User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 7

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 1

←

Archive 5

DYK reviews

Thanks, BlueMoonset. Yes, I am sorry I missed the signatures. I have made amendments now. I also noticed the grammatical mistake ('help', instead of "helped" in particular) in the hook but felt reluctant to indicate it as many editors take it amiss. In the next review, I will be more careful. Thanks once again. --Nvvchar. 03:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think in the case of grammatical errors, we have to either point them out or simply correct them in place and mention the correction in passing. Hooks need to be correct: they're going to Wikipedia's main page! It's much better to fix things at this stage than hope that someone will do it later, because that's how problems slip through. (I think I'm having to fix more hooks now than I used to.) Wikipedia's a collection of editors, and people should be used to having their prose fixed and typos corrected, because it happens all the time here on articles. Why should DYK nominations be any different? :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you review the Hurricane Sandy benefit nomination? That one's currently unsigned. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for letting me know about the incomplete review. If there are any others I've reviewed that have been addressed, please let me know and I will revisit them. (I go away on Monday so better to get them addressed now.)

LauraHale (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/Downtown Community House

I think the problem of the incorrect closure has been corrected.[1] --Allen3 ^talk 01:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thank you so much. I wasn't sure of all the steps, or I wouldn't have bothered you. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding another Gibraltar backlog

I've been discussing with Yngvadottir ways of ensuring that the Gibraltar-related articles in the holding area get reviewed in a timely fashion and don't simply pile up in a backlog again. One concern I have is that putting the unreviewed articles in the holding area is potentially counter-productive - it's not normally used for unreviewed articles, and editors looking for articles to review wouldn't normally think of looking there. I suggested, and Yngvadottir seemed to think it was a good idea, that the nominations should be listed by date (as well as under the holding area) to ensure that they don't get overlooked. Are you OK with doing this? Prioryman (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it has the potential of being problematic, in that they could be promoted from the dates section directly by someone who isn't paying attention—unfortunately, we have a few people building sets who miss things like that. I have to run so I don't have time to check myself: wasn't the consensus to keep them in that special holding area regardless? If so, then it's certainly not up to me to contravene what was decided there. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a template on each one to give instructions to reviewers (see e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/O'Hara's Battery). It would be trivial to amend this to add an instruction to promoters to check whether there are any Gib-related articles already in the prep areas or queues, and to delay promoting if there are. (I assume that's what your concern relates to.) As for the holding area, the consensus wasn't to keep them in the holding area "regardless"; to quote, "All DYK Gibraltar-related nominations will go into a special holding area from the time they are nominated: Consensus, but qualified by an editor as being required only if incoming rate is high enough." Two observations: there's scope for discontinuing the holding area if the incoming rate doesn't justify retaining it (though I'm not suggesting this for now), and second, the consensus wasn't to list them exclusively in the holding area. As long as they're still listed in the holding area, it would be within the terms of the consensus to also list them by date so that they get reviewed in a timely fashion. Prioryman (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It says they are to go into the holding area, it doesn't say they can ever move out of it. (They're still in the holding area once they're promoted to prep, only you don't see them.) I can understand your concern, but I recommend against trying this: the intent was clear that they be moved into the holding area, and no provision is made for their duplication or spending time elsewhere. "All DYK Gibraltar-related nominations will go into a special holding area from the time they are nominated" is quite clear in its intent, and it makes me realize that at least one nomination has been sitting outside the holding area for a few days now.

I realize this is sensitive: now is not the time to make special posts asking for reviewers on WT:DYK, as it will bring the usual Gibraltarpedia criticisms and calls for a complete moratorium. I plan to continue to list old articles needing review in my periodic sections (there's a Gibraltar one still there in the latest list); when the current ones become old enough, they'll be added in with the other old ones. There might even be a way to put a pointer at the end of the section of current hooks to the special Gibraltar section further down. However, I guarantee you that if you try to fudge the requirement to move hooks into that special area by posting duplicate entries by date on T:TDYK, it will blow up in your face. It's your choice, of course. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it's fair enough and good advice. As long as you continue to list them in your periodic sections I think we're covered. I don't think the holding section should run indefinitely; I propose to suggest that it should be lifted after Christmas, when the current article writing competition has ended and the flow of new articles should have slowed to a trickle. Prioryman (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have to say my prediction has been born out - burying the Gibraltar DYKs in the holding area has only served to ensure that they are not being reviewed. These aren't difficult reviews, there's no problems with the articles themselves; the nominations simply aren't being noticed. I'll put forward a proposal to end the holding area, as it's achieving nothing and is only ensuring that once again the nominations are piling up in a backlog. It's simply counter-productive. Your earlier concern about "calls for a complete moratorium" are moot now anyway, as that's already been proposed but is going down in flames.

On a related issue, I had hoped that the review of Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice (nominated a month ago at Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice) might have been completed by now in order to be ready in time for Remembrance Day this Sunday. It's still awaiting a second review. Might you be able to pick this one up? Prioryman (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's up to you, but I'd advise waiting until the moratorium call has been closed and has in fact gone down in flames before you make the proposal. The mood around here feels very shaky, and I think it's premature to propose reversing any of the restrictions. I would, frankly, wait until the Gibraltarpedia contest is over, as you suggested above, another six or seven weeks only. (I'm not sure how moving those hooks there now would improve things: they'd go back into the main list under their original days, and they would be just about as impossible to find as ever. Only newly submitted hooks would benefit.)

I was just about to post another backlog list, with a special request for Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice heading the list, and am doing so while I'm finishing this comment. However, it will have to be someone other than me to do the actual review. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As you'll have seen, I've been doing a fair number of reviews myself to sort out articles on your backlog list. I have to say it's really dismaying that nobody seems to have touched those Gibraltar articles, even though they've been listed by you. What do you attribute this to? I'm hoping that it's simply because they're hard to find, as we both seem to agree, but I'm concerned that editors may be feeling intimidated about reviewing those articles.

It's going to be another two weeks before the moratorium call closes. We have 21 unreviewed articles in the holding area. At the present rate of nominations and (lack of) reviews we're likely to end up with about 30 unreviewed ones in the queue at the end of those two weeks. That's simply not viable - it's even worse than the backlog that existed when we had an actual moratorium. There needs to be a better approach, surely. Prioryman (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that I found time to review Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice, approved it, and moved it to the November 11 special area. Someone else will have to promote it, though. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Glee Season 4

I know you undid my production codes, but on the promos it says the production codes. Look for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t04ZTMbTNY Go to 0:22. At the bottom the code is #4ARC02 And, at the end of episode when it does the credits, I saw that the production code was 4ARC02. So can you not undo my edits when I have to valid sources to prove?Ieditglee (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a valid source, since it's not an official Fox video. Anyone can record from a television, edit it, and present it: there is nothing that makes these reliable sources. Regardless, you are misreading this video and all the others. The promos are being run simultaneously with the credits from the previous episode. So while the credits for "Britney 2.0" are running, the promo for "Makeover" is running in split-screen. It's the production code for "Britney 2.0" you're seeing. Can I ask, by the way, where the code "3ARC23" (that you assigned to "The New Rachel") came from? Since there weren't 23 episodes shot for season 3, I strongly doubt there is an actual source for it. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Super Bowl lead-out programs

I was the one that wrote that description in the category anyway. If a particular episode that aired after the Super Bowl, does not have an article then you put the article about the series in the category, i.e. Malcolm in the Middle, Alias, as those series do not have individual articles for their respective episodes that aired after the Super Bowl. "The Sue Sylvester Shuffle" is already in the category, its redundant to have Glee in it as well. QuasyBoy (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The Glee article does specifically discuss that the show was a Super Bowl lead out. It doesn't seem at all redundant to list both the show and the specific episode, especially as the description said "and/or" as you wrote it. It frankly does not make sense to exclude the program when the category is called "programs", not "episodes". I saw that you wrote the description, but categories take a life of their own, and Glee was properly put in there given what the category description said. Are you planning to change it? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I change it now, by removing the "and/". Since it seems you that you added Glee to the category because of that. QuasyBoy (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who originally added Glee to the category originally; I imagine it happened quite a while ago. I was simply restoring an article that clearly belonged in the category as described when someone removed it. As you will probably have noticed, I've taken this matter to the category's talk page. I frankly think it's a more effective category when it includes both program articles and any individual episode articles—I don't see the redundancy, as both are relevant—though as the category is "lead-out programs", if anything it's the episodes that are redundant. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am about to comment on the discussion right now. QuasyBoy (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I Am... Sasha Fierce GA2

Hello. I've been dealing with a lot of RL work recently, so my Wiki-editing time has been significantly reduced, however, things are starting to clear so I think I will be able to finish it within the week. Sorry for any inconvenience. —Jennie | ☎ 18:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination for The Book of Lights

Hi, BlueMoonset, I know you're very active re DYK nominations. Could you consider reviewing my nomination for The Book of Lights? It's been up for a couple of weeks and no one has reviewed it yet. Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a busy time with me and I'm squeezing bits of time here and there, but I don't do many reviews even when time is plentiful. I'm afraid it will have to wait for someone else to come along. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to answer me! Best wishes, NearTheZoo (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Role You Were Born to Play

On 14 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Role You Were Born to Play, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that "The Role You Were Born to Play" was part of Blake Jenner's prize for winning The Glee Project? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Role You Were Born to Play. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ready for another look (DYK again)

Hello BlueMoonset, FYI, I've reworked and reduced the quotes used in The Making of a Teacher, and have inserted an icon indicating a request for re-evaluation at Template:Did you know nominations/The Making of a Teacher. Perhaps because you are the one who initially raised the copyvio issue -- an issue that the original reviewer had overlooked and didn't feel highly knowledgable about -- it seem the original reviewer thinks that others should pick up the task of verifying that the DYK nomination is now ready-to-go. That may put the ball in your court. Many thanks in advance -- Presearch (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just asked Nikkimaria to take another look at it when she has the chance, since I don't have the time, and she's had far more experience at judging such issues than I have. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Partly off-topic

Hi! It seems that you are a big gleek. I sure that you know the answer to these questions

What are the diffrences between pilot's first broadcast and director's cut version?
I have heard that there was parody of Glee on Saturday Night Live... am I right? and when was it?
Why Blake failed with the song at Original Song?

84.245.229.37 (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

So far as I know, the primary difference is that the director's cut has Will singing "Leavin' on a Jet Plane". There might be other minor differences.
No idea. There was a parody on Sesame Street, though.
No one named Blake was in "Original Song", so you've stumped me.

You might want to check one of the wikias or tumblrs run by Glee fans; they might have what you're looking for and a whole lot more besides. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I was thinking of Blane :) And the song was Raise your glass. And for the 1st question - so on torrents are the director's cut version, yes? --85.254.224.240 (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No idea. Sorry. If he sings the song, then yes. I think the director's cut is the only version ever released to DVD. Let's stick with on-topic going forward, okay? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Forgotten DYK?

My submission of King's Chapel, Gibraltar was approved several weeks ago but seems to have been forgotten about (see Template:Did you know nominations/King's Chapel, Gibraltar). Is there any chance of adding it to a prep area any time soon? Prioryman (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would think so. I haven't been able to do much prep area creation lately; Allen3's been doing the bulk, and I'm pretty sure he selected the most recent Gibraltar hooks, so I know he's aware of them. If I'm able to build a set at the right time, I'll be sure to pick it up if it hasn't been already. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out. On a related issue, Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Tower Road seems to have reached an impasse - I've passed it but the second reviewer has opposed it on grounds that I've never seen before at DYK: he seems to be arguing that (1) the subject is non-notable - it certainly doesn't seem right to me that a DYK reviewer should try to make such a determination unilaterally, without even an AfD - and (2) that it's "too local", whatever that is supposed to mean. He seem to have applied criteria that are well outside of the scope of DYK. As it stands, the review is deadlocked. What do you suggest we should do about this? Prioryman (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there isn't an AfD or a merge under consideration, there isn't a DYK rule that stops it cold pending resolution. I think the argument is that absent the tower, which already has its own article, the rest of the material is insufficiently notable to justify a separate article, which is something we have seen on DYK before. The problem with this kind of review is that it's nothing that can be fixed, really. You might want to ask the opinion of one of the old DYK hands, like Orlady, to see what her opinion is. I'm still a comparative newbie, with less than a year under my belt. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Chameleons

I did have a look at some of the other Furcifer nominations and improved one of the articles but will have another inspection. The matter is complicated by the fact that Thine Antique Pen approached me for advice on avoiding "bloat" and writing species articles. As a result of my suggestions, Hyperolius ocellatus has been expanded and may find its way to DYK. I thought it was a considerable improvement on the previous articles. I would prefer to be thought of as a source of advice rather than as a critic of substandard DYK nominations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now dealt with the following articles, editing some to a hopefully acceptable standard, removing duplicate information from others so they are below the 1500 byte limit or putting comments on the DYK template. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, thank you so very much. I'm glad Thine Antique Pen approached you for advice, and also happy to hear that it helped the newer article. I very much appreciate you checking those ten articles: it was a huge amount to do under the circumstances. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Grootegeluk Coal Mine, Waterberg Coalfield

I left a note on Template:Did you know nominations/Grootegeluk Coal Mine, Waterberg Coalfield asking if you would care to tackle the phrasing changes that Nikkimaria wants done, since she is emphatic that I am not qualified to make them. The reason I thought you might do it is that you seem very concerned about these articles. You asked for a second review after the first reviewer cleared them, and a third review after the second reviewer cleared them. It seems unfair to ask for a fourth reviewer. I can assure you that I will not be picky about the changes you make. My sole concern is that the articles accurately reflect the sources. Geology jargon includes various phrases and even words like fault, rift, basin and sediment that have very precise meanings, where rephrasing or substituting a synonym would give ludicrous results. They should be fairly easy to spot: many of them will have a definition in Wikipedia or Wiktionary. Thank you in advance for your contribution. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Aymatth2, I saw your note in passing: I'm extremely busy off Wikipedia right now, and expect to be for the next couple of days at least, but I don't want to leave you hanging. Is there no one you can ask to check Nikkimaria's points, and ask them to look for similar issues in the article sources? I realize that this is a blind spot of yours, but I simply don't have the time to do the research and comparisons that a thorough paraphrase check and resulting rephrasing would entail. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not know of anyone who would want to undertake such a job. There is no urgency at all. Perhaps when you have more time ... Aymatth2 (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Invite

I thought you might like to be involved in a discussion similar to the one that was about Glee (season 4), over at talk:Once Upon a Time (season 2). I would love your opinion. LiamNolan24 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

John Harvard

Hello BlueMoonset. I'm sorry about the needless back and forth on the John Harvard statue nom, I should've probably been more careful from the beginning. But after the editor's comments, and thinking it over, I felt it would be best to delay it a bit than have it turn into another bout of drama (we've had more than enough already). Anyway, I've replied to your comment at the nomination page. Best. Yazan (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You had a good point about the article's intro containing a citation needed template. Now that someone's fixed that one, and you've commented out the two in the History section, I'd say the thing to do is to see whether your edits hold. If EEng reverses, then we may have to wait longer. If he doesn't, then I think it's probably okay to proceed, especially if he makes any other edits to the article... unless, of course, those are to add other templates... As noted, I don't care about templates in the Notes themselves. They don't interfere with the article proper. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding: I should have checked first; I see you've gone ahead and approved the article. That's fine. The edits you made to the article should hold; they're reasonable, and the information is clearly not verifiable by a reliable source or it would be cited there. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK nom

Hi, I've cut part of the alt hook in Template:Did you know nominations/Women's sport in New South Wales. You might want to look it over now. Also notifying nominator. Buggie111 (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added to the list of older nominations that need reviewing in WT:DYK; I expect someone will review it in the next few days. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! I am confused. Is it really wikipedia policy to require a cite at the end of every quote? A quick glance tells me that the uncited quotes are pretty clearly from the court opinion; it seems silly to keep citing the court over and over again. The back reference list at the bottom would blow up, and not even academics require that level of citing. Sorry: I am not trying to be disrespectful here, just a noob to wikipedia. Frgx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked some Wikipedia pages on this issue, and It may not actually be necessary to put a cite at the end of each and every quote. What the WP:Verifiability policy says is "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." For DYK, we extend that to a minimum of one inline citation every paragraph, but each quotation must have a clear inline source specified. If a set of sequential quotes are clearly connected and equally clearly from the same source, you could perhaps get away with only citing the last of these within a paragraph. As each paragraph is considered a separate unit, you'd definitely need to have a citation in each paragraph even if to the same source in more than one of these paragraphs. Another point: if it's a long document, like a court decision (which can be hundreds of pages), it's important to include page numbers in your citation so people can easily find the quote and its context, so it may be necessary to do multiple citations from the same source in the same paragraph for this reason. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Aymatth2 added the cites to each paragraph. Can we still consider a DYK nomination? Frgx (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the nomination is still active. Aymatth2 did have concerns, which will presumably be addressed by the next reviewer to come along. Depending on what is said then, there may or may not need to be more work on the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

RE:Template:Did you know nominations/George Luther Kapeau

Could you reply to Template:Did you know nominations/George Luther Kapeau?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for being active on DYK and for taking the time to respond to my entries! Your kindness and willingness to help are greatly appreciated. ComputerJA (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

inre Chad Netherland dyk nom

Oh gosh, I totally forgot about that! Do forgive me.. I was, instead, monitoring this dyk (So I would like to take this opportunity to ask if you would kind helping me review that dyk. Thanks). Alright, alright, I will fix the problem as soon as I can.. Do wait! Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

done! Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm afraid, though, that some of the information was based on sources that Wikipedia does not consider reliable, and I've removed those unsupported sections. Also, some sources did not support the information given. I did add a little more from reliable sources where I could do so. At the moment, the article is once again below 1500 prose characters, and needs further attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Glee cast change

Look i know you think that you are important but let me tell you how it is;1st off if the information i put on the glee season pages about the cast is unnecessary then why is it on several other season pages for various shows, 2nd the sources i got from the wiki can also be proven true by watching them but you can't put that online so i am going to put it back up and i would appreciate it if you kept your grubby paws off the keybard and leave it be. Peace and Love — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomie54i (talk • contribs) 02:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK

Thank you for reviewing my nomination. I have now proposed a similar hook but with a different wording. Please feel free to have a look. De728631 (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Glee Cast Change Part 2

I think you are just a power hungry prick who wants to edit all these articles to your liking, how about i don't use a source lots of sections on articles do not have sources. The bottom line is the section i put on the Glee seasons 1-4 articles were both helpful and true so why don't you take your computer mouse and shove it, so you can stop messing with my changes. Now personally i have better things to do with my life clearly unlike your pathetic self however you have pissed me off so stop changing my edits. Have a lovely night alone with your laptop and cats who get more action than your pimply self could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomie54i (talk • contribs) 05:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to acquaint yourself with how Wikipedia works, including basic civility (WP:CIVIL) as well as the basic rules of what is an acceptable contribution, and what isn't. If you aren't willing to contribute in a positive fashion, don't expect your material to last long. It's never any fun to see something you've worked on disappear, but as I'm far from the only person to enforce the rules, don't be surprised to see these additions of yours continuing to be removed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

How was what i posted in the glee articles not positive. Whatever it is people like you who make the internet full of drama i never wanted any of this i just wanted to add what most people would enjoy. So if you want me blocked from editing go ahead, but know this karma will bite you in the ass and i think you need to acquaint yourself with a little thing called a life and manners and stop changing people info on articles if they are true!!! I really do you have a wonderful life but this has made me mad. --Tomie54i (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Tomie, it isn't positive or negative, or even personal. Every place on the internet has its own rules, and Wikipedia has a whole bunch of them about what sorts of information should be in articles, and what you need to back that up. Oddly, being true is not sufficient on Wikipedia: original research (WP:OR) is not welcome, whether it's yours or someone else's. Only once information has been previously published in a place with professional editorial standards—a reliable source, and what's considered reliable is given at WP:RS—and information must be verifiable as well. This is Wikipedia's sandbox: if you want to play in it, it's good manners to abide by the rules in the sandbox, rather than assert that the people going by them have to let you do what you want even if it runs contrary to them. I hope you have a wonderful life, too, but if I may give a friendly word of caution, I don't think you'll enjoy Wikipedia much if you continue to insist that you should be allowed to do things any way you want despite the rules of the road here. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/My Life (50 Cent song)

Can you please add your opinion and explanation here? Thank You. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't think it was what you were hoping for—Yerevanci was right about a 5x expansion being needed, even if the exact numbers were not quite accurate—so there's more expansion needed if the article is to qualify for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Glee episodes

Regarding this edit, the edits that "broke" the table were very minor and easily fixed, which was preferred to reversing the multiple edits to make the table MOS:ACCESS and MOS:DTT compliant. Regarding the date ranges, I can find no consensus that TV articles should contradict MOS:YEAR. Until that consensus exists, we have to comply with it, which is why hundreds of lists were corrected by other editors recently. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, but the wording of MOS:YEAR allows discretion, and that discretion seems to allow the slash, not require it: "2005/06 may be used to signify a period of 12 or fewer months, such as a corporate or governmental fiscal year, if that is the convention used in reliable sources". That's "may be used", as in optional, not "should" or "must". So from my perspective, you'd changed three of the four seasons to use the slash (not all four, which was certainly problematic), not the preferred way we used seasons here, which was with the en dash, and you'd messed up a table: several problems in a single edit. So I reversed the edit, on the theory that if it was important you could come back and fix the tables while leaving the dates alone. It seemed to me that the sports season was most analogous to the television season, but there is apparently a countervailing interpretation of MOS:YEAR that's holding sway. Can you please point me to the consensus that requiring the slash is the proper interpretation? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The wording of your quote from MOS:YEAR looked a bit off, so I did a bit of investigation. There was a wording change to the MOS made two weeks ago that I wasn't aware of,[2] only two weeks after hundreds of articles were changed to comply with the previous wording, which said "2005/06 is a period of 12 months or less, such as a sports season or a financial year". --AussieLegend (✉) 08:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, to me it makes no sense to have one season one way and three the other, so I'm standardizing back on the en dash. Let's leave it this way until the dust settles; there didn't seem much support for the slash. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Grease soundtrack

Chart Moves: 'Glee' 'Grease' Tribute Album Debuts, Lianne La Havas Sees 978% Sales Gain . I came across this and I thought as you have added reception sections to the latest glee episode articles it might be helpful if your planning to add a chart history sub-section, for the articles; The Role You Were Born to Play and Glease. I would add it myself but since the season four episode articles don't have cohesive reception sections just having a small chart history section would look weird. Regards —Adabowth eSecond 19:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks interesting and definitely useful for when the articles do gain their chart sections. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kamada Ekadashi

The article was promoted to prep 2, but had forgotten to link QPQ. So modified the page and added. That is OK, right?--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not so smart of me not to notice the absence of the QPQ; good of you to add it anyway. Technically, the page isn't supposed to be modified after promotion, but I'd imagine this is one of the exception situations. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Quoting

Hey BlueMoonset, could I get a second pair of eyes on The Colours of Animals, currently in prep? Over two-thirds of the article's prose is direct quoting - it's not a copyright issue, but...see what you think. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I think you're a better judge than I, since I'm the one who promoted it, such that it was in the next queue to go before you bumped it back. I have to confess I didn't read the article closely, just took a look and did a couple of spotchecks. Once the second half of the article has been properly blockquoted, as you've just done, it stands out: the proportion of direct quotes is too high, and the article could do with a lot more paraphrasing: it would be more concise and readable, I think, if that were done. It doesn't feel encyclopedic as it is now. Can I ask you to do whatever you think appropriate at this point?

Also, I was wondering if you could swap Patrick Omameh back from Queue 1 to Prep 2 with the Chateau, or (if you're going to remove Colours entirely), back to Prep 3 where he was (but the Chateau would go to Queue 1 regardless). I hate to have Patrick run when the US is asleep. I'll be sure to fill up any open slots after you're done. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the charm of the original text vs. the clarity of paraphrasing. I certainly think that a couple of blockquotes are warranted, especially from the book itself. The ones from the reviews of the book are less necessary: a couple of short phrases from each should be sufficient. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Response

I responded to your comment here--Template:Did you know nominations/Race, ethnicity and religion in censuses. Please respond back whenever you'll have time. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I responded to you again. Futurist110 (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm leaving the review to Yerevanci. The article meets the 5x expansion rule in terms of numbers of characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

DYKcheck

Could you please count the number of characters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Race,_ethnicity_and_religion_in_censuses

And afterward, can you please show me how to do that. By the way, I use Google Chrome.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 16:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

32500. The instructions are at WP:DYKCHECK. It says that the software works with Google Chrome, so you should be all set there. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK Aharbal

Thanks for reviewing Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Aharbal. It is (pictured) as you see, but in Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1 the picture has been removed, why, is there any reason? MehrajMir '^(Talk) 02:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

MehrajMir, there are far more hooks with pictures than there are lead slots available, so most hooks with pictures end up being used without the supplied picture. When I selected Aharbal, the set I selected it for already had a lead hook with a picture in place. In fact, the first five hooks in the set all had pictures when they were nominated; only the final hook in that set was not nominated with an image. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for the excellent work you do organising DYKs. Without your efforts, things would be much more chaotic over on the nominations page. Thank you for participating! -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just dropping by to give you a similarly-worded barnstar, so I'll just add my grateful agreement with the one above. Thanks for all you do. The Interior (Talk) 06:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both. I appreciate it. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/Furcifer polleni, Furcifer willsii

Sorry about this one. When building a set, I normally load a current copy of Template talk:Did you know and work from that. Your edit obviously occurred after I loaded this page but before the promotion was made. --Allen3 ^talk 13:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saved it something like three minutes ahead of you. There seems to be something about the DYK template that prevents an edit conflict from showing up when two editors are working on the same as-yet-unsubstituted template, and the later one activates it. Wish I'd seen it sooner, so we could have avoided this. Incidentally, I work the same way, so it's probably just luck that I haven't run into this on one of my sets. No doubt my day will come soon enough. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Philip Slier

Would you mind having a look at this? I question the promotion of this DYK as written, and believe the hook is unclear. While the meaning is indicated, it is confusingly presented and contains an assumption of reader's knowledge. There were three ALTs offered, but not discussed; they or others s/b considered b4 publication Djflem (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Djflem, I'm very puzzled by this, since you approved the article: that's your tick mark on it, and the words "looks good to go". If you didn't mean it to be promoted, then those words are completely inappropriate. If there were problems with or questions about the hooks remaining at that point, your review should have said so and not approved it, or made clear just what you were approving: so far as I can tell, only ALT2 was not yours, and therefore should have been the only one you could have approved. The hook as posted appears to be an amalgamation of your ALT1 and Doug's ALT2, though it's basically the latter, with your "reveals the story" and Doug's "reveals history" changed to "reveal the history", so the hook used doesn't end up being an issue that way.

If you think either hook or article is a major problem, you're welcome to post your concerns on WT:DYK. With Anne Frank being brought in for the hooks—she's what's going to get people's attention—while I think the wording could be more concise if the article had a bit more detail (such as when in 1997 the letters were discovered, so "more than fifty" could be changed to "53" or "54"), it seems adequate to the task of attracting readers without being inaccurate. I've just made some minor copyedits to the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

45 days off!

No book hitting until 1/22...if you need anything, holler! And is the DYK dept. lucky to have you! Nice work there, I've noticed ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 09:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! I hope you enjoy the time off. I have no idea whether I'm actually going to try for another GA at this point: not much ambition for it at the moment. There hasn't been anything worthwhile in the latest Glee episodes to hang a hook on—I thought of one for the Christmas episode a bit too late, and didn't have the time to pursue the sources that would have been needed anyway. With the next new episode after this coming Thursday not until mid-January, we don't even have an official title for that episode (which didn't stop someone from creating the episode article redirect), so it'll be a while before a DYK will be feasible. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

AB Award!

	AB Award!
	In appreciation of your contributions to Wikipedia, I hereby present you with the AB Award. By expanding and promoting one of these stubs, which I like to think of as seeds, you have improved this wonderful collaborative project. Thank you, and keep up the great work! Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Template: prefix on Template talk:Did you know

FYI I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Template:_prefix_on_Template_talk:Did_you_know. Legoktm (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied there. It's basically what I said in my reply to you on Rcs's page, with a bit of expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

45 article hook

Tell me, would User:Dr. Blofeld/Burkina Faso be an acceptable hook? It would be a worthy cause of expanding them all and having in one hook.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As worthy as it might be to expand so many articles, the hook itself strikes me as quite uninteresting and uninformative. Sorry. The numbers gag might work as an April Fools type of hook, though I'd check with people who have more of a feel for that than I, like Crisco 1492, because it also might not work there. There's also the sad example of the current 54-article paleontology hook, which is taking absolutely forever to review. My gut reaction is that such mega-multi-article hooks are a huge burden on the community, and are best avoided. It's also very difficult to create truly interesting multi-article hooks once you get past a few articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So you value DYK more for interesting hooks than as a mechanism for getting people to expand notable and important articles on wikipedia? Let's face it, the majority of hooks are not interesting to the average visitor are they? Here's one currently at random on the front page DYK that Ron Ball defeated former UK government minister James Plaskitt to become the first Police and Crime Commissioner of Warwickshire? The whole point I thought is not that anybody really cares about the hook as a fact or is interested by the hook itself, but it showcases what articles have recently been expanded on wikipedia (which are appreciated). You seem to have the view that people actually care about the hooks appearing, the vast majority I believe think "so what"? Have I missed the point of DYK all these years BM? The purpose of DYK from my perspective has always been as a mechanism which makes creating content more exciting and worth getting to start class and collaborating not for actually being interesting as a feature. It is just a way to merely show what has recently been expanded from my view point, obviously you think differently!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, you asked me for my opinion on your hook, I gave it. The idea behind a hook is to pique the reader's interest (literally, to "hook" the reader so they click the link); the list of numbered links caused my eyes to glaze over. If all DYK was here for was to show what had recently been created/expanded, we could just list a couple of dozen articles a day in bulleted format, article name only. The idea, I thought, was to intrigue people enough so they actually took a look at these recently created offerings: clicked on them then and there to see this material, find out more about the person, place, thing, event, or idea on the other side of the link. If you don't interest them, they don't click. It's important that people are writing new and improving old content on Wikipedia, and DYK gives them a way to find an audience for their hard work. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with that, although I generally just see the emboldened article in questioned and click it if it is a subject which interests me rather than really taking notice of a hook, unless of course it is quirky and stands out as unusual. The emphasis on DYK for me is to encourage editors to expand existing and create new content and to show others the sort of new work which is going into wikipedia. Generally I find the mish mash of article presented at DYK highly interesting, even if I don't think the hooks themselves mean that much.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/L'Atelier de Joël Robuchon (Hong Kong)

Articles created/expanded on December 5.

There are two articles in this hook, which I have reviewed BOTH. They pass just fine. I want to know IF I have listed the "tics" correctly. If not, can you correct so that BOTH are given a "tic" correctly. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the placement of the ticks you gave; though I usually don't bother to give separate ones for the two articles while explaining that I'd reviewed them both, it isn't wrong to do so. I don't see a mention of the hook fact (that there are a dozen L'Ateliers) anywhere in the Hong Kong article (though it is stated and sourced in London), nor, curiously, that Joël Robuchon runs the London L'Atelier (Hong Kong is clear on this). These should both be addressed, and I expect would be easy to do. Oddly, back before the New York L'Atelier closed in June, the New York Times (usually quite a reliable source) said there were nine L'Atelier restaurants at that point, with three to open in 2013 (and New York to close). But that was May, and this is December, another source does mention the twelve, and a lot can change and even the NYT has been known to nod. Note: I've fixed the second and fourth DYKmake templates; the software has a bug that prevents it from adding the subpage parameter to any but the first of the DYKmakes for each article. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Carl Breer

The article creator thought it appropriate, perhaps due to the "avalanche" of edits. The promoter didn't. I recognize the conflict issue. The article deserved promotion, and was well documented and worthwhile. ALT 1 was also a far better alternative hook that was amply supported by the on line WP:RS, something that you thought not worthwhile. I was trying to work off an obligation to do 30 DYK reviews, and continue to do that. I expected you to use your judgment and discretion. I defer to the promoter. No worries. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Kiss You

I was hoping you could opine and assist at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Kiss_You_(One_Direction_song). It's my second DYK nomination. Someone has yet to comment. Regards. —Adabowth eSecond 00:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not taking on new reviews at the moment; it takes my available time to do everything else I do for DYK. I imagine yours will get attention in the week ahead. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. —Adabowth eSecond 11:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Tv.com ELN

Hi, BlueMoonset. I'm contacting you because you commented at the Tv.com TFD, which I decided to withdraw for the moment. I subsequently made a report about Tv.com at WP:ELN. Please feel free to comment at the new discussion: Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Tv.com. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm following the discussion with interest, but haven't been moved to comment yet. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK reviews

I have recently done quite a lot of DYK reviews, far more than my QPQ number, but should I stop?

First we both got thwacked with a dead trout. That was a Gibraltar article that was referenced to an article that mentioned Wikipedia as a source, a fact that we missed in a plethora of other considerations.
Next I gave a tick to an article on a prosthetic limb, a useful product I thought. That was pulled from the main page because it was said to make an unsubstantiated medical claim. I had not considered this aspect at all. It just seemed a factual article about an innovative product to me.
Now I see Penticton Regional Airport hook is adjudged to be an error of fact. In this instance I checked the hook source but failed to notice that the claim made in the hook was not quite the same as the fact stated in the article.

So, am I a bad reviewer? Should I stop reviewing DYKs apart from the necessary QPQs when I nominate articles?

Answering my own questions, I doubt I am any worse than most other reviewers and the more articles reviewed, the more mistakes will inevitably be made. I doubt whether critics like The Rambling Man have actually reviewed many articles. There are numerous things to be considered and it is difficult to be sure that you have checked everything. We are expected to assume good faith for off-line sources but our good faith is doubted for making mistakes when reviewing even when we have been as conscientious as possible. What do you think, should I stop reviewing? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're a bad reviewer at all, and I definitely hope you don't stop; you're generally pretty good, and better than most. Before I "knew" you, I remember thinking you were one of the reliable ones, though a couple of times this fall I ran across approvals of yours that I had to reverse because I found problems, and it had me checking your reviews a bit more closely than I had initially done. Do be extra sure to check both the hook fact against the article, and then the article's hook info against the cited source(s): that's the typical place where trout issues are likely to crop up. If it means you do fewer reviews because they take you more time, so be it.

I try to stay away from medical articles because I don't understand MEDRS at all, and the whole medical claims area is one I simply don't understand. It's hard to get secondary, neutral information on that kind of thing.

One thing that's been bothering me for a while is the AGF expectation, which sometimes seems to ignore the details of WP:DYKSG#H3, which begins: "If the article is sourced entirely to offline or foreign-language sources in such a way that you cannot verify that the subject of the article actually exists or that contentious material is accurate, don't verify the article; instead, leave a note explaining your difficulty below the hook." For foreign languages, sometimes people can be found who understand it and can read the original sources, if Google translate isn't adequate to the task, and for offline sourcing, asking for a fair use sentence or two from the source does the trick, or a discussion can be had about contentious material (and the hook is, by definition, contentious if it seems at all unlikely or outre).

I don't like making mistakes, or missing things that I ought to catch, but as I know I'm not perfect, such things are going to occur. (The trout moment is a case in point: I was focused on one thing and completely missed the more important scarlet letters.) As long as we do our best, and learn from those mistakes, I think we're fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will try to take the points you make in hand. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

1000 DYKs

Thanks for the congrats. What should we do now though about the column. Adding a 1000 column would make the table too wide of course. Perhaps mention something above it? I've created File:1000 DYK.png as I think Nvv, Rosie and several others will also reach the milestone within a few months.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not my department. I know I've seen the tables at one point, but not for months, and I couldn't locate them just now; someone else will have to figure it out. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Problem on a DYK nomination

Please take a look at here. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 01:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Replied. It actually does qualify under 1d; the history files are very confusing in this regard, but the article did not exist except in userspace until it was moved to articlespace on December 12. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your extraordinary scrutiny at DYK arena. Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes sir...

lol ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. But I had pointed out on the user's talk page (inaugurated the page, too) that co-stars should not be listed (unless, like Lauren or Ashley, they were promoted to guest star status later), and the edit you reversed was the one that fixed things! Incidentally, this user seems pretty good about getting the credits in the correct order where they are not—I'm checking them out against my DVDs or online wherever possible (season 1 is hiding), so the user's "On My Way" edit was correct, and maybe others too. I'll only reverse you when I can confirm that the order was properly corrected before the reversion. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No prob at all :) BTW, wasn't "Thanksgiving" awesome...the original kids will always have a magic no other cast can capture. I am a fan of "Jarley", tho....or "Muck". lol Rcej (Robert) – talk 10:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Nrisingha Prasad Bhaduri

New reply here! --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Any reply there? --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I was expecting some edits to the article first, but I finally figured out I hadn't made myself clear about what I wanted. I've just replied. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for One Crazy Ride

I admittedly was to hasty to nominate this for DYK, should have waited till the afd was closed... Now it finally is! (It was kept) Is it appropriate to re-review it now? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you wait for the AfD to close, the nomination will end up being too late; you nominated at the right point. However, it only has 806 prose characters at this point, barely half of the 1500 minimum. (Lists don't count as prose in DYK.) A re-review would just reinstate the X. You're going to have to give it a significant expansion first for it to qualify. Are you able to do this? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Vanderbilt exoskeleton

I've taken a look at this and don't think its sourcing is suitable. However, in no way is medical devices my area of expertise, so perhaps someone else should be asked to review. Have you tried pinging SandyGeorgia to take another look? I believe it was her who objected in the first instance. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought your review made sense when I read it, especially as to why the sources were not adequate; if there are objections from the author, I'll definitely query SandyGeorgia. Thank you very much for the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Tantalum(V) ethoxide DYK

Hi... I noticed a message at Rifleman82's page about this article about the tantalum(V) ethoxide article being too short for DYK. I've added some description of the structure and I think the length is ok now. Regards, EdChem (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It looks like we're probably set now. I'm going to ask Rifleman 82 to stop by and give it a quick check, since neither I nor Hahc21 have any knowledge of chemistry, but I expect it'll be just fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Cliff castles

I have added a new suggested alt at Template:Did you know nominations/Promontory Forts of Cornwall if you'd like to check it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks good, and I've approved it. I appreciate your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it too late for an April Fools entry?

Is The Three Musketeers (Studebaker engineers) too late for an April 1 entry? How can it be moved to the "Special occasion holding area"? Can you do that?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not too late. Did you want this one to be moved there? It does mean the article won't see the main page for over four more months. April Fools are the one special holding date that can be done at any time of year. For other occasions, there's usually a limit of six weeks for a special hold on any hook once it's been approved. Let me know, and I can arrange to have it moved for you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please put this article for April 1st. I realize it won't see the main page for over four more months, but that is alright with me. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Iron Confederacy DYK

Hi Bluemoonset, I've signed off on all my concerns with the Iron Confederacy DYK and I think it's ready to go, but because we had changes to the hook, one of which was mine, and I think it was you (or someone) who said that I therefore could not be the person to do final approval on it, AND because we don't seem to have a hook in final form, it appears trapped in limbo. Any ideas on how to break this little logjam and get the article to the main page for DYK? Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 17:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you broke the logjam; the article has been promoted, and should be hitting the main page in about 33.5 hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey

I never knew that BlueMoonlet (talk · contribs) existed, and at first I thought it was a doppelganger accout you created to avoid impersonation. I became aware of this user today while at DRN and I was asking myself "Why is BlueMoonset at DRN?" until I saw the signature, and he seems to be here since March 2005... Funny fact of the day, you have a wikibrother :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I actually discovered that BlueMoonlet existed a number of months ago—the circumstances now escape me—and was rather chagrined to discover that the name had been created six years before I created mine! It was an odd moment though: I knew I hadn't commented there at that time ... and then realized it wasn't me! :-O BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! I was like "BlueMoonset has a sock????" but then I realized that such idea was stupid and said "somebody is trolling!". Then I checked that the account was created six years before yours and I got scared :-O Have you talked to him? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Owen Ray Skelton

I attempted to answer your concerns and issues at the nominations.

If you have any other concerns, feel free to ask and I will do my best to get the answers.

This 1920 census report on Owen Ray Skelton shows his age at "33", when in fact he was 34.

Census reporting is often off plus or minus 1 year. That's why they have an estimated year of birth. So when one does family history research and base the ages on census reporting, one has to know that it is quite possible that the age reported can be a year or so off (based on how it was given to the census taker). The census taker does not have birth certificates to go by and just has to go on the information given to him at the time (AGF). That's why I worded it in the article that the 1900 census had "shown" Owen as being "15" - the census image shows this. That's the best I can do. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Replied to your improvement suggestions.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Several improvements have been made to the article. Can I get a "tic" now on this nomination?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

At this point, Orlady's doing the review. She's the person to ask. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Christmas updates

I see you started on the Christmas updates. Are you planning on finishing them now? If not, please let me know and I will continue with the build. Gatoclass (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've started to flag, so I'm happy to leave it to you. I tried to get someone interested in reviewing "The Santa Simulation", but it may not happen in time. Alternatively, you could leave room for it in Prep 1. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will load the remaining Christmas hooks into the updates and complete the rest of them if I get time. I will try to find time to do the review of Santa Simulation myself. I'm going to take a little break first though. Thanks for getting the ball rolling. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

— ΛΧΣ²¹ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

— ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hope you have a jolly holiday, Hahc21, and a very happy New Year. Thanks for the good wishes! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)