfare, whom we give a medal or plaque every time she handles a case and files the paperwork. Myself, I usually just say "per Doug Weller" and then I'm usually on safe ground. I get to read the functionaries list as well, but that's usually just Floquenbeam and Newyorkbrad complaining about politics. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a disfunctionaries list to me, then, Drmies. Didn't realize that the arbs actually spoke on the phone; I thought it was all mailing lists and the like. What happens when all fifteen of you start talking at once? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

We're ArbCom--we always say the same thing. It's like being in Kraftwerk. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, BlueMoonset. What is the best way to shake the trees on

Checkingfax, I think you've just done it by your post there saying that the main author is now back. I interpreted what you had said there earlier as meaning that Picomtn would be making some of the changes or would be queried as part of the "check on the other stuff", so there was no hurry for the reviewer to get back to it since Picomtn was out of town for ten days. ("No hurry", while polite, is probably not the best thing to say; to me it says that waiting a week or more is not a problem.) Now that you've pinged the reviewer, things should start moving again. Incidentally, it looks like Yoninah and I went to change those ticks you've been using when you complete work on an issue—ticks that look like the DYK approval icon should never be used (and the same with the other standard DYK icons), as the bot misinterprets them as actual approval, which is bad. (People building prep sets might also misinterpret the icon, which would be worse.) Our edits crossed—mine was the later one—and I've reverted back to Yoninah's version on the template. BlueMoonset (talk

) 15:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

On "List of Songs in Glee," can you help us to understand the purpose of the "Version Covered" column? One would naturally assume it refers to the original author of the song, but based on our recent exchange over credit for "Make You Feel My Love" (Dylan or Adele?) it seems that isn't the case. But if this column isn't for the original author, who is it for? If you let this column represent someone else's cover, what are the criteria? What makes you think the Glee version of this song is a cover of Adele's cover rather than a cover of the original? Knowledge of the original author is a FACT, which is in keeping with Wikipedia values. OTOH, assuming that it might be a cover of Adele's cover, rather than of someone else's cover, is very subjective, and includes assumptions. Can we prove that it's a cover of Adele's cover? What is the rationale here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scot.hacker (talk • contribs) 07:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Scot.hacker, the column is called "Version Covered" because many songs have more than one version put out by different artists, sometimes even more than one version that is popular, and that are very different sounding. Sometimes it can be a slow version of a bright, fast song, an a cappella version of a song (for example, the John Legend version of "Rolling in the Deep"), a multi-voice version of a solo song (the Dixie Chicks cover of "Landslide"), and so on. In this case, it's Adele's version of the Dylan song, something confirmed in the Billboard review of the episode (here). Glee would frequently specify the version at the gleethemusic.com site; it's unfortunate that the site has been taken down now that show is off the air. So yes, we have a reliable source that states that this is Adele's cover of the Dylan song (which, as you can see from the "Make You Feel My Love" article, didn't even get its first released recording from Dylan, and which did its best on the charts as an Adele single); I've added the Billboard source to the List of Songs article. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I really appreciate your excellent and thoughtful post about the suggested GA backlog drive. I personally found almost the entire original post to be objectionable, but really did not want to engage in a tit-for-tat, and therefore held my fire. Your post addressed most of my issues better than if I had jumped into the fray - thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notice. Actually, I am keeping an eye on the nomination. There's really not much to do until it's allowed to run in June, and by that time the numbers in ALT1 will go up, so we're just watching and waiting. Yoninah (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah, it really needs to be approved by someone very soon, so it can be moved to that holding area. Right now, it's in limbo, and it really can't stay on the main list under February 24 for the next two months. At the moment, if I understand matters, ALT1 has an accurate number, and which will continue to be accurate, if perhaps not as large as could eventually be listed. (Mind, if there are other issues preventing approval, then they should be dealt with now.) If an update is desirable at the beginning of June, while it's in the special holding area, it can be done and confirmed at that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah, now that there's at least one non-numeric ALT, this really needs to be settled. I hope you'll be able to conclude the review. If you don't want to, please let me know and I'll call for a new reviewer. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I am continuing the review and am awaiting the nominator's response. Yoninah (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Your GA reviews were thorough and superb. The notes and suggestions you add, along with probing challenges, were useful not only in improving the two wiki articles, but possibly other articles that are not in GA review. Thanks. It has been a pleasure reading the mind behind the keyboard. @Doug Coldwell you too, appreciate the initiative and efforts of both of you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you for the clarification regarding rules and regulations regarding textual editing of comments. I removed your comment as I did not understand how you are disqualifying the reviewer, I did not see any rules on your suggested links regarding the eligibility of a reviewer other than them being a registered user and being acquainted with the GA review process. No where was a time or experience level indicated either on Wikipedia guidelines or elsewhere. Hence, considering it an act of vandalism I removed your comment. Thank you for writing on my personal talk space, in order to clarify. I do not appreciate however, that my page is coming under unnecessary edits, by you or by @charlesMRNA. I have reviewed this users edits and they seem to be only expansions of the pre-existing in text citations. Hence not changing neither the contextual references or the content. If this is true, I fail to see how you can reverse a GA decision without initiating a comment stream on the talk page indicating why and how the page deviates from being a GA prior to your reversal. Additionally, I would like to remove your comment from the pancreatic progenitor talk space and from my user talk space. Thank you for your time, I do not wish to be over-critical here, but just understand how you have reversed a GA. Having said that I would love for you to comment on how I can increase the quality of my article!!! Please feel free to let me know how to make it better. Thank you.

{Fahdq (talk)} 19:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:OWN

, one of Wikipedia's fundamental pillars. As it says on that page, Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone: there's no such thing as ownership. This is something you will have to get used to.

Regarding the GA "decision", I thought my note—the one you deleted and I restored—was quite clear: the reviewer was an IP user (129.171.6.13), and IP users are not allowed to review GA nominations, only registered users are. Hence, it was not a legitimate review, and however it had ended and however well it had followed the

GA criteria

, or even if it had been started and not ended, it would have had to be reversed. Your section header here is incorrect: this was definitely a proper and necessary GA reversal.

As the Pancreatic progenitor talk page is not your space—I pointed you to the relevant Wikipedia policies for article talk pages—my comments on that talk page cannot be removed. And, frankly, they need to stay in place: there needs to be an explanation of why the GA review conducted by 129.171.6.13 was not valid and why it was reversed. The explanation makes it clear that it was a process problem (an ineligible reviewer), rather than a problem with the article itself. Note that for your personal talk page at User talk:Fahdq, you can remove posts if you want, including mine, because it's your talk page. When you do remove a post from your talk page, it is assumed that you have read it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, by the term 'my page' I was referring to a page that I had majorly constructed, It is understood that any work done on Wikipedia is not anyone's ownership not yours not mine but the world's which is the purpose of my construction of the page. The page represents an empirical avenue of research which could impact diabetes (T1D) research. Again by 'my page' I meant a page I had constructed, now that you have a clear understanding of what I meant. Having said that I have changed the header to this comment, as GA reversal. Which is both accurate for this discussion as well as appropriate. That is as this thread represents a discussion relating to the GA reversal process. Additionally following the discussion we have had, I feel it is appropriate to leave your comments on both my and your talk space, and similarly mine. Additionally the question here is that the GA review was conducted in my understanding by the user @charlesMRNA, I was not aware that a unregistered user could even perform a review and submit it. Nevertheless, thank you for your clarification and time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahdq (talk • contribs) 13:22, 20 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Can you elaborate as to why that hook can't go into special holding?

Étienne Dolet, as it very clearly says at the top of the special holding section, it is not for hooks being nominated. You have to nominate it in the usual way and in the section for new nominations. Until your nomination is reviewed and approved, it cannot go into the special holding section. (Frankly, you don't want it to be put there: potential reviewers don't look in that section precisely because it should only have approved nominations.) It also says that that nominations should be submitted between five days and six weeks before the desired occasion date, which this is not; if you're lucky, your nomination could get reviewed and approved, moved into the special occasion, and then into a prep for the desired day despite such short notice. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk

) 07:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The review is done. We can put it in special holding now.

Étienne Dolet (talk

) 08:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Case in point: Talk:2015 Chicago Bears season/GA1. The article is about 265K in size, and has 276 references. The review was started at 20:14 UTC on one day, and completed at 10:44 UTC the next day - concurrent with 5 other GA reviews. On just that one article, with a count of references that high, the review would have taken me considerable time, but that's me. However, I did just run the External Links utility on the GA review page - and 12 reference links are dead (red) according to that utility, with another 11 marked in blue. Just that little stat appears to indicate that the review was haphazard, at least in my view.

Long story short: As you may have seen, my GA reviews tend to be closer to a FA review than is necessary - but I think quite a few GAs end up as FACs. Maybe I do too much, but I like doing it that way, and have received positive feedback on my methodology. If I had written the Bears article, I would not be very excited about it having passed after a cursory GA review.

Your thoughts? If you'd rather not touch this post with a 10-foot pole, I can understand that perfectly - but I feel better for having said my piece.

Thank you very much! Concertmusic (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Concertmusic, I've been watching the reviews, too, and I'm also one who digs down more deeply when I do a review—it's part of why I do GA reviews so infrequently, because for me it takes quite a long time to do the necessary checks of sources and for close paraphrasing, too. And, to be frank, I'd rather not pursue this at the moment.

That said, the reviews I've seen seem to be in the mold of the "quick-pass articles" he mentions in his GA backlog elimination drive proposal. Your case in point, Talk:2015 Chicago Bears season/GA1, was one of these. He even went so far as point out some admittedly minor issues that still meant the article fell short of GA, yet passed it anyway. It would have been easy enough to put the article on hold to get them fixed. He's also using a filled-out GA criteria template that not only doesn't change from review to review, but shows that there are problematic and unreviewed sections, which it shouldn't: everything should be green or it shouldn't be signed off.

I did just put a "lead too short" template on that particular article—which shouldn't have to be the case on a newly made GA, since

WP:LEAD, a required GA criterion, says that articles with over 30K prose characters (this is 100K) should have a lede that's three or four paragraphs, not two, and it should also cover the major sections of the article. I also made a factual correction to the lede. BlueMoonset (talk

) 02:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful note. C'est la vie - it won't change how I approach the process, and that process is not very tightly laid out, so there certainly is room for interpretation, which may be me being too kind. Thank you again! Concertmusic (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: Sam Allardyce was passed today. Not a bad article, but I am almost certain that the reviewer did not even read the whole thing, as there are a couple of pretty obvious typos after the Lead, which is the only section he commented upon. The process is being circumvented, I am afraid - but I have a feeling this is bigger than you and me. I will stay out of it from this point on - and am thinking of spending some time at FAC when I next have time, as the rule set there seems to be quite a bit tighter. This saddens me. Thank you for letting me vent here - please feel free to remove. --Concertmusic (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

On 27 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Caroline Trevor, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the contralto Caroline Trevor, who has been a member of The Tallis Scholars for over three decades, broke a tradition of nine centuries when she became a singer at St Paul's Cathedral? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Caroline Trevor. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Caroline Trevor), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

If you apply a speedy tag to a page which is transcluded, you must always clothe the speedy tag with <noinclude> </noinclude> otherwise you will cause the transcluding page/s to be sent to

Thanks for letting me know that, RHaworth. I've done this dozens of times thus far, and no one has ever mentioned the problem to me before. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I think I just came across a major copyvio at M. S. Ramaiah, an article currently up for deletion (discussion here). User:Webmaster.cg appears to have added a lot of promotional material to the article (a possible explanation for the promotional tone) from an online ad [1]. I thought it best to notify you, as a lot of blanking might follow and I am not very sure how to go about it. Thanks, Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 02:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Sainsf, when I find copyvio issues of the nature that would probably need blanking, I usually ask Moonriddengirl for assistance, since I'm not myself an administrator. She should be able to help you with this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, will remember that :) Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset. You commented about a nomination which I appreciate very much. Your concern is valid but I assure you that if all the nominations that precede that editor are seconded, it will be 14 weeks before the award is distributed. That should be more than enough time for the dust to settle. Buster Seven Talk 05:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset. As a novice reviewer, I have few doubts about reviewing GAs and am writing an essay for where your answers will be summarised. Would you kindly answer some questions I have regarding them in general? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'd say it won't happen again, but it's more honest to say I'll do my best to make sure it doesn't happen again. Red Fiona (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, when you swapped this hook from Prep 5 to Prep 4, you did not add the credit line. The hook appeared on the Main Page, but the nominator was not credited, and the DYK notice did not appear at

) 20:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Some yummy baklava for you!

Thank you for unclogging the DYK review of the Talk } 15:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Landcruisin'

Hello:

The second copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Landcruisin' has been completed.

You will notice that I have archived one of the article’s citations (#1). I suggest that you archive the rest of the article’s URLs as time allows. This ensures that the article's references are available "forever" and that it doesn’t develop “dead links” over time. The site I use is https://archive.org/web/. Simply copy the URL in the citation and paste it in the “Save Page Now” box on the archive.org site and click save. This creates a copy of the original page and provides you with a new URL to add to the original citation. If you look at the URL I've archived you'll see the syntax. You add the new URL to the end of the original citation like this: |archiveurl=http etc|archivedate=ll May 2015}}. Not all websites allow archiving - CBS TV news and the NY Times are two I've come across, so there's not much you can do about that unless there is an alternate citation you could use.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist, thank you. However, this was not my GOCE request, but Pedro's—I simply posted on it to point out that the requested copyedit, to the text, had not been done; Zppix merely respaced some en dashes and called it a copyedit. You'll want to let Pedro know about the above; I have no interest in the article beyond not wanting to see a request be thought to be complete when it really wasn't. Oddly enough, Zppix came over to GA that same day and started reviewing good article nominations for the first time; unfortunately, they've proven as superficial and inadequate as his GOCE copyedits, which is causing a great deal of trouble. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I will let Pedro know. Cheers - Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I recently edited the Dancing with the Stars main page to accurately state that Shawn Johnson was the youngest female celebrity winner. The article had previously stated that Johnson and Bindi Irwin were tied, and an invisible note stated that each was exactly 17 years, 4 months old when she won. While that's true, a month is not a standard measure of time -- and as it turns out, Johnson was three days younger than Irwin when she won. So I changed the page, and changed the invisible note as well to reflect the reason for my edit.

You reverted my edit, saying that it was overly specific. I do understand your point that including the number of days might be a bit too much, and I agree that it may have looked awkward. However, you reverted into an error. As a compromise between our positions, I have reverted back to my edit, but have removed the (121d) that I think may have been the reason for your revert. I left my invisible note in place to explain why Irwin is no longer mentioned with Johnson as the youngest female winners. I hope that this will be satisfactory to both of us. --2602:306:3730:E2C0:EC06:CAC1:7085:AC92 (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't expect it will be satisfactory, but I won't fight over what is effectively a piece of trivia. Bindi was younger when her time on the show started, since she competed for a week longer; both were still 17 years old (and four months) on the day of the finale when they won, though Shawn's months were shorter in the aggregate than Bindi's. Is that degree of precision meaningful? I don't think so. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you please tell what POV issues were here raised which I did not addressed? I can tell you for sure that nearly no specific issue was left unresolved and some editors just threw something to show their disagreement without trying to say what they meant or I would definitely address the raised points. I have participated many AFD till now and I can tell you that this one is another symptom showing how biased our approaches can be! --Mhhossein (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The reviewers were very clear that there were POV issues, and, for example, your edits after Stacey's last comment only reduced the amount of material used from Nuruzzaman, not the POV that one author represents. That would have been enough to close the nomination, given her review reiterating her earlier X and your responses, and I was prepared to do just that, but when checking the article directly I discovered the addition of the AfD and the cogent points raised there. The nomination's continuation was completely untenable in my view, and made its immediate closure the only responsible thing to do. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

And I addressed those clear points raised by reviewers as you see here (this was done much before the reduction edit). What other clear points were undone? no part, I think! Also please say which of he AFD issues are "cogent"? --Mhhossein (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

WT:DYK, but given what was written on the nomination template and now on the AfD nomination, I very much doubt such an appeal will succeed. Best of luck in whatever you decide. BlueMoonset (talk

) 05:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, any way. I may pursue the case as I really believe that the treatment towards my nomination was discriminatory. --Mhhossein (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I went ahead and tagged the duplicate DYK nomination for deletion. I didn't meant to create a duplicate. I was just trying to edit my original hook to include a link to the page. For future reference is there a way to edit the nomination once it is created? I may want to also add an additional hook in case the other hook does not meet the qualifications.

Thank you,

FPizzo (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

T:TDYK page, where you can see the nomination under the date you put it. If you click on the "Review or comment" link for your nomination, it will open the page for editing, and you can add additional hooks or respond to a reviewer or make a comment, whatever you need to do. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk

) 16:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Outhouse decoration

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		In recognition of your kindness and patience with Zppix despite their resentment. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK Nomination: Gender-based price discrimination

I received your message about my nomination. I already fixed the issue of not linking the page to the hook a few days ago. Please let me know if there are any other issues. FPizzo (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I just wanted to let you know that I've made a belated reply post to a question you posed about Billy the Kid's brother's birth at the article talk page. Also I've also noticed that you and some of the other editors are involved in trying to promote the article to GA, status. I'm a relatively new (about a year) editor, not really knowledgeable about the process and don't want to somehow ruin it for other editors. Since there seems to be a ticking clock before the review begins I've put a few links on my scribble page here to possibly useful sources that you might be helpful (and quicker) to you before I slowly get around to using them in coherent article Talk Page comments and edits.

Scratched link.

Libertybison (talk

) 06:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello again BlueMoonset - I'm very busy with work and have little time on weekdays to do anything but

Hello BlueMoonset, I have expanded my DYK nomination. Is it big enough to go on the main page? Cheers. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's been there a while. I gave a better justification and honestly don't know what to do here. Someone came along and tagged a bunch of my articles with really nitpicky justifications. No one else has agreed with these concerns. Toa Nidhiki05 15:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

J Milburn, can you please review the updated justification and comment on your concerns, if they remain, on the article's talk page? The DYK nomination is stranded so long as the non-free template is on the article, and this seems to be the only remaining issue. Thanks. Toa Nidhiki05, I'm not well versed on the ins and outs of NFCC, but I do know non-free usage rules are pretty strict, images and sound clips alike. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the rationale is still lacking. The "NA"s are not appropriate. I do not deny that the tagging could be described as nitpicking, but given that the article was and is at GAC, I don't consider it inappropriate; if the standards cannot be upheld at GAC, they can't be upheld anyway. If TN was genuinely at a loss about what to do about the template, he could have contacted me on my talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

J Milburn look at it again. I already contacted you earlier about these tags and your advice was not extremely helpful. Toa Nidhiki05 14:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! could you please have a look at this edit. I suspect copyvio. Moreover, user has cited unreliable sources to support his POV. Thank you. - Nimit (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have now responded to your last post here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Pashtun_colonization_of_northern_Afghanistan

Futurist110, finals are definitely more important here. Give them priority, and return when you can. Post an update if it looks to take longer than predicted. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, and will do! :)

talk

) 23:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Responded with a request for one more week of time to do this.

talk

) 01:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Responded with progress on my own part. Indeed, please respond to me whenever you are able to.

talk

) 01:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Responded with much more progress on my own part.

talk

) 21:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Everything for this DYK? nomination of mine now appears to be good to go!

talk

) 02:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Square Enix seems set for another look, let me know what you think when you get a chance! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, just checking in, still needs another look to see if we can close the GAR or if you have more notes. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you're on vacation, and otherwise doing well. If you are able, Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RFC:_A_bot_to_review_objective_criteria might be of interest to you. I think it's a very useful tool being developed. — Maile (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Maile, I had a bit of an unplanned absence, as where I was had problems accessing English Wikipedia. (Still not sure why.) Thanks for the pointer. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back from your brief absence. Modern technology is sometimes a deep, dark mysterious place where the answer is, "...nobody knows why it did that..." — Maile (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Very true, Maile, though at a week and a half, it wasn't exactly brief. As long as I have you here, though, there appears to be a missing space on Template:DYKSymbols2 in the DYKno explanation between the "with" and the subsequent DYKproblem template available for copy/paste. (The space is there for DYK? and DYK?no.) I'd fix it, but it requires an admin. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. You make a very good proof reader. — Maile (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I will be reinstating my edit, after explaining what it exactly does, and you understand the purpose of my edit. Look at the <noinclude> tags, which make sure the code I put in does not reach the main page. As far as I understand, DYKbot does not touch anything inside <noinclude> tags. What is important however, is to prevent formatting errors by stray HTML tags that should not be there, that do reach the main page and potentially cause damage to its formatting (especially the new main page). That alone trumps the need for consensus. This is merely a technical measure to catch such errors. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

WT:DYK page, explaining the problem and what's needed for the solution, especially if it needs to change the look of the preps and queues; perhaps a less obtrusive way to handle this will be proposed, or perhaps it will turn out that there is a consensus to add the border to preps and queues. As for DYKUpdateBot, I'm sure Shubinator will be happy to let you know whether the bot does indeed avoid everything in the noinclude tags, though I think you're probably right there. He might know whether stray HTML tags are checked for as well. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk

) 17:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

But the whole point is to have the border visible; how else would you spot an error with a mismatched div? And the border only shows on the separate queue pages themselves, not on on anything they are transcluded on. This is a technical measure to detect errors, and there is no other way. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK talk page what you are planning to do, why, and what the effects will be to what DYK users see, and be prepared to answer questions. Otherwise, there will doubtless be misunderstanding and confusion, if not alarm when something new and unexpected shows up on some pages but not others, and I would expect to see reverts beyond mine if you simply impose your own solution to a potential problem. Unannounced changes are never a good idea, especially when it's so easy to explain why a proposed change is advisable, and why sooner is better than later. BlueMoonset (talk

) 22:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

All right, I will. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, I had neglected to bookmark the page so I missed the feedback. It has been addressed.  MPJ-DK  00:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your updates and the note. Just to be sure, the subpage parameter is needed when the nomination name does not match the article title?  MPJ-DK  03:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Side note - I think I have nominated what I can, I will just save up the remaining QPQ for a future date. I stopped because everything left started to sound too same-same.  MPJ-DK  03:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• That's it exactly, MPJ-DK: the subpage name is required when the template page name after "Template:Did you know nominations/" does not match the article title exactly (including capitalization); there's nothing wrong with having the subpage parameter and the article title match, but if the article title doesn't match the nomination page's final field, DYK credits can't be given by the bot without the subpage parameter. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

There's something missing from the character table in the article from the haves and the have nots. In the "cast and character" section. The thing wrong is that "seasons" should be written above the number of seasons but it isn't. Fix it please. I only have a phone to edit with for the time being. Thanks if u can! 👍 Zhyboo (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Zhyboo, what article are you talking about, and what do you mean by "have and have nots table of characters"? I'm afraid I can't help you without that information. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The article for the TV series itself Zhyboo (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Not the play, if that's what you're confused about Zhyboo (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Zhyboo, what TV series? What play? I cannot do anything without a link to the article you're referring to. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Haves and the Have nots (TV series) Zhyboo (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Haves and the Have Nots (TV series) Zhyboo (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Haves and the Have Nots (TV series) Zhyboo (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

[[The Haves and the Have nots (TV series) please respond back with news that you've fixed the table! Zhyboo (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Haves and the Have nots (TV series) Zhyboo (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Haves and the Have Nots (TV series) Zhyboo (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hellooooooo???? Okay, you were just responding to me! Now you're ignoring me! I sent you the link!: The Haves and the Have Nots (TV series). People always forget to respond Zhyboo (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Zhyboo, the table header has been adjusted and I hope it's what you wanted, for it's the last time I'll be responding to a request from you. I have other things going on and your repetitive posting and excessive impatience is not appropriate, especially when you were asking for help from someone who has nothing to do with the article in question. I suggest you try asking at the Teahouse in future. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't impatient it's just a lot of Wiki users I leave messages to don't ever really respond which makes me feel stressed and worried, so please don't stop responding to me. :-( Zhyboo (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if I seemed impatient and kept repeatedly sending the same thing, it's just that no one really responds to me on time and it makes me feel disappointed, so you don't have to stop responding, really I'm lucky that you even respond on time to me Zhyboo (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Please say something, I'm very sorry Zhyboo (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

So do you think this article is all set? I fixed all the different things that were brought up, let me know if there any others; I'd like to get this GAR behind me. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Judgesurreal777, I'm very sorry it's taken so long. I'm hoping to be able to get to it tomorrow, but it may take me another week or so. I'm not a fast reviewer. Given the good work you've done so far, I can't imagine this won't eventually close with the GA listing intact. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality takes time they say :) Thanks for the update, I'll be here whenever you're ready. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, reminding you about Square Enix. I think it is at a good enough point now to just close the review, it is a dramatically different, and better article now that it has doubled its RS's, been entirely re-written and had several pairs of eyes look at it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Judgesurreal777, thank you for your patience. I'm so sorry that it took me so long to complete another pass at the review. I've copyedited the article, and added more items to the reassessment page. Please let me know there if you have any questions. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you please add back the notes showing which episode the main characters appear in and which they don't. I apologized for seeking impatient, and I really need help to edit things I can't, I don't even recognize that link you gave me to help editors, just please revert the edit, please, it's good to have those notes. 😕😞 Zhyboo (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, Zhyboo: those notes are excessive detail and neither appropriate nor necessary to an encyclopedia article, which is what Wikipedia articles are. It's the sort of extremely detailed information that would be available on a specialty wikia, like the Glee wikia. If you have need of that level of detail, you can go to such wikias for it, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

An anonymous users removed Cassandra July, Brody western, bree, Elliott stepchild, maribel lopez and dani from the recurring table, which doesn't make sense, add them back please, they were all recurring guest stars. Zhyboo (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Zhyboo, I want to make this very clear: I am not here to do edits for you at your request. I was happy to help you out a couple of times, but you need to do your own edits, and learn to discuss matters on the article talk pages if there are disagreements. As for the table, it says it is for recurring guest stars who appeared in more than one season. So far as I know, with the exception of Maribel Lopez, all of the other recurring characters only appeared during a single season, so based on what the table says—though it isn't fully consistent in this regard—the others do not belong in the list. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but anyway someone removed the rule stating that theyre only listed if appearing in more than one season Zhyboo (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello BlueMoon: Thanks for your note re the reassessment of Thanksgiving Orphans. This is the first time I have instigated a reassessment. I edit requests as a member of the GOCE and I'm often appalled at the grammar of some articles which have received Good Article status. This one was the worst example I've encountered so far which is why I started this process. The article now meets what I feel is Good Article grammar so I have removed the reassessment tag. I also added an Article History template as instructed but it does not appear on the article's talk page. Would you mind checking to make sure I have done what is required? I would appreciate it. After I started this process, I stumbled across the fact that there are regular contests for editors to assess Good Article candidates; this explains a lot! Cheers and thanks again. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist, I'm glad you opened this reassessment, because the article was in very rough shape, and fear that this will be far from the only listed article reviewed by one of the competitors in the recent GA Cup to have been far from GA quality. (WikiCup GA reviews also carry some points, but few enough that I don't expect the kind of issues as there would be from the GA Cup.

I have to ask, though: did you read my comments about where I felt the article fell short of

GA criteria

before you ended the reassessment? Grammar, while very important, is only a part of one of six criteria, and articles are supposed to meet all of the criteria to remain GAs. I realize now you're inexperienced in this area, but even so I have to confess I'm very disappointed that you did not discuss the broadness criterion that I raised more than once in your closing comment, and I'm still unhappy about the second paragraph in Production, which is still not "clear and concise", and which I specifically mentioned in my most recent comment. However, it is not worth pulling the article back into a new reassessment at this point, so I'll fix up the most egregious remaining problems. If you are going to use the GAR process again, however, please be prepared to address more than just grammar, acquaint yourself with all the GA criteria, and if someone mentions issues with them, at least explain why you think they aren't issues before ending the reassessment. When you open a GAR, you are effectively doing a full GA review, and determining whether the article meets all the criteria. That didn't happen this time, but I expect that it will the next time out.

The Article History template isn't just a bare template, it needs to be filled out; there are many fields, and it needs to cover all the reviews and reassessments. I'll take care of it in a little while. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my inexperience is no excuse for not reviewing all the criteria. I've spent way more time on this than it deserves so I appreciate you fixing what I have overlooked. Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I dont know how to do this, I give up (also in 2013 they rejected my nominations [2]). Thx for help, but my english is bad, and its too complicated. Cheers.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I know this sounds daft, but what makes a source reliable? I had a dream last night that someone had added a page of my website, http://www.launchballer.com/reviews/2016-07-01, as a source to M.I.L.F. $#Critical reception.--Launchballer 11:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS. It also talks about what sorts of information primary sources can be used for, and what needs secondary sources (and what they are). Good editorial fact-checking is certainly expected. BlueMoonset (talk

) 15:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, very sorry about not responding. Ya, been pretty active but only at times I can and only really doing necessary edits like updates and stuff. As for the GA, ya, I will abandon it for now unless someone else (like you) would like to do it. I am not that experienced when it comes to reviewing and due to the amount of time I have and the new constant updating of things in the lead up to the ISL season I will not be able to do the review. Sorry for not getting back to you on time. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, ArsenalFan700. I've made arrangements to have the review page deleted, so when another reviewer comes along who wants to take on the nomination, they can. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Since I've submitted about four DYK nominations, I thought it would be time for me to help out a bit. I've read everything I could find on the process but it still remains a bit fuzzy for me. Any suggestions on how to ease into the reviewer's role? Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

How did you spot that the review was not genuine? I was floored that I got a response within hours of nominating it! Anyway the comments posted were actually incorrect - and have been responded to. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael Goodyear, it was Bluerasberry removing his/her name from the "Reviewer" line on the review page. That's a line that's used by the bot to determine the name of the reviewer (including links to user and talk pages, plus the date the review was opened), and that removal caused the bot to change the reviewer name to "Example", because it couldn't parse out a name there—a sure sign that something was amiss.

I'm hoping the review page will be speedily deleted in the next several hours; there's one bit of cleanup left to do that can't be done until the review page has been deleted, and then all will be set for a new reviewer. It could be weeks or months before that reviewer comes along, though I hope you won't have to wait too long. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Its a he with a hamster. Thankyou for being proactive on this. :) --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't know what's going on, but it seems to me you are often more knowledgeable about the background mechanics of DYK: 1, 2. I wasn't logged in when you pinged me about empty queues yesterday, sorry about that. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how to fix this: Template:Did you know nominations/Southwest Airlines Flight 345. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah, I'll have a go at it in a bit. I think I can fix it. I have some stuff to do, but should be able to get it into shape in the next couple of hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for formatting it correctly!!!! Usernamen1 (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You mean articles can qualify for DYK by achieving GA status? Really?

Usernamen1 (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes,

WP:DYK#Eligibility criteria 1g. Of course, with over 300 unreviewed GA nominations, it can take up to a few months for a nomination to get reviewed, so it might take a while. BlueMoonset (talk

) 03:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Hope you are well and enjoying the summer. Would you please check if Gautama Maharishi was ever reviewed for GA. I am unable to locate a review page, and the article currently is unsourced, loaded with OR and in such a bad shape that I cannot believe it is a good article! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

ps: Likely vandalism. See. Would appreciate your check. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, it was clearly added by someone who either didn't know what it meant, or was trying to slip one over. Either way, I've removed it. Thanks for noticing! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I nominated a DYK to appear on Aug 14 – the date of the London meetup, which takes place at that location, by the Great Turnstile. The nomination was in the special holding area but didn't seem to have been prepared for that date so I added it myself to prep 3 just now. I've not done this before and so am not sure I did all the steps correctly so please could you check and let me know of any issues. With this experience, I might then become more active in helping to build preps. It seems quite an elaborate process, keeping the DYK millstone turning. Many thanks for all your efforts in doing this. Andrew D. (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook for full instructions.) I'm putting a note on the DYK talk page pointing out that the hook will need to go into Prep 3 if it's going to run on time; that ought to do the trick. (This extends to modifying hooks in prep: nominators should not modify their own nominated hooks, but ask for assistance.) BlueMoonset (talk

) 16:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Checking on the current status of this, I see that the hook has been modified and the nomination has been edited as if I had proposed this hook originally. This ALT version actually seems to be Yoninah's and the record should show this more clearly. I still prefer the original hook and would ordinarily revert such a change but you say I shouldn't. This doesn't seem right. If a hook has been approved by a reviewer, then it's other people that should not be changing it. Andrew D. (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

WT:DYK, and be sure to explain why the original version was preferable. At this point, it will require an admin to make any changes, as the set has been promoted to Queue 3. BlueMoonset (talk

) 23:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it's those extra words in italics which spoil the hook. They weren't trimmed – they were bloated which is especially egregious because it interrupts the flow of the hook sentence in a non-standard way. And what's outrageous is that this has been retrofitted into the nomination as if I was responsible for this. When people are getting so worked up about hook errors, there should be a clear record of ALTs to provide proper accountability. The ordinary edit history isn't good enough because there's so much cut/paste as the text goes from nom to prep to queue to the final template. Andrew D. (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• The meetup event went off quite well with the hook being scheduled at the perfect time and getting good attention and comment. The social media guy from WMUK took a bunch of photos of the party in the turnstile and so we should have a good record of it. Here's a snap that I took myself. Thanks for your help in getting this done. Andrew D. (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello:

The "copy edit" (actually a rewrite) requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article 2013–14 Vancouver Canucks season has been completed.

I do not know how to reduce the white space between the lead and the body of the article and have left a note to that effect on the GOCE page.

I think that the article probably meets GA requirements now, but I'll leave that to others to determine.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist, thank you so much for your hard work!

Taking a quick look, I see that the article does not meet some of the other GA criteria at the moment; in particular, there are some unsourced and undersourced paragraphs, which will need inline citations added if the Verifiability criterion is to be met. (I didn't check further to see whether there might have been other issues.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

From the looks of it, yeah the best option would be a community reassessment (I did a skim and get where the concerns come from). I forgot they split that a few years ago (for the life of me can't remember why), and the fragmenting seemed pointless because we ended up with this exact issue. If you have any more I'll do my best to look them over. Wizardman 13:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Wizardman, I very much like the individual reassessment option myself. I've used it a few times now, all when a truly egregious GA review was done that listed an article that blatantly failed the GA criteria. It means that I could conduct what amounted to a new GA review myself, and when the original nominator didn't bother to do the needed edits, or gave up halfway through, the article could be delisted in a timely fashion, while if they did the necessary work, the article could retain its status, but this time have deserved it. Community reassessments these days take several months to drag on to a conclusion; almost no one participates. I've just opened the David Meerman Scott as a community reassessment. It will probably take until the end of the year, but at least it will eventually be concluded.

If you want to look at another, how about Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/GA2? The initial statement from July 2013 was troubling; "GAs should have neither unsourced information nor primary sources" goes a bit beyond what the GA criteria say. However, there are clear sourcing issues with the article, as the subsequent replies note, and they don't seem to have improved much in the interim based on what I saw. In this case, the user who opened the reassessment is still around, even though it wasn't a very complete one, and I haven't pinged him or her. What do you suggest here? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on this - I don't know how to progress it further. Please feel free to do this yourself. It patently hasn't been a good article since most of the content was split off to the Olympic team article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Jmorrison230582. I've just resumed the reassessment, and notified the relevant WikiProjects. I didn't see any particularly active editor that I could notify; you seemed to be the most frequent editor. I don't know whether there will be any response from any WikiProject editors; if someone does come along and does significant work on the article, I will probably want your feedback as to whether the resulting article is sufficiently broad as to meet the GA criteria, since I know nothing about the topic. I hope that won't be a problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Why did you mark your revert of my edit on Template:Did you know/Clear minor? Pppery (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought plain reverts were typically thought of as minor edits, though I don't always remember to click the "minor" box when I do them. (Twinkle typically tags my reverts as minor without asking.) It in no way meant that I thought you'd made a minor change. Checking now, I see that "minor" should only be used for such reversions if vandalism was involved, which this certainly wasn't: I apologize for the error. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Belated "ping", Pppery; I didn't mean to post this without notifying you. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do what I can. I've been away from Wikipedia for a few days because of health issues, so it might take me a bit to research this. Thanks for bearing with me. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Tenebrae. This has waited for quite a while; waiting a little while longer until you're recovered and back on your feet won't hurt anything. I appreciate your being willing to work on it again. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)