User talk:BlueMoonset

This editor is a Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge.

Thank you

Thank you for that tart reminder. I shall keep it in mind so as not to displease you again. --Wilted Youth 11:17, 11 March 2013

Glee articles

Revert if you want to, but it won't help: the old links are broken too. Give me a few days... if the data is listed anywhere, I'll be able to automate the edits.—Kww(talk) 02:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll happily give you a few days. Thanks for the reply. Can you avoid bot-editing other Glee articles until you've found the data? The old links, broken as they also are, do help as they contain the chart date within the URL string, and will make finding alternative reliable-source charting that much easier (i.e., from acharts.us). So they're more useful if they're retained. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a clear database screwup inside of Billboard. Sometimes I'm able to find the pointers even after they are lost. I'll look for it on the next crawl. As it stands, all album links are good, but all single links are broken. It's pervasive, with the song renditions being credited to "Glee Cast" but the root page for the group having no pointer to it. The bot can be held off by adding {{bots}} to the page. I don't see why having the date in the current version with a completely broken link is better than having it in the history and a partially working link in the display. It's tough to get the bot to avoid singles but not albums dynamically.

I think relinking to the Allmusic awards page for the singles is your best bet: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/glee-mn0001790434/awards seems pretty exhaustive.—Kww(talk) 03:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; let me know if you do find those Billboard database pointers. I appreciate the info about the Allmusic page. I'm dubious about using it, however—I've already noticed one error in the listing in a quick scan of the page, and where there's one, there are likely to be more. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The people at Billboard assure me that the listing will show up under "Glee" soon. They wouldn't commit to a precise date, but they know about the error and are working on it.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That's very good news. Thank you for letting me know. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Prep area 2

Hello! On the Prep area 2 you recently added a hook about Stan Sismey. The hook uses a picture of two guys, full profile. If you ask me, none of the guys are recognizable in that small 100X100 size. It would be good to use another image on that set. If not, it would be much better to add more sense in it by stating which of the two is Sismey. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'd rather none of the pictures be used. The one that does look good is of unclear copyright status in the US because of the URAA, while the other two are pretty bad at 100px. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Spanish paralympians

I added an extra source to Jon Santacana Maiztegui but got no response from the reviewer. I attempted to fix up Óscar Espallargas but I have no information on his physical disability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a note from Gatoclass on some other hook that indicated he was a bit stretched. You can always ping him on his talk page, or put up the "review again" icon if there isn't a response soon. As for Óscar (and with any other articles, like you did with the Maiztegui), please be sure to note on the nomination template if you've taken any action, since reviewers are unlikely to see changes in the article itself. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

good articles
Thank you for good information (25 times!) with attention to details (especially appreciated after my first GA nom passed), and for being helpful and inspirational on DYK, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 61st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, it still applies (just not the numbers of GAs). I miss the photographer, again, and put "Letting go of the past" on top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. I imagine you're very happy that PumpkinSky is posting again. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I am! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

My DYK pictures

Hello Bluemoonset, I have put up various photographs for DYK's and they haven't shown up on the front page (most recent being Varaz Samuelian). They are perfectly licensed and I would love to see them there. I have three DYK's with freely licensed pictures (Victor Maghakian, Dolores Zohrab Liebmann and Mary Louise Graffam). Quite frankly, I want to see all three of their pictures on the main page. I can even wait another 1-3 for it to happen. I would greatly appreciate it. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Proudbolsahye, the odds of getting any one picture into the lead slot of a DYK set are not good, since (currently) only 1 in 6 can get that slot. There is also a variety of types of pictures—people, places/buildings, plant/animal, etc.—so that means people images might average one slot a day if the people loading sets are doing their jobs properly. All this is a way of saying that even if I were loading a fair number of prep sets, you'd be unlikely to get more than one of those images even if they were all good ones. All three is just about impossible. My schedule at the moment is such that I'm doing comparatively little in the way of set building, so I'm afraid you'll have to take your chances with the others who do so. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that you'll get any of those nomination images into lead positions. I do wish you good luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I at least have my nomination put on hold until the photo can be admitted into the first slot? Also, I didn't mean to say I wanted to have all three images put on the front page at the same time. I meant to have all of them on each separate DYK sets. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I did understand that you meant them to be in separate sets, since there's only one photo slot per set. But I'm afraid we have no mechanism for designating hooks as lead hooks, or saving them until they can be. Lots of people submit hooks with images, and basically have to take their chances as to whether or not the images (and underlying articles) are sufficiently interesting to get selected for the lead slot. At the present time, given how few hooks are approved at any one time, hooks are likely to be used within a couple of days of being approved, and many will have been submitted with pictures but be placed in the second through last slots. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK? nomination

Hello BlueMoonset,

I have now responded to your post here and I have already addressed your concerns with this DYK? nomination of mine--Template:Did you know nominations/Urbanization in the United States. Please take a look at my response and my changes to this article itself and then tell me if this article is now ready for a DYK? nomination. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I have now responded to you again. Futurist110 (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have now responded to you yet again. Futurist110 (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I responded to you again. Futurist110 (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Please respond back to my last comments, since you still haven't done this yet. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You know, 24 hours isn't long here on Wikipedia. I am monitoring the nomination, and I will get to it when I have the opportunity—in fact, I was working on my reply when you pinged me. I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from the constant notices here on my talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Technically speaking, I did wait over 24 hours (24 hours and 21 minutes to be exact) to respond to you again. However, you're right and I'm sorry about replying to you too much. Anyway, I just saw and agreed to your ALT6 hook, so all you need to do know is to confirm it whenever you are able to. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Gilderien/GA-DYKRFC

I have read through your concerns on the proposal last year which seem fairly strong - would you be more amenable if there was a limit of say 2 per set? I could add this as an extra question below the main thing for those who want GAs to be nominated and if you have any other ideas feel free to add them. Obviously only GAs promoted within 5 days of the DYK nomination would be eligible, and not if they had been on DYK before, I did a survey of the 100 most recent GAs today and about 1/3 would be ineligible for previous (or imminent) main page appearance anyway.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Gilderien, I'm going to have to get back to this in a couple of days, but I didn't want to say nothing until then and leave you hanging. I need to go back, find the old proposal and my own comments, and also take a good look at the new one. One thing that struck me as unusual about the new one was that you refer to the supplemental rules as the only ones that GA articles would have follow, when they should be subject to all DYK rules wherever they are. Setting a limit, though, seems to me to complicate things even further: yet one more thing for people who assemble sets to juggle. Can I ask why GA hasn't pursued their own space on the main page to review and populate as they see fit? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you for taking the time to look at this. As an addendum, the proposal is here. The ommision of the DYK rules I think was unintentional, so I added it althought I think they are all included in the Supplementary Rules anyway. There has been much said about the Main Page already being rather unwieldy and that there is nowhere to put a new section without, for example, removing DYK, which obviously neither of us would want. However, I do believe it has been raised a couple of time, most recently here. However, there was only about 45% support, with some comments including "far too much text on the main page already. I'd be looking to reduce it in all sections except for TFP. Please see the alternative proposal on the DYK talk page, which doesn't require more real estate", "Make space by getting rid of DYK and ITN", "Support as a replacement or alteration of DYK or replacement of the trivial "on this day".", "Neutral'. My !vote has been tempered somewhat by the explanation of the original proposal in DYK. I now more strongly support the original, as it is the least disruptive of the two options of how to include GAs. But whatever the means, I support any way of getting GAs featured on the Main Page.", and "Good idea in theory, and I was thinking about supporting at first, but the opposers have raised some really good points. The main page is full as it is." etc. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for your diligence at DYK and your content creation work. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

• User:Crisco 1492 submitted the following nomination:
  • I nominate BlueMoonset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as Editor of the Week as (s)he is one of the least squeaky yet best performing wheels behind WP:DYK. Without Bluemoonset, who has done tireless work at the project, I doubt it could run even half as smoothly as it does now. I haven't seen that many editors with as much diligence as Bluemoonset, who is also active with WP:GAC and article writing.  — Crisco 1492 (talk)

• You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

• Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 17:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wow! Thank you very much! This is very kind of all of you. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm really glad to see your diligent hard work recognised! Thank you for keeping everything running so smoothly at DYK and always managing to remain so patient. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This echos my thoughts entirely.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• You deserve it, Blue! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the nomination, Crisco. I'm honored and very touched. And thank you, Sagaciousphil and Gilderien. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Editors like you are the heartbeat of Wikipedia. Thanks for your efforts. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

One more thing, us over at EotW were a little behind, so we were delayed in getting you your infobox. Sorry about that, but here it is. Congratulations once again. Go Phightins! 23:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

BlueMoonset is a fan of the TV show Glee

BlueMoonset

Editor of the Week for the week beginning March 24, 2013

In just two years, BlueMoonset has become one of the key members of Wikipedia's Did you know project, ensuring that the items are queued up and updated smoothly. He has worked on 24 "Did you know" articles and 30 Good Articles, and has a plethora of barnstars related to "Did you know", Good Articles, and the task force for Glee. His dedication, diligence and quality work is highly commended and has been described by fellow editors as "phenomenal".

Recognized for

Work on Wikipedia's Did you know project and Glee-related articles

Notable work

30 Good Articles

Submit a nomination

It's very nice that this happened on my second Wikibirthday. I hope you don't mind, Go Phightins, but I've taken the liberty of correcting the gender in the box text here; I hope you'll do so on the other pages where the box is located. (I also have 24 DYKs, not 23, but didn't want to change numbers.) The interesting thing about DYK is that I've been very active doing behind-the-scenes work for less than a year, and as that activity has increased, my rate of submissions to DYK has actually dropped off. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Crisco. Since that page now says 24 DYKs, this page has been updated to say likewise. ;-) And thanks again to the entire EotW crew. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry that I'm late, but here are my congratulations as well! Cheers, and well done!! You certainly are one priceless editor here for DYK and for enWiki!!! [And my apologies for getting the gender wrong. I tried to find it out, but couldnt.] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Petros Shoujounian

Can Petros Shoujounian be qualified for DYK in terms of how "new" it is? Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

If it wasn't nominated within the first five days of creation (in this case, by March 18), no. It's no longer new at 15 days old. (It also isn't quite long enough at 1495 characters.) Unfortunately, the 5x expansion would probably be counted from Petros's own version of the article, which was over 26 thousand prose characters, far longer than such a composer article should be. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The article went right into a deletion nomination which would prevent a DYK. I did a totally new make over so can it not be counted as new from the date the AfD has finished? The characted issue can be easily solved as well.Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Substandard articles in DYK

When I go to review an article for DYK, if I see it has problems I find the easiest thing to do (which I mostly adopt) is to go away and review another nomination instead. I don't want to get involved in arguments and criticism of the contributions of others.

Looking at the article Koyuk River, I don't fancy reviewing it as it is so sloppily written and inaccurate and some of it is gobbledygook. Its littered with red links because nobody has bothered to check them. Looking at the paragraph on the fish species in the river, it has several repetitions including northern pike rainbow trout and Dolly Varden and even includes a bird Bank swallows. The rest of the article is nearly as bad and what is the location map supposed to show? I could tidy up the article but what about the next one, and the next and the next? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The major problem with that approach is that the article might be reviewed by less discerning eyes, and its problems overlooked. I don't do a lot of reviewing, but I check articles when I go to promote them, and it's sometimes disheartening the number that I have to mark as needing more work for issues sometimes as blatant as the ones you're pointing out with Koyuk. Do you tend to check back later to see what a reviewer does? I'm pretty sure I've seen you point out problems with approved articles on a number of occasions.

It is not your responsibility to clean up articles in such bad shape, especially when they've been created by the most prolific DYKers, both of whom have hundreds of submissions under their belt and produce many articles each week. It is their responsibility to get their articles up to DYK standard. One of the two "major problem" icons, along with a brief summary of the article's deficiencies (perhaps with slightly more moderate language), would be a perfectly reasonable review under the circumstances, though I would (admittedly) not even have looked at the article until the QPQ had been completed. In this case, I think the article was nominated this morning because today was the last day it could be and still qualify for a 5x expansion: I'm hoping that Rosiestep will be back to whip the article into shape over the next couple of days; she seems to serve as cleanup on (in addition to contributing to) many articles where Nvvchar is a major author. As the article stands now, though, I agree with your assessment. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

What I did was to add the review template to my watchlist and await developments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds promising. With any luck it'll have been cleaned up by the time another reviewer stops by. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Good catch!

Hi, BlueMoonset. I noticed your edit to Patrick J. Hanratty to correct an error in date of birth. Thank you for taking the time to figure out what is common sense. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Happy to do it. With luck, more information will surface at some point that allows a new birthdate to be added to the article. He sounds like a very interesting guy. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A favor?

Hi, I wonder if you'd do me a big favor. I've seen you on countless occasions put DYK hooks into the correct set to run at the most appropriate or desired time.

I wrote the Walter Baxter article only because I saw the April Fools' Day potential and wanted to write one article specifically for AF. (I'm so glad I did, because it turned out to be a very interesting and worthy subject.) I don't write many articles (I've only had 17 DYKs, spread out over 3 years), and every one of my previous DYKs has been about a visual artist. That's what I intend to continue writing, so it's unlikely I'll ever write an April Fools' DYK again.

Although the subject of the article is an obscure English writer, the focus of the April Fools' Day hook is the perceived relationship between Batman and Clark Kent. These superheroes originated in the United States and are most popular in the U.S. The hook is currently in Prep 1, scheduled to run from 1 am to 9 am in Los Angeles. I would be very grateful if you could swap it into Prep 2 (9 am to 5 pm) where it could get exposure to the most appreciative audience, and so that I could actually be around to see it.

Thanks for considering my request, and especially for all of the hard work you do in so many ways to keep DYK running smoothly. Your efforts are much appreciated. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)  Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much! Crisco, you're another of the DYK all-stars. You and BlueMoonset are both so helpful! Thanks again to both of you. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'd have been happy to do it, and I'm sorry I wasn't around this evening to take care of it, Mandarax. Special thanks to Crisco for being here and able to do the swap in a timely fashion. It's always more fun when you're awake to see your DYK on the front page. Thanks also for the kind words, especially from someone who regularly ensures that DYK makes it to the new day, and keeps hooks properly formatted. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks once again. Yeah, I don't know how it is for people with dozens or hundreds of DYKs, but for me it's still a thrill to actually see my DYK on the Main Page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think I have two dozen now, but it hasn't yet grown old: I still like seeing them there, and am a bit disappointed if I sleep through an appearance. (Not so disappointed that I'd be willing to set an alarm, however.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I can't speak for the others, but I'm still happy to see the boxes pop up on my talk page. I've stopped taking screenshots and posting them to Facebook, however. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

GA thing

I guess you'll have to pool it. I wasn't that harsh in what I said, just blunt. It's not my fault a youngling editor scarpered.Zythe (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

No thought of fault on my part. Just a question on whether you wanted to work on it, since you'd already put in some effort. We'll put it back in the pool. Thanks for responding. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Query

Hi ... can you point me to the policy that says we cannot use images that qualify for wikipedia use under Wikipedia:Logos on the main page? Thanks. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure. The policy as regards DYK is at WP:DYK under the "Eligibility criteria" subsection under the "Images" header. It's mentioned in the first item, and then repeated in bold in the fifth: "Fair-use images are not permitted." Since the image as listed is both copyright and the license specifically says it's fair use, the Horween logo can't be used for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note that PD-simple logos could be used. Not sure about the logo in question, haven't seen it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. The logo in question is the one at Horween Leather Company. thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)