User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 9

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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

Thinks for the comment that I couldn't put the article on hold for GA. I did not know that. I withdrew the nomination for now. I think that is better then a quick fail. Casprings (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Long-tailed Widowbird/GA1

At this point, any of those assignments should be failed, since it looks like all of those users stopped editing. Some of them got close to GA status, but this is why I hate students having to go to GAN, they almost never stay after the class is done to fix the issues. Wizardman 17:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do so for the ones where the reviewer was also a student, and let the various reviewers know in the other ones. There are actually a couple of users who have stayed around and edited in the new year, so I'm not worried about those ones. I agree about student classes and GAN... BlueMoonset (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Live While We're Young/GA1

I pinged the user two days ago like you suggested and he seems to be taking a wikibreak for academic reasons. I was wondering if you could send the nomination back in the pool so it can get picked up by another reviewer. Regards — Robin (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. It should show up as no longer under review in the next ten minutes or so. Hope it finds a new reviewer soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. — Robin (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Episode citations

Hellow. Where can I find Glee episode citations for the fourth season? Regards — Robin (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Robin, they're on the

WP:Glee page in the bottom "See also" area, Resources section. The second line has a link to episode citations, which include all 76 episodes to date: the first three seasons (66 in all) and the broadcast episodes of the fourth season (ten so far). BlueMoonset (talk

) 22:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! — Robin (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK - QPQ reviews

Hi BlueMoonset, I hope you don't mind me contacting you but I have a very minor query about QPQ DYK reviews and it looks as if you are the 'go to' person about DYK information, so here I am! My question is: if someone has come along after a nomination has been reviewed and simply suggests a one word change to the hook, would the person who made the single word alteration then be entitled to claim it as their QPQ review?

I hasten to add I'm not chasing after getting DYKs, I had simply enjoyed reviewing a few of the nominations. I admit I'm probably not very accomplished at it - in fact, I made a horrendous error with one query I raised but, thankfully, the editor concerned was remarkably understanding about it.

I had just thought if I reviewed some of the easier articles, at least until I built up more experience in reviewing them, it would mean the more established/experienced DYK editors would be free to concentrate on some of the older, possibly more contentious nominations?

Please accept my apologies for troubling you as I realise you are very busy but it's something that's really niggling me! Best regards,

SagaciousPhil - Chat

16:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sagaciousphil, welcome to DYK! I think most of us, when we're starting out as DYK reviewers—something we have to do if we submit our sixth DYK article nomination whether we feel we're ready or not—look for the easier submissions to review. It's perfectly natural to do when you're learning the ropes: I did it myself starting out. Even experienced reviewers like the easy one once in a while. It takes a while to learn the ins and outs.

If the main review has already been done, and someone spots a one-word change to make in the hook just by reading it—grammar, or improved flow—then I'd be dubious about a quid pro quo claim, as these should be significant review involved. If the change required some research—the word they changed was inaccurate, and the article and its sources had to be checked in order to properly make the fix, which turned out to be possible with a single word change—then a QPQ credit might be appropriate.

I've actually not been around DYK all that long—my first submissions were in fall 2011, and my work on prep sets not until late spring 2012, so compared to many I'm still a bit of a newbie: I have my own "go to" people when things get knotty. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for such a prompt response! As far as I can tell, it looks as if it was just a suggestion to add the word 'written' into the hook to resolve a touch of ambiguity in the hook, which admittedly I hadn't noticed. Would it be appropriate for me to put a gentle comment on the nomination where it's claimed as the QPQ? The successive nomination has now also been reviewed and the QPQ accepted by the reviewer on that article as well, which is why I thought it might have been acceptable. Maybe it would be easier if I just tell you I had reviewed and passed this nomination [1] and it was claimed as a QPQ here [2]. I try to avoid getting into conflict with anyone, especially for such a minor niggle that was possibly an oversight anyway!

SagaciousPhil - Chat

16:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Keeping the ball rolling

This[3] is reasonable enough. Part of the reason I archived the old text was because I noticed that, whenever there is a lot of text, third parties are more reluctant to get involved. They just assume there's some intractable controversy and don't want to come down on either side of it, and then nothing gets done. And when nothing gets done, the disruptive or obstructionist editor achieves their aim by default. So I didn't want to wall of text to derail the review process. Do you think it'd be possible to ask someone experienced with the process to review the nomination? Better yet, since you've read the article, maybe you could review? TheBlueCanoe 02:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It is possible to ask. In another day or two the nomination will be two weeks old; once they get to be that old I list all the ones needing review on the

WT:DYK page (there's one there near the bottom of the page. Even so, reviewers who aren't experienced will tend to shy away. I can ask someone uninvolved if you'd like me to. BlueMoonset (talk

) 02:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this earlier. It would be nice if you could ask someone to take a look at it (and not to get bogged down in the filibuster). Thanks for your work on DYKs! TheBlueCanoe 13:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've effectively done that today with one of my periodic "old articles need new reviews" posts on

WT:DYK; this is one of those listed, which gives it a good chance of finding a new reviewer soon. BlueMoonset (talk

) 16:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate it, and hope someone bold can step in to tackle it soon ;) Just a couple house after you posted that, a relatively new account picked up right where Shrigley left off, seeming to try to start more instability on the page by making the exact same edits as Shrigley did (changes that aren't supported by the sources). I suspect the two accounts are connected, and both seem to have a bit of a tendency to try to whitewash criticisms of the Chinese government. Not really sure what to do about this, but if you have any suggestions, that'd be great. It's a bit hard not to suspect foul play at this point. TheBlueCanoe 03:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

TB

Consider this to be a shiny talkback —

²¹

02:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I left you a note there as well, with a link to the (informal) CCI-- MRG has indicated we could move it to CCI space if issues continue to crop up. They are not only in Spanish. User:Moonriddengirl/DivaKnockouts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Roupala montana

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks, and done. Guettarda (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Some people don't find out about the change until it affects them. Actually, TonyTheTiger himself only found about it a short while ago himself, which is probably why he didn't know to ask you for the additional reviews earlier. I've just re-approved the nomination now that you've completed the additional QPQ reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Naked (Glee)

DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs

I am at university and don't always have the time to do things, if I say I'll do something, I'll do it. Not that I should have to explain myself to you. But whatever.  — AARON • ^TALK 17:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Aaron, DYK is about new content. There is an expectation that work is actively being done to address problems identified in a review. In this case, we had an article that had significant issues identified, that had been given an extra chance after a late nomination, and an editor who had said that he would work on it. I looked at your edit history, and you had hundreds of edits over the 12+ days since you said you'd do something, but none of them were on the article. The usual expectation is that work will be done—or at least commence, or a request be made for more time—within a week, especially if the person has been active. It's up to you to keep track of your nominations and let us know if there's going to be a delay. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Pl refer to the DYK review note placed on the User's page of the creator of the above referred article. He has not responded. As the first reviewer of the article, I have added text to the article from the given references and hope that it satisfies the 5x requirement. Earlier, I counted the text under bullets since they are not in a table format. In case you are not satisfied then I will review another article to meet the QPQ requirements. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 06:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I put the DYK review notice there. We usually give a week, but the creator seems to have gone mostly inactive, and today removed the various India-related boxes from his user page. I wouldn't expect him to be pursing the article or the nomination any further.

About the review, the DYK instructions about what counts are as follows: "Prose character count excludes wiki markup, templates, lists, tables, and references". So bulleted lists should not be counted. You might want to use one of the available tools like

DYKcheck, since it does a number of other checks in addition to prose character count. My problem with the review as a whole was that the article didn't seem to be up to DYK quality standards, didn't qualify in terms of size, and had a very boring hook. (You still need to come up with a new hook for the nomination.) I actually do think that you should review another article. Please be sure to explain what was checked. It only takes an extra minute, and makes things much easier for the person promoting the article to a prep set. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk

) 16:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can you see if Template:Did you know nominations/Mount Jackson (Antarctica) is now OK? Also if I remove most of the unsourced content from Bandar Seri Begawan and start from scratch, would you be willing to accept it as a 5 times nom from the point of restarting?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Mount Jackson's a lead hook, so someone did approve of it while I was still away. As for Bandar Seri Begawan, it isn't up to me. The article has over 9000 prose characters at the moment, and that's going to be the basis of the expansion. The DYK rules are quite inflexible about this (

WP:DYKSG#A4): unless the unsourced content is actually copyvio, it counts as pre-existing prose. Whoever reviewed the article would come to the same conclusion. BlueMoonset (talk

) 15:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I am sorry to bother you, but could you please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Frances Vane, Viscountess Vane and tell me if there is anything else I should fix? It is getting a bit stale just standing there and I believe all issues have been addressed. Also, the portrait of Lady Fanny would be a nice addition to the main page. Thanks. Surtsicna (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just put up one of my periodic "old articles need new reviews" posts on

WT:DYK, and this is one of those featured, so I'm hoping it will find a new reviewer soon. (I don't know why, but ones near the bottom tend to find reviewers more quickly than the older ones on the list.) I agree with you on the portrait: it's one I've had my eye on. BlueMoonset (talk

) 16:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for acting so quickly. I have to admit that I too tend to review articles near the bottom much more often than the older ones. I suppose people (myself included) wish to avoid nominations which have been waiting for a long time, perhaps assuming that there is a good reason for the waiting. Surtsicna (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the article about pretty Lady Fanny finally found its reviewer. On a side note, I've started paying more attention to the articles you list as stale. In fact, I've only been reviewing those lately. Surtsicna (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see that Lady Fanny was chosen for a lead hook, even if I didn't get to be the one to choose it. I'm always happy when people choose one of the aging nominations to review: sometimes they're tough nuts, but as often as not they just look busy because it took a while to hone in on a decent hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you either a) ticked this or b) pinged it for rereview. My rewrite was a bit too indepth for me to give it a tick. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, but probably not what you hoped: I couldn't approve it based on misleading article text (misrepresenting the source, in my opinion). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, you were right to do that. I hadn't gone into the sources while copyediting (except for the hook fact) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please review the article

Re your message on my page. Feel free not to pass this DYK. I'm busy in real life and if 1500 characters isn't enough on the discretion of the reviewer then so be it! Francium12 (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, I'm going to be more or less out of touch this weekend (especially Monday) so another admin will have to deal with the queues. I see Cas has been doing it. I'll try and get a couple preps fired up — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Hope you have a good time over the next couple of days. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I recently added a list of records of boxing matches for Garbis Zakaryan. It was 10,000+ characters. Is it possible that it can be nominated for DYK? Let me know. Thanks.Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The requirement is that articles must have at least 1500 prose characters, which excludes tables and lists and the like. As it stands, the article only has about 1200 prose characters, so it isn't eligible at the present time. More prose would need to be written. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have looked into it more. The article, as of December, had 685 characters ignoring the bare links at the bottom. This would require a 5x expansion, since the article was a pre-existing one, which would require at least 3425 characters. This simply doesn't seem to be viable under the circumstances. Unfortunately, adding the boxing match records doesn't count as prose: they're all tables, which are excluded for the purposes of DYK. I think it's very unlikely that the article will qualify, absent a truly heroic expansion of the prose: I'm sorry. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Just checking. Thank you! Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I was wondering if you could take a quick look at something for me? As a veteran DYK editor could you look at the hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Gary Suter and make sure it it is okay? IMO it should be fine, but I think it might be on the line of the technical rules, everything else is in order for this DYK and I didn't want for this question on my end to be holding up approval. A detail question about the hook is on the nom page. Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look over that hook. I appreciate the help and the quickness of the response. Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've signed off the last Gibraltar-related DYK nomination in the queue - Template:Did you know nominations/Political development in modern Gibraltar. It's also by far the oldest approved DYK that has not yet been run (submitted 26 October 2012!) so I'm sure the author would appreciate it getting put in a queue reasonably soon. Thanks for your help with these DYKs over the last few months. Prioryman (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad it's over for now. The hook has been promoted and is in Prep 1; I had to run Reflinks on the article to fix up a bare ref, and while it doesn't hold anything up, it could use more ref consolidation: there are still a number of identical single refs that could stand to be grouped. I'll keep my eye open for any new submissions, should any be made while the restrictions remain. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go at grouping the single refs. Thanks for pointing that out. Prioryman (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, sorry to bother you again but if you get the chance, please could you have a quick look at Fulmar (1868) DYK nomination? Is it acceptable that readers would have to go to the reference, work out there are six ships wrecked in Kilkee and then look at each of the entries to find that yes, four of the six resulted in a loss of life? This is to support the hook. I know a certain amount of basic arithmetic is allowed but my gut feeling is this is a bit of a stretch......or am I just being overly pedantic?

Also, am I quite right in asking for a QPQ when five DYK credits are already shown on the nominators talk page; four of the five are def self noms but I cannot ascertain who nominated the first DYK for

SagaciousPhil, I was able to find Edmond (1833), which originally had a different name—Edmond (ship)—and is why you couldn't find it: ShaneMc2010 was the nominator and creator, so it definitely counts as one of the five. A QPQ definitely seems to be in order. As for the hook fact, if it's going to claim that Fulmar is one of four with loss of life, he needs a secondary source that says that. It isn't enough to point at this site, for the six ships, and say that four did have loss of life, without preferably providing a reliable source that directly says that four did, or if that is not available, sourcing each of the six individually (with the sources being specific about loss of life) would have to be done. I'll stop by Fulmar and comment along these lines. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for such a fast response! I'm just sitting trying to see if there is a different hook that might be used instead as (other than the necessity to do a QPQ), everything else seems fine.

SagaciousPhil - Chat

16:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Funny, I was in the middle of my comment (just posted) which suggested going for the 50 years to the day between Intrinsic and Fulmar sinkings for the hook, since it avoids the necessity of having to source the four fatal shipwrecks (and the two non-fatal ones, since you need to demonstrate that it's exactly four). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, again - I'll try not to keep pestering you but until I get more into the hang of reviewing the articles, I always think it's safer to ask. As I'm not drastically into knocking up numbers of DYK's, I'll tend to review more than nominate though!

SagaciousPhil - Chat

17:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I find I am experiencing a strong psychological block that is preventing me from finalising Gabrielle Krauss's and Manuel Quiroga's DYK noms. I've moved on to newer projects and it's hard for me to go back. I put a lot of myself into every article I write, and after that it's the world's property and no longer mine. I guess what I should have done is to withdraw the noms myself, but I've been hoping I can overcome this barrier and get them done. No such luck, so far.

Please do what you have to do. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have now fixed everything that you have previously asked me to fix here --

• I've also responded to your comments there. I apologize if you're frustrated with my less-than-thorough review of the article; I'm very new to reviewing DYKs and am only just beginning to learn the ropes of the place. I'm not very seasoned in picking up issues with
  original research yet. Kurtis ^(talk)
  00:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have already responded to both of you guys (in one response) right now for this DYK? nomination. Please check on my latest response whenever you will have a minute. Thank you.

talk

) 01:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, could you please respond to my comments on this DYK? nomination of mine --

talk

) 02:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have now responded to you yet again, BlueMoonset.

talk

) 07:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please check out my latest response whenever you'll have the time. Thank you very much.

talk

) 21:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for all the contributions you do at DYK, and on Wikipedia as a whole. You are a great asset for us! — 21 21:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Hahc21. I'm actually pretty tired at the moment ;-), and the kudos were most welcome. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You deserve all of these and more for your efforts and patience! I couldn't work out exactly which Barnstar I wanted to give you, so have given you a handful to go some of the way towards reflecting all the work you do! SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
	Tireless	Random smiley	Kindness	Diligence

Thank you very much, Sagaciousphil. You're very kind, especially giving a multi! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

On da house! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr. Blofeld. Much appreciated. Ahhh! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset (or talk-page stalker). I am a returning DYK reviewer who recently began helping to review DYK nominations again after a two-year or so break. Are you the right person to ask whether or not my recent reviews (listed below, latest to oldest) are fair, too harsh or too soft? If you are busy then please consider referring me to another experienced DYK reviewer ...

1. Template:Did you know nominations/The Hole (Scientology)
2. Template:Did you know nominations/Vamos A Celebrar
3. Template:Did you know nominations/Childhood cancer
4. Template:Did you know nominations/Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2011
5. Template:Did you know nominations/Dickie Dodds
6. Template:Did you know nominations/Albert Stevens
7. Template:Did you know nominations/K-140 (Kansas highway)
8. Template:Did you know nominations/Symbister, Symbister House
9. Template:Did you know nominations/1 kroon coin (1934)
10. Template:Did you know nominations/Saeed Abedini
11. Template:Did you know nominations/P. Shilu Ao
12. Template:Did you know nominations/Pobre Corazón
13. Template:Did you know nominations/Dockwise Vanguard
14. Template:Did you know nominations/Émile Mayade
15. Template:Did you know nominations/Heuristics in judgment and decision making

--Senra (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Senra, you might want to ask someone who has been around longer than I have: I've only been active on DYK for about nine months, and I don't know what reviewing was like back when you were here last. Also, while I'm active on the lists, I don't do very many full reviews myself: I'm more active in making sure nominations get reviewers and in promoted approved hooks to the prep areas. Someone like Crisco 1492, who's been around longer than I have (and is also an admin, although that's not necessary) would be a better judge of the review level than I. Good to see you reviewing! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I'd have to recuse myself from at least 3 of these as I weighed in there too. Without opening the noms (in a bit of a rush), Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2011 seems like a questionable case as Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2010 exists and, by the title, would have the same scope. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(Erm.

Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2011 is actually a redirect to Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2010) It really would be great if you would give the list a once over Crisco 1492 but to be clear, I am not asking for you to weigh in and review any of these in any way. I am asking if you would review my, er, reviews. I am looking for the three-bears treatment. Have my reviews (in general or specifically) been too critical, not critical enough or just right? No rush. If you are busy it can certainly wait and thank you in advance --Senra (talk

) 23:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I should probably point out that on the

WT:DYK page's "old review" section, when you do a review but decide that it needs another reviewer, you should not strike through that particular link. Struck-through links means that it isn't ready for a reviewer; plain links means that a reviewer is currently needed. I've clarified that point in the text, and unstruck ones that need further review. BlueMoonset (talk

) 06:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, Template:Did you know nominations/Childhood cancer is right on the money (you just closed it, so not really that much to weigh in on). Template:Did you know nominations/Dickie Dodds too. Template:Did you know nominations/Albert Stevens is fine. I agree with your comments on Template:Did you know nominations/1 kroon coin (1934) and Template:Did you know nominations/Albert Stevens as well. In short, it looks like you are doing a good job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• I am encouraged by all the feedback above so thank you both for spending your time looking into this. I really appreciate it --Senra (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for promoting Carnival of Huejotzingo!Thelmadatter (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Interesting article and great image. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I've responded to your concerns about the St. Ouen F.C. DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you restore the green tick? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Done some more on it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Done what you asked for in rewording the training pitch and reffing the honours. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And again.... The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Should be all set now. Thanks for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see things have stalled at Template:Did you know nominations/Rio Grande da Serra - but I still don't think I can pass it with the photo that has been submitted, and the inadequate sourcing on the hook. To be honest, I don't know what to do now - can I just say "No"? StAnselm (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you can flunk it out of hand, but you can use the icon if you think it's that problematic, and let them work to fix matters. The Google translation of the hook source is: "In the late 70s, the Quarry finished its activities. Today is considered the largest in Latin America, forming a wall of more than 640 meters long and 70 meters high, very used to practice climbing and abseiling." It's a government site, and a tourism PDF put out by them. My thought is that the safe wording would be that the local government claims it's the largest in Latin America; otherwise, "considered" leaves you to wonder by whom and on what basis. While "reported" is better than "reputed" for the hook, it doesn't help much in my eye if the article retains "reputed", and I'm not so enthusiastic about "reported" when it's the local government saying so to attract tourists.

As for the image,

WP:DYK says a DYK image must be "suitable, attractive, and interesting at a 100 × 100 px resolution", and I have to say that I don't think this one is attractive or interesting at 100 x 100 px, and doesn't look like town or quarry (I think I'd require "town pictured" rather than just "pictured" in the hook if it were good, because the hook context at that point is still the quarry). It is not attractive at regular size: it's far too fuzzy for that, and you can't see much of the town. If that's the only picture they can find, then I think you can say it isn't acceptable quality for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk

) 00:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help. I've gone with . StAnselm (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I had nominated Bhadra Fort at DYK and is currently in prep area. Template:Did you know nominations/Bhadra Fort
I had a question that, why it will not appear with image as a lead (first) DYK fact though I had nominated along with picture? There is no clarification /notice regarding this. Any specific criteria regarding that which I don't know? Please help me.. Thank you..
And of course, thumbs up to your tireless work at DYK.. :) --Nizil (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Nizil, there are, unfortunately, far more nominations that include images in them than there are lead hook spaces: at the moment, only one in seven hooks can be given lead slots. As a result, there's no guarantee that a picture will be used. Pictures that look interesting at the 100 x 100 pixel size are best, but only some can be used.

Selecting lead hooks is a very subjective process, which can involve whether a similar image has been used in the most recent sets (and "similar" could simply mean "building-like" as opposed to a person or plant or object), whether a particularly good image or article is involved, or whether the person assembling a set has found an image he or she finds particularly appealing. Each person will have differing taste, and there's no way of knowing who will be assembling a set ahead of time. I never know when I'm going to have time to do a set; I haven't done many lately, though at one stretch in December, I put together ten of twelve because no one else was.

I'm sorry I can't give you anything more definitive to go on, but there's no predicting what will be selected or by whom. I've seen images I wouldn't pick personally be made lead hooks, and ones I would have made lead if I'd had the time be selected for later in set. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• More or less what BlueMoonset said. In my experience, I've only gotten one lead hook for every three nominations with pictures (maybe fewer) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your prompt reply. Your answer is satisfying. Cheers. :) --Nizil (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset. You came to my talkpage advising me about conflict-of interest because I edited the DYK hook of my article at Prep 3. I think that, in this instance, that advice was misplaced and I would like to explain to you the circumstances behind this. The first time I edited Prep 3 was to add Greek journalist in front of Vlachos' name. Nothing controversial about that. But then Mentoz86 changed the hook of the Vlachos DYK because he didn't like it. But he removed a crucial descriptor for Pattakos as "one of the Junta principals". That forced me to add his undisputed title as "Minister of the interior of the junta" which is also undisputed and uncontroversial because at the lead of the article and in the main body there is this fully-cited passage:

In October 1967, her description of one of the junta principals Brigadier Stylianos Pattakos then Minister of the Interior of the junta, as a clown, led to her house arrest...

As you see it covers everything in the hook as it exists now. So I hope you can see that I simply added uncontroversial descriptors to the hook and that my second addition was in response to Mentoz86's removing a chunk of the approved hook which described Pattakos as a "principal of the junta". Finally, I know full well that changing DYK hooks after they have been approved is not recommended, but I hope you can see that I did it this time because there was nothing controversial about my edits and that my hand was forced after Mentoz86 deleted a large chunk of the approved hook. So I

DYK rules make it very clear that you do not control your own hook: DYK editors reserve the right to edit for length and a whole bunch of other reasons, and facts or phrases may disappear in the process. If you feel a hook has been damaged by an edit, the place to go is

WT:DYK. It appears that you did need the "COI lecture", and worse, that it has not been understood. Your hand was not forced to make those edits, you chose that unconventional route rather than to take your valid concerns to the DYK talk page. As unwelcome as this advice may be, I urge you to use regular channels in future. BlueMoonset (talk

) 22:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you still think I had to go to committee to verify it? You can have the last word of course. I am not coming back here because you don't make it easy for me to talk to you by repeating your heavy-handed remarks to me multiple times. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(

WT:DYK; it appears I finished shortly after you modified your above paragraph (but long after you first posted it). You may wish to look there, once there are some responses, to see what the DYK community thinks. BlueMoonset (talk

) 01:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Girls (and Boys) On Film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk