User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Windows RT

I have offered to take over the GA review of Windows RT. Feel free to respond on the article talk page. Andrew327 15:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Responded. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Eggs

I've been very busy. I'll get straight to work on the egg nomination soon though. I'm almost done with it, should finish it shortly. Abyssal (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've finished. Abyssal (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wanita dan Satria

Thanks for the comments at WT:DYK, but the user is now apparently citing it as a reason to edit war (see this edit summary) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. At the very least, the same format note should be used—in the now-reverted edit, it looks like two unrelated citations, one for the first half of the plot and another for the second half—but I really don't see the need for it (as I said). BlueMoonset (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree, and consensus is currently quite against the view he's promoting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your contributions to the Erving Goffman GA review. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Dougal Butler on the main page

I noticed you promoted Dougal Butler to the main page, even though there is a poorly sourced claim focusing negatively on a living individual. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Weakly sourced claim that Pete Townshend did a serious criminal offence currently on Main Page. StAnselm (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Another hook on an old DYK nom

Please see Template:Did you know nominations/James E. Dull. Shouldn't take but a minute. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Your comment implied it had had a partial review, which it hadn't. I expect you, and others, had thought my own comment was by a reviewer. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I typically say that a full review is needed when no review has been done: it's clear, and although I wasn't confused in that situation, someone else might be (and your nomination comment may well have been why no one had stopped by yet to review it). You'll notice that the reviewer who subsequently came along paid no attention to the "full" part, since no mention was made of article length or age, two typical criteria that need to be covered in any full DYK review, and should have been addressed even though other issues were found. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Well it confused me. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
My apologies; that certainly wasn't my intent. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For some reason, I liked you since I first saw your user name. Maybe because we started here at about the same time. Anyway, I want to thank you for your tireless work at DYK and cooperative attitude. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I hadn't realized we were of the same (clearly excellent) vintage. ;-) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sister Christine

After the last 2 DYK hook removal from the queue I stopped nominating articles at DYK. Nvvvchar's very recent joining has brought new life to the 2013/150th birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda celebration. And September is the most important month of Vivekananda's life. I am explaining in brief— Swami Vivekananda became world famous after success of World's Religion in 1893 (this year is 120th year of his success too). And his first lecture of 11 September is the most famous of all the lectures.

Now, do you remember the Sister Christine article, which you saw as a draft in my user space? The article has been nominated for DYK and 11 September date has been requested. I know we are a bit late. But, actually Nvvchar has joined just today morning. Can you please review the nomination? We are expecting a strict and quick review. You will get other date requests at the DYK page: Template:Did you know nominations/Sister ChristineTito☸Dutta 09:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I can see you are editing. Can you reply here?? --Tito☸Dutta 21:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Tito, I'm going to request that you find another reviewer. It isn't an article I'd normally choose to review, and the time frame you've given is unreasonable—DYK special requests are supposed to be made at least five days beforehand, and I can already see that this is a nomination that will require work, including a copyedit. (I'm happy for you that you've gotten Nvvchar on board, but like you, his prose usually needs another editor's assistance to be brought to DYK levels.) I strongly recommend that you reschedule this for later in the month; as there isn't any indication in the Sister Christine article that September 11 is special in her life, this should be easy enough to do. We are already starting to fill prep sets that will run on September 10, and much of September 9 was filled at the time you nominated the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello Bluemoonset, frankly, I don't hope to see six out of six DYKs on the main page. There will/might be many hindrance. People may not notice that I requested 2 of the strictest DYK reviewers to review (You first and then Crisco) and asked to do the review strictly (but quickly). Anyway, Please read I don't hope to see more than 2 or maximum 3 DYKs in this month. But, 11 September— the date is the most important, reason a) 150th year of Swami's birth b) 11 September, 1893 is the most remarkable event of his life, c) 120th year of the event d) we have already had DYKs on the two other important dates 12 Jan (birth date), 4 July (death), now only the third one remains. We'll never get such an opportunity The next year when we'll have so many important reasons to celebrate will be 2063. Now if you think the requested Sister Christine article is not ready, we an replace that one with any other article. We have 3 more ready at this moment. Please select anyone from here to review: (MacLeod is ready too, not nominated)
I'll not request anyone to review for more than first 2 DYKs (11th and 15th). If the other articles don't get reviewed, that's just our bad luck. --Tito☸Dutta 22:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Tito, I'm very sorry, but I'm not going to select any of these articles to review. I understand that you feel this date is important, and if Crisco is also unavailable you're welcome to make a request at WT:DYK for a reviewer because you wish this day to be highlighted. But that person will not be me: I am doing other things with my time this weekend. Best of luck in locating reviewers who are available and willing to take on the task. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello Bluemoonet, the article was reviewed and passed, but, I asked Bgwhite who has copyedited the article, can you check the article now, so that I can move it back to 11 Sept's slot? (if there are minor issues and can be solved easily, please write here and don't ask for re-review (as you can see the article was copyedited following your suggestion which right from this talk page discussion) --Tito☸Dutta 01:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Tito, as per your request I'm writing here rather than on the review. I've done a further copyedit—there were still some places that needed fixing—and I've added five "citation needed" templates, all for places where you have quotes but no inline source citations at the end of the sentences involved. I imagine it will be pretty straight forward to add the necessary inline citations, but it needs to be done. The Foster bonding section's second paragraph has some factual issues: while Vivekananda sent the nursery rhyme to Christine while she was still in the U.S. before her mother died, the comments to Christine to take care of her health were made after she had come to India and was ill: she arrived, according to the Sarada source, on 7 April 1902, and went to Mayavati to recuperate. The Gallagher source says she spent "some time" with Vivekananda, which I thought could have been months, but he died under three months later on July 4 when she was still (again?) in Mayavati: he'd sent her "a few more letters", but it's not at all clear how much ("some") time she spent with him in those few months. I'd definitely add the date of her arrival here, and move the comments from those "few more letters" from the "Foster bonding" section to the final "Life in India" section. That also has an issue: while Christine died in New York, the source does not say she returned to New York and died there; she returned to the U.S. in 1929, and died in New York the following year. She could have started off somewhere else (Detroit, perhaps?) on her return, and been visiting New York when she died. The source doesn't say. Anyway, if you can take care of these quickly, I think it won't be an issue. However, if you can't, I'll have to post on the review, since the article isn't ready for promotion in its current condition. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually citations were added at the end of the paragraphs. I have added refs after the quotes. I have worked on the first part of the article only, I am pinging @Nvvchar: to see last two questions. Few authors have written biographies of Sister, but the one written by Vrajaprana "A Portrait of Sister Christine" is the most reliable, notable and is an excellent work. I bought a copy of the book to write the article. The book was low priced, only ₹30 (38¢ US). But, the problem is I have to search from that 110 pages biography. If necessary I'll change those portions according to Vrajaprana's book. --Tito☸Dutta 04:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I have attempted to fix the "Life in India" section. --Tito☸Dutta 04:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • More than 4 editors issue: After your works, you should be given DYK credit too. But, there are already 4 editors there. I can remove my name form credit and add yours if you want or can I add as the fifth editor? Else, I'll manually copy paste the DYK credit on 11 September when it'll be posted to editors' talk pages. --Tito☸Dutta 06:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Tito, I very much appreciate the thought, but all I did was two rounds of copyediting, the second quite minor; I don't feel that's enough for a DYK credit. Please don't add a DYKmake template for me. (I did just fix the nomination so Bgwhite had one of the two DYKmakes listed for Nvvchar, however.) For future reference, it doesn't really matter whether someone's in the initial small listing for DYK credits; what counts is that the person gets a DYKmake credit, since the bot uses that to place the notifications on user talk pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hijacking of Rick Harrison GAR

Howdy- SO, can you please explain why you practically took over the GA review for Harrison. I took your comments (and the fact they were there) to be very disrespectful, both to me and nominator. I disagree with much of what you said, and I will add replies shortly, but I am much angrier that, without warning or asking permission from either of us, you went ahead and added those comments. Now, if I had missed a major(!) mistake, and you left a friendly, more civil note about it, that would have been perfectly a' OK. But to practically take the GA review because a few cites disagree by a matter of months, a few grammatical notes and a few personal preferences is unacceptable and pretty rude. I ask that at the very least you give some warning next time you want to leave your own comments and that you remain civil. I will leave more comments on the review page shortly. PrairieKid (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

PrairieKid, as it says on every article talk page where an article has been submitted to GAN and picked up for review:

Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

So I'm quite puzzled that you think someone commenting—the fact that comments were made—is disrespectful: it's a normal part of the GA review process. When you take on a review, it's possible, if not likely, that someone else will come along and add comments. No one needs "permission" to contribute in a GA review, nor is it disrespectful. Indeed, it would be disrespectful to the entire Good Article nomination process to fail to note issues that had been seen. The idea is to come out of this with the article passing all the criteria with flying colors.
In this case, I happened by the review, saw what appeared to be an article that was judged just about ready for approval based on your comments—and in my reading of the article (and as an author of 30 Good Articles myself) it still needed more than a little work: I had other plans for my afternoon, but once I started noting issues in early sections I didn't feel, in good conscience, that I could stop until I'd finished the whole article. If you feel words like "confusing" were rude, I apologize, but that was my honest impression as a reader.
Ultimately, this is your review and your decision, but with all due respect, the article has significant issues—some of which are already being addressed in subsequent edits—and it is not currently ready for Good Article status. I hope it soon will be. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The big problem was not with the comments. I do disagree with much of that part (and I'll explain why in more detail on the review page). My main issue is the fact that you didn't ask either of us, and that the comments really were quite rude. Some overlinking, a few confused cites and a few personal preferences- and you say the article isn't even close to becoming a GA. I really feel you're overstretching here and I felt like you're trying to be superior to us. I feel that was amplified even more in your response. I feel like you're trying to play the "this is policy" and "I didn't realize" card. But, in all 30 of your GA reviews, how many times have you had two editors (when it wasn't requested!) contributing? Beyond that, how many times did the 2 reviewers comment actually lead to your confusion about who was the actual reviewer? Further, when were the 2nd (uninvited, reasonably disrespectful) reviewer's comments go to far away from the original reviewers?
Look, you've written 30 GA articles (which, of course you brought up), and I'm sure you've reviewed quite a vfew as well. Great. I've been reviewing for quite a while too and have written 1 GA article (but it's a really good one), 2 more nominations and over a dozen reviews. I got this. Thanks but no thanks for your help. PrairieKid (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Rather than decide that I'm not only rude but trying to lord it over you, I'd appreciate it if you'd assume good faith, a prime tenet of Wikipedia, and try to look at my contribution in that light. I don't yet understand why I should have asked permission first: GA is designed so anyone can chime in, at any time. Look at the WP:GAN page entry for the Harrison article. It says, "Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome)." Not "you should ask first before commenting", not "you must be invited", but simply "welcome". You say you think I'm "trying to be superior"; all I'm trying to do is make sure all GA-related issues I noticed—and which I thought, by your posted comments, you had missed—were addressed before the review was completed. The making of good articles is a collaborative process from the first edit on an article through edits on it from any number of Wikipedians, and from a GA review that covers all the bases by a minimum of one reviewer but ideally more. (The next level up, Featured Article, requires many reviewers; GA merely encourages others to comment.) If you think my comments only deal with "some overlinking, a few confused cites and a few personal preferences", then you have missed actual prose issues that I highlighted (yes, even problematic commas count, unless the reviewer fixes them rather than mentioning them), and at least a couple of clear factual inaccuracies. They all need to be fixed, and some already have been. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Glee... I Love It

Just writing to say that I love your article you created for Ryder Lynn. And just to say I think it would be good to also have articles for Marley Rose, Kitty Wilde, Wade "Unique" Adams and Jake Puckerman. There is enough info about them, and considering they are to be main characters in the upcoming fifth season, it would be a great idea for them to have their own articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.212.125 (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm glad you liked the article. I agree that it would also be good to have articles on the other four, but they all require a certain amount of research and I doubt I'll have the time. In particular, I haven't seen much on the background of how the other characters were developed; because Blake came from The Glee Project, there was a lot more there about the kind of character he might play, and the interview with Ulrich was very helpful. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Emergency: Hang on

I have read the first part of your message. Hang on. And if you remove it please replace it with the next hook. Vivekananda film. Let me reead the full message now. --Tito☸Dutta 03:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Please remove the word "Foster", everything else looks fine. I have just gone through Vrajaprana's book once again,. I am going to add it too in support --Tito☸Dutta 03:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It's already been removed. I am willing to hang on. However, I can't re-promote the hook until I see what changes are ultimately made to the article, and what sourcing is supporting it. (The first edit, simply removing "foster" from the lede, does not satisfy the issue, so removing the "foster" from the hook is also not going to work.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Vrajaprana is a 110 pages book. I badly need Ctrl F option. I can see details on their at least twice. There might be more. I have added one ref. I have also found this. There is a new post at the DYK discussion. --Tito☸Dutta 04:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I knew about the "this" link; it's what I was quoting from (the "father-daughter style" quote). It has occurred to me that Vivekananda was only three years and a few months older than Sister Christine, and she was 27 when they met. I'd expect a spiritual father/daughter relationship, but the "very human sense" that Furke alludes to is the more unusual one that needs the sourcing beyond what Furke can support. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Adding: as I noted on the template, you need to supply a new hook, and I hope you can briefly quote the relevant passage in the source on the nomination template. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it took some time, it is a paper book, and a s non-native English speaker, my reading speed is lower. I have added few quotes from the book I have found. No, Funke was Furke and Burke was Burke, as you have noted, Burke was born in 1912, 9 years 11 months after Vivekananda's death. Don't include her here. 11 Sept's slot timing is running away. Have you added Swami Vivekananda? Do not add the image there. New reply at Template:Did you know nominations/Sister Christine --Tito☸Dutta 05:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • here is details on Funke. --Tito☸Dutta 05:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The film hook is now leading prep 1. It looks like Sister Christine will have to wait for another day to be approved. I'll finish my post on the nomination page and then call it a night. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

Thanks for your note on my talk page - I have revisited the article and responded to Orlady's suggestions. Paul W (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Love and Glamour

Hey BlueMoonset. I completely forgot about this DYK (I wasn't the nominator, but I was involved in the article's creation.) Would it be alright if I did the QPQ review? Cheers, — Status (talk · contribs) 00:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Status, I'm afraid not. Since you're one of the creators and made significant contributions to the article, you'd have a conflict of interest if you reviewed it, not least because you'll get a DYK credit when it runs on the main page. I'm afraid it'll have to wait for another reviewer to come along. However, it would be great if you could monitor the nomination and be ready to pitch in if the review turns up issues that need to be addressed: Arre 9 hasn't been good at monitoring nominations, or addressing issues in a timely fashion. Thanks for asking! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I think you're confusing this as asking if I could review the DYK. I'm referring to this comment by you: "based on the QPQ tool, Arre 9 has enough previous DYKs that a QPQ review will be required." — Status (talk · contribs) 02:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, I was confusing the two. My apologies: it says "QPQ review" right there in black and white. Since you're one of the creators, absolutely you can do the QPQ for the nomination. The Rosiestep/Nvvchar/Dr. Blofeld group (before the good doctor stepped away) would routinely supply the review from one of the creators, though not necessarily the one who submitted the nomination. The key is that a QPQ is done. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I'll get on that. Thanks! — Status (talk · contribs) 03:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Status, I'm sorry to say that the QPQ you supplied will not count. Reviews really ought to explain what was checked against the DYK criteria: size, newness, hook sourcing, close paraphrasing, image license, image in the article, etc. I took a quick look, and not only did the article fail the most basic of checks (not even a 2x expansion in prose characters, which is what counts), but you didn't notice that your favored ALT1 said the three-cent note was pictured (it wasn't); that was certainly worth a query to see whether this was an error or that they meant also to supply the three-cent image in the nomination as a possibility. Finally, one of the references shows a bare URL, which is also not allowed.
You're welcome to provide a QPQ review, provided it is a complete one that checks against the full range of DYK criteria. I'm afraid I'll be striking the review of Template:Did you know nominations/Fractional currency from Love and Glamour. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, damn... let me just get to doing this tomorrow. Clearly I am too overtired to be reviewing DYKs right now. For some reason, I was thinking bytes and not characters. How embarrassing. I hope you won't hold it against me. With that said, I'm off to bed! — Status (talk · contribs) 04:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure thing. Sweet dreams, Status! Remember, tomorrow is another day. ;-) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your work on the Good Article project, and for the reminders to stay on task! Keihatsu talk 12:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The Quarterback

The DYK project (nominate) 16:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Going to the Dogs

Hey BlueMoonset, I think I answered every question there, but the reviewer might be a while. Perhaps you care to have a look. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, I hadn't noticed the TTT kerfuffle, so I initially had no idea why "might be a while" could be true. At any rate, Hillbillyholiday got there before I did. However, I've put the approval in abeyance due to the hook—as much for the repetition as for the excessive length. I hope one of my suggestions makes sense. If you do adopt the second ("Dutch artist"), however, I've just realized that it will need to be sourced in one of the articles: the one which mentions "artist" in the lede was Going to the Dogs, so if you just source the first sentence in that one, you'd be golden. (The fact needs to appear in one of the bolded links.) Or you may want to make another suggestion; just remember the length constraints! Thanks for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your note; I'll get on it but it might not be today. I'm still waiting on two of the nominations anyway; I'll have a look to see if their status has changed since I last checked. Yes, TTT's block is unfortunate--whatever his flaws, I appreciate his tackling that big, fat DYK nom. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Tony loves doing multiples, since he gets to store up a whole bunch of reviews in one swell foop for his own DYK projects. I meant to ask: why is it important that they all run one after the other? Wouldn't it be just as good to get them out individually as soon as they're ready? (And what would be the organizing principle behind their release?) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, done. I wanted them in a series since that was the closest thing to having them all run at the same time as one hook. But that was weeks ago and I suppose I don't care so much for them anymore, although I was kind of looking forward to having an uninterrupted list of 18 DYK templates on my talk page... Do what you think is best. It's taking up space on the DYKN page and thus server time, so if you want to move ahead, go for it. If you could run two of them back to back that would still make for some talk page fun. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Drmies. I haven't been building prep sets lately—and having put a brief hold on this nomination, I wouldn't be eligible to promote it anyway once I reapprove it—so I think letting them be promoted as they become ready is probably best. If Wim's birthday were coming up, one of them could be saved for that, but it was back on July 1. However, it looks like Going to the Dogs premiered on September 19, 1986 (scheduled for that night, according to the Christian Science Monitor article, and reviews were printed by September 21), so we could save it for that date. (It would make more sense to do so if you added the date to the article, but that's not a requirement.) I think it's ready to go now, but in case you want the special hold for the 19th, I figured I'd wait to hear from you so it doesn't get snatched up before we can set up the special occasion hold. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, you're a really nice person. That sounds great. I do still remember the absolutely puzzled reviews in the papers for that premiere; there was no Twitter or blogosphere, of course. If you can find that date, I can too, and I'll stick it in the article tomorrow or so. Ha, I did notice the birthday a few weeks ago; I'm sad I didn't think of this earlier. (BTW, Ronflonflon and its jingles--Mrs. Drmies keeps giving me crazy looks because I keep playing those jingles: they are hilarious, but I guess you have to be Dutch to appreciate it.) So let's roll with it. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sister Christine GA

Since you do not want to take DYK credit, you can nominate it at GA. I'll add two more paragraphs in :Kife in India section right after the DYK. --Tito☸Dutta 04:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Tito, if you wish it to be a GA, you'll have to nominate it yourself. I have no desire to shepherd it through a GAN, which is what nominating it entails. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Inaugurate it, Okay, I'll do all other works. I am reluctant to nominate things. But, it is unfortunate that I have to nominate a bunch of articles at DYK. I have proposed two more ALTs at Sister Christine DYK. Though I have asked promoters to go ahead, I don't think anyone will touch it now. If Crisco does not reply in next 2 hours, I'll delete my post from here Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Sister_Christine Tito☸Dutta 05:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Tito☸Dutta 05:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's a rush: Sister Christine could potentially go in either of the next two prep areas (05:30 or 13:30 India time), and only one of them is even open to be filled. Crisco is sometimes busy during the day (it's 12:30 local time where he is), so give it several hours, until he's home from school or work or whatever he's doing today. As for me, I'm heading to bed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ryder Lynn

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK Maria Jacobsen

Bluemoonset,

If I didn't believe this was not a DYK ready article, I would not be here. Nevertheless, I need someone who is willing to check the article. I appreciate Nikkimaria's efforts, however, she does not have access to much needed offline sources. Once again I will happily say that I have checked every sentence meticulously, almost to the point of memorization, just so that this article can move forward. BlueMoonset, I request a neutral reviewer to check out this article. I especially hope that the reviewer have access to offline sources. Proudbolsahye (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Assistance needed in promoting a DYK nomination

Would you be willing to promote a set of DYK hooks? Rosiestep has requested Goaribari Island become her 1000th DYK. Currently she has 998 DYKs with number 999 having recently been promoted to Prep 4. I have now approved Template:Did you know nominations/Goaribari Island. To help comply with her request, I am now asking several DYK regulars for assistance in promoting the Goaribari Island hook. Thank you for any assistance you can provide, or for you consideration if someone else responds before you see this message. --Allen3 talk 02:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see it was promoted; Rosiestep deserves every consideration. Unfortunately, I had to go take care of something right about the time you posted this, and ultimately didn't get to bed until after four in the morning; by the time I looked in this morning it had already been taken care of. Thanks for the notification; I wish I'd been able to help. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK Review

Hi BlueMoonset, I have a DYK nomination that has been sitting this week and was wondering if I could ask you to take a look and potentially provide a review to get it going again? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk)

Hmlarson, I've put a "needs review" icon on the nomination, but I can't provide a review for it. With luck, it will be taken up soon; given how many articles are unreviewed at the moment, you'll probably have to wait a while longer. Hope it isn't too much longer! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

GA for Saturday Night

Hello BlueMoonset, First, thank you for teaching me how to nominate an article for a GA review. I've already fixed the typos and several errors in the page text and I've added the GA nominee template to the talk page of the article. If you're willing to review it, I'd appreciate it.

Second, congratulations on your Glee-related work. ρedro talk 11:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Pedro João, you're welcome, and thank you. I'm afraid I can't review it (like I couldn't review the DYK above). There's a bit of a backlog at GAN at the moment; I hope yours is selected soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Opinion requested

Hi BlueMoonset, as an experienced DYK reviewer, could you kindly offer your opinion on the suitably of the DYK hook proposed at Template:Did you know nominations/Fury of the Congo. I think there may also be a problem with rule C6, but I'm not really sure. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sasata, oddly, this is one where my experience fails me, so I've passed the buck to Crisco 1492. I'm not impressed with the hook (DYK that the plot of X is Y): it's pretty boring, and the director's name is only there to give a (borderline) real-world connection. Also, hooks are supposed to require extraordinary sourcing—that is, an inline source directly after the fact's sentence. So there seem to be a number of rules in conflict here ... which is why I've done that buck-passing. Thanks for asking, and I hope we get a definitive answer. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK-credit for Andrine Hegerberg

Hi there. After you promoted the hook for Ada and Andrine Hegerberg, I realized that I forgot to add myself with a {{DYKmake}} for the Andrine article. The article was originally created and nominated by another editor, and I jumped into the nomination by adding her sisters article and improving the other one aswell. I could have added the DYKmake to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2 myself, but I thought it would be best if anyone else did it - could you look at these diffs ([1] and [2]), and decide whether that warrants a DYK-credit? If you think it does, could you please add {{DYKmake|Andrine Hegerberg|Mentoz86|subpage=Andrine Hegerberg}} to prep2? Thank you. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Mentoz86, the prep has been promoted to Queue 6, so only an admin can do that now. Sorry I wasn't around to see this when I could have looked. BTW, do you know whether a subpage parameter is actually needed for Andrine? I know it would be for Ada, but when the article and template have the same name, I thought that a subpage wasn't needed. Or does that change if you have another article in the mix? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Adding: you should probably ask on WT:DYK very soon, or ask an admin you know who's around at the moment; the hook hits the main page in seven hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I'll do that, thank you. The subpage parameter isn't needed for Andrine, I just copied what was there and replaced "hmlarsson" with"mentoz86" :p. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I was the one who added the subpage parameters on the nomination page. I used to add the parameter only when "necessary": to the first {{DYKmake}} for each article whose title differs from the name of the subpage. But recently I've been adding it to every one whenever adding any one is necessary. I just figure that while I'm adding one or more, I might as well add them all. It does no harm, and could come in handy: if the article is moved, the correct nomination page will still be linked to on the article's talk page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What is this "real world" that people keep talking about?

Hi BlueMoonset. We almost always agree on everything. I often get an edit conflict only to find that you've just said or done exactly what I was going to say or do. But we apparently do have a rare difference of opinion. In Template:Did you know nominations/A Cure for Pokeritis, it was pointed out to me that you seemed to interpret the rules to disallow a hook of a form which I think is okay. Am I interpreting your interpretation of the rules correctly, and you would not allow that original hook? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry to bother you on Glee premiere night.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It has delayed me, and will probably delay me for a bit longer, but I will get back to you this evening, I promise. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to you and Crisco 1492 for responding there. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Telepharmacy

Hello! I see that you've posted twice on my talk page encouraging me to "respond" to the reviews and comments on the DYK nomination page. I'm not sure what I should say exactly; I think the comment that the article is too US-centered is valid, and I don't think I can do much to fix it at the moment. I'm very pleased to see the improvements that Orlady made, and I hope that they or something someone else can add will allow the article to pass muster as a DYK, and if not, I don't think I can fix it currently. If there's something else I can contribute to the conversation there, please let me know what it is; I'm new to this process. Thanks for your work guiding the nomination process along! Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Bryan, when you nominate at DYK, you're expected to keep track of your nomination, and respond if there are issues preventing its approval. Basically, you shepherd it until it passes: many nominations require minor or major changes to the article, to the hook, to the sourcing, etc. In this case, there were issues with a general article (Telepharmacy) being too US-centric. Since you've nominated the article, we need to know whether you plan to address the issues that are preventing it from being approved: in this case, by doing the edits.
Basically, what you told me here is what should go there: you don't think you can do much to fix it at the moment. Unfortunately, I think that means that the article will not be passed, because Crisco does note that as it stands now, the article gives undue weight to US practices. Jezhotwells did suggest a possibility was to move the article to "Telepharmacy in the United States" (well, USA, but "USA" is deprecated on Wikipedia); at this point, I'm not sure that's feasible given all the additions by Orlady. If you're willing to do the work (or Orlady is), the article could be split, with "Telepharmacy" remaining as it is though with a greatly cut down US section, and a US-only article with all the current US material.
Please decide what you'd like to do, and post it on the nomination template. We'll proceed from there. I'm glad you decided to give DYK a try, and hope you'll try again with a future article. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Precisely what Blue said. One of the major issues with writing about a very general item, term, or phenomenon is trying to balance it globally and not focus on any one country. That's one of the reasons I stick to film/novel articles; much simpler. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Recently passed GA

Please brief me about the latest update — can we nominate recently passed GA at DYK? Tito☸Dutta 23:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Tito, so far as I know, a recently passed GA (having been listed within the past five days, just like a new or recently expanded DYK was started within the past five days) can be nominated, so long as it hasn't previously been on the front page as a DYK, or ITN (or as a Featured Article, I'll bet), or was a GA in the past. It needs to meet all the usual DYK rules. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The FA bit is not codified, and the time I tried to ask it (regarding Frank's Cock) I ended up having my April Fools Day nomination bombarded by comments which sounded like polite versions of "you sick ****, how dare you make fun this moving film regarding AIDS". Ultimately DYK went after FAC but before TFA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I meant TFA, not FAC. (Though if it had been a GA and then an FAC, lost the FA bit and reapplied for GA, then I don't believe it would have qualified.) If it's had a main page appearance as a TFA, I don't believe it would be eligible for DYK, since TFA is far more prominent than ITN, which is also a disqualifying event. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I got that. Was just saying that the only time (to my knowledge) there's been a question relating to it, it was ultimately not answered. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

RFA proposal

I am interested to nominate your name as an admin, please see latest comment at WT:DYK. See WP:Admin, WP:RFA etc for details. Your edit stats maty be seen below. I have nominated 2 editors so far User:Bgwhite and Ekabhishek — both were successful, but, I am not an admin.

Tito☸Dutta 13:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Tito, thank you for thinking of me, but I am not interested in become an admin on Wikipedia. (You're not the first to ask, and I suspect you won't be the last, but I can't imagine my answer will ever change.) BlueMoonset (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

DYKs

I'll have a look at reviewing some dyks if it will help. Here's a thought: whenever I look at the DYK review page it seems like all the obvious pass/fails are gobbled up very quickly by experienced reviewers and the tricky ones get left hanging around. It's not the most welcoming place: the last time I started a review it was finished by someone else while I was still in the process. Maybe the more experienced reviewers could crack the hard nuts and let noobs cut their teeth on the easy ones. Tigerboy1966  16:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Erema

Hi BlueMoonset, I was intending to review the ALT1 hook you suggested at the Erema DYK nomination but now have a question that I hope you can help with, please: Is it okay to copy a plot section? I can only see snippet views of The Academy, page 446 on google books but see the first column here [3], middle column here [4] and first column here [5]. I realise the publication date is 1877 and, unusually for a 'plot' section, an inline source is given but does that make it okay?

While I'm here bothering you, here's another query: I did a quick fly-by review at this DYK nomination on 29 September requesting inline cites and a QPQ. Despite leaving a message on Maury Markowitz's talk page the same day, it's still outstanding - would you mind giving them an additional prod about it? Maybe it's been abandoned though as some seem to have been in the past? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sagaciousphil, thanks for finding the copied plot section. It is allowable to reuse—copy—material from public domain sources. However, it has to be clearly identified as such. There are only a few words in that whole section that have been paraphrased, and a few words have been omitted; it is otherwise identical to The Academy (I was able to read the full review). Can you ask Nikkimaria what's needed here? I know there's a special notice that needs to be included in the References section, but I can't find it.
Another issue is that copied material does not count toward the minimum required for DYK. The Plot section is over half of the article's 4400+ prose characters; Nikkimaria will be able to determine whether there's enough left over to qualify, what with the extensive quoting elsewhere.
Finally, about Maury, I'm actually not willing to prod him myself. He and I had a disagreement on this very page about the inline cites: he maintains that the inline sourcing requested shouldn't be necessary, and hasn't added them for the last few DYK submissions. Template:Did you know nominations/Bridging (programming) is an example of what I mean; this one, and a few others since, have ultimately failed for the lack of cites. This time he's also missing the QPQ. They're well-written articles, but if they aren't going to meet DYK sourcing guidelines he's wasting his time and ours; without the QPQ, it won't go anywhere. You're welcome to give him a final ping saying that it's about to fail, but as nothing happened with Template:Did you know nominations/Lindsay, Pontypool & Bobcaygeon Railway and at least one other recent nom, I'm done going the extra mile. Alternatively, you can put the X on it now; two weeks is quite generous in waiting for a response, since one week is the Wikipedia standard. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I've put a question icon on Erema and asked Nikkimaria to have a look when they get the chance. I also put my brave head on and just rejected Maury's nomination - sorry, I hadn't realised Maury's stance on inline cites but my interpretation of SG#D2 is that all paras should have a cite. Besides, a QPQ was most definitely required and I think some have slipped through without them in the past, so I'm digging my heels in (hopefully it won't result in too much stomping of feet!) Thanks for your help. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Doppelgänger?

Y'know how I said that you often tend to say or do exactly what I would've said or done? Well, I just wanted to point out the latest example. When I saw that the Schippers hook had finally been approved, I thought that the ideal place for it to appear at the proper time in the Netherlands would be the lead spot of Prep 4. Although I had not written any of the articles or reviews, I had a minor, tangential, ancillary role in the nomination and didn't want the slightest appearance of impropriety, so I didn't promote it myself. It didn't surprise me at all when I saw that you had done it. Thanks for this and for everything else you do around here! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2013 Grand Prix of Baltimore

Could you have a look at this one and see if my comments are acceptable?--Launchballer 12:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Launchballer, I've just taken a look, and written some comments. Generally, the review should specifically cover the basic DYK criteria first, but checks should also be made on all the hooks. Also, the referencing, while there must be some, does not have to be as prevalent as you were requesting. If you can't find supporting information on a hook, then by all means put one of the non-tick icons at the start of your review to indicate the degree of the problem: if it's pretty easily fixed, then use the ? icon; if there are some issues to work out, then go with the slash icon. One thing you didn't do was check for close paraphrasing. I've never had much luck with the copyvio search; it's better to do a spot-check by choosing a couple of the sources and running the duplication detector on them and the article. In this case, I was checking the source on the 14th place pole position tie, which was one of the hooks and differed a bit from the article. When I did, I realized that the source's wording seemed similar to the article's; duplication detector helped clarify how similar. Once I found the close paraphrasing, I had to mention it. Please let me know if you have any questions about what to look for or how to do it. Info on DYKcheck is available at WP:DYKCHECK. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Wild_Cub/Thunder_Clatter

Note this had already been moved to prep when someone came by to fuss about block [6]. I don't see how you can stand being involved with DYK so intensively. It's a madhouse. You must have some kind of genetic immunity. Can you fix this? EEng (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid Nikkimaria was absolutely right in what she did. (I'm still not quite sure how this was promoted without a new tick.) Long quotes are supposed to not count in DYK (not original material), and 40 words are the outer limit here. Sorry I missed that when I looked over the article. I'd frankly be happier if the rest of that first sentence were paraphrased; I've moved things around and added a bit more from the article, but it's a bit of a bandaid. Sometimes it takes longer to get that final I dotted and T crossed, especially on the articles right near the borderline. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Remember way back I said the two articles should be merged? (sigh) I only glanced at the debate over "new content" vs "GA" content for DYK, but I will never understand why there's reward system (an article listed at DYK is certainly a little thrill) that drives articles toward goals about 30 degrees off of the GA-FA trajectory:

  • New -- who cares?
  • Not a work in progress -- all WP articles are works in progress. Being listed at DYK (both the nomination/review process and the actual appearance on the main page) ought to be a great way to attract new editors to the article who may be inspired to fill in [citation needed] [clarification needed] etc. Instead we insist that editors take out all improvement tags (even if they belong) and pretend that a 5-day-old article has nothing that needs filling in and is fully cited.
  • Long enough -- so that people stuff in flab and filler and argue about length of quotes.

I don't know if you remember me from Template:Did you know nominations/John Harvard statue (and I forgive the mean things you said about me there) but that was a perfect example. That article was absolutely awful -- complete baloney from ridiculous sources -- painful to read [7]. Here [8] its creator / nominator wants material removed from the article because [citation needed] tags might cause a holdup at DYK. So everyone else is supposed to leave an article in a wretched state because someone's eager to get a notch in his DYK belt. (Here's what the article looks like now, BTW: John Harvard (statue)). Meanwhile, poor Launchballer with his short (but otherwise fine) article gets a hard time because it's not long enough. Why not drop the 5-day requirement and let things be nominated when they're ready? It's all so silly. EEng (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You know, if you think DYK is silly, there's a simple solution: don't participate. For all of these areas: Good Articles, Featured articles, lists, and pictures, there are criteria. The criteria have been established over time, as the people participating ran into situations that were ambiguous under the current criteria, so further clarification and guidelines resulted. The results aren't always ideal, but people do try, and the DYK rules generally aren't arbitrary but are the fruit of many years of experience. So articles need to be at least a certain length of original material in order to be considered: it may mean that the author needs to work a little harder to find additional notable facts and figures for inclusion, but it rarely means that the information isn't out there to be found.
For some people, DYK is the carrot that inspires them to create more articles—it's why "new" and "newly expanded" are part of the original criteria. WikiCup also inspires creation and improvement of articles. But it can also have the effect of creating the shortest article possible to qualify, rather than try to create a reasonably good article. (Yes, I've had people say that they'd done enough when I urged them to fill in this detail or that, without which understanding of the article's subject was woefully incomplete.) Most people will take an article to a reasonable level, which is beyond 1500 characters because it takes more than that to make a satisfactory start. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I know you put a lot of effort into keeping the DYK circus running, and I didn't mean to come across as hostile. I don't think DYK as a general concept (to encourage new content, attract readers daily to the main page) is bad, but there are things about its rules which encourage not-entirely-good behavior. The center of these is the 5-day requirement combined with the "no improvement templates" requirement. It's a complete contradiction.
As for not participating if I don't like it: I ran into the John Harvard statue article through some accident on the day it was created (I think a link was added to some other article I had watchlisted). Seeing how much work was needed, I immediately set to work on it, and as explained, got backtalk from the article creator, and was the subject of nasty comments in the DYK discussion, for "getting in the way" of approval by not just leaving its mess alone. I knew nothing of DYK at the time (I never look at the main page, believe it or not) but nonetheless I was expected to fall into line with its rules.
Why not drop the newness requirement, require something like B-class status, and instead of advertising "newest/newly improved content" that pretends to be complete by being template-free, instead advertise, "Did you know... [fact?] If so, you might be a able to help WP improve this frankly needs-to-be-improved article?" Don't really say that, of course, but you get the idea. EEng (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • You know, I've gotten to the point where even 1500 characters just flies by without any issue. Maybe an hour writing, and the article is at DYK level (if it's a really obscure film, even GA level). It's not a very high limit, and if you are writing for the article, and not for the DYK, it shouldn't matter much. Djoemala (random example) reached 2000 characters pretty quickly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Re: tick. I had promoted it with a comment (which Nikkimaria accidentally reverted) as the QPQ had been provided, and thus the only issue had been dealt with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Not everybody is a brilliant writer though, and DYK provides an opportunity for those not so good at writing extended essays on topics to get something promoted on to the front page. If they see a slightly shorter article, would-be editors think "yeah, I can write something like that" and join.--Launchballer 14:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, 1500 characters is nothing if you know your sources. Between posting above and now, I've already written Roesia si Pengkor, from 0 to 2824 characters (i.e. nearly twice the minimum). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Crisco, agreed. And apologies for not checking the edits directly to see that you had placed a comment, which had accidentally disappeared in the removal reversion. Incidentally, I've restored the hook to T:TDYK (it had been cleared out after promotion), and I've made a few edits that added a bit more material. I've asked Nikkimaria to take another look to see if it qualifies now. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Khaplu Palace DYK hook

Hello BlueMoonset. This was a picture hook but it doesn't appear as such in the Queue. It is my first hook with a picture so I am not aware of any possible reason for its removal. Since I find that you moved the hook to preparation area, so thought to ask you. -- SMS Talk 08:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Smsarmad, we have far more hooks submitted with pictures than there are lead slots to hold them. The majority of hooks with pictures do not run in the lead slot because of this. I thought it was a good article, but the picture at thumbnail size seemed somewhat dark and hard to make out detail to my eyes, which is why I chose it to be in the first non-lead slot. Three of the six slots in that set were filled by hooks submitted with pictures: the last hook was also run without its picture. I'm sorry your first picture didn't work out, but it happens with many submissions; I hope your next picture ends up being chosen. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation and increasing my knowledge. :) -- SMS Talk 10:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination: Filipinos in Poland

Hello BlueMoonset. I can continue reviewing the article if there are no objections on that.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Jetstreamer, if you're ready to do a full review that you post all at once, that's fine; please go ahead. But it should cover everything in one go, not be piecemeal comments. Since you only seemed interested in the hook, I thought you weren't intending to do a complete review, which is why I put out the call. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll be finishing the review within the next 24 hours.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Great! Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 Done.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK query

Hi mate! I think you helped out with some advice on my last DYK and I've not had a lot to do with DYK since and am still working it out. Can you have a look at {{Did you know nominations/Kit houses in Michigan}}? It seems to be the only one on its day not to have been reviewed but maybe I've done something wrong and it isn't showing up properly? If it's fine and someone will get to it eventually, that's okay - I'm not in any rush. But I didn't want to just leave it there without checking. Cheers, Stalwart111 01:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Stalwart111, it's fine; thanks for checking. Sometimes nominations are picked up quickly, sometimes they wait a while. I see four others from that date that still haven't been reviewed, so yours is in good company. It sometimes can take quite a while, I'm sorry to say—there are a few from late September that haven't been picked up yet—but yours will be reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, cool, thanks for the very quick reply! More than happy for it to sit there and wait (I must have missed the others from that day!) as long as it is sitting there properly. Thanks for checking - much appreciated! Stalwart111 02:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for all the excellent and constructive comments. The measured approach to contentious issues is certainly something I am in awe of (and something I wish to work on for the future). Thank you. AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you know? Dedham

Sorry for the delay! It slipped off my radar screen, but I've made the requested changes. Let me know if you would like to see anything else. --Briancua (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

inre Template:Did you know nominations/The Stand Up

Alt offered. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Commented there. Major issues, I'm afraid. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlueMoonset/Archive_12&oldid=1142896862"