User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

ALT2 for ROS

You are correct, and just let the day pass, perhaps I will find someone for the final independent appr. If not we'll find a way, thanks for your great help! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Yes/No

Orlady (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Amber Riley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All I Want for Christmas Is You (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Darren Criss Wiki

Thank you so much for the link to the interview and your kind words! I now have a silly smile plastered on my face:-) And thank you, Blue, for your corrections and edits. They are much appreciated:-)--Mimi C. (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Re (Blame It On the Alcohol)

I will have to decline on this one. Details on its production were pretty sparse, last time I checked. It has a slim chance of becoming a GA because of its size, but production would help it out a lot. —DAP388 (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine; I can understand your reluctance. However, being stubborn, I don't want to leave any episodes below GA, and not merely because the goal is to eventually get a Good Topic out of the entire season. I think I'll see if I can flesh out production and bring it up to GA level. I'll probably rearrange the existing sections a bit: I find it easier to go by topic or song rather than by reviewer. It'll give me something to work on while waiting for "Yes/No" to air. Thanks for getting back to me! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Blame It on the Alcohol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Out (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Michael (Glee)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Medal

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		I, Sp33dyphil, hereby award BlueMoonset for having contributed extensively to get more than 19 articles to GA, the latest of which is Shannon Beiste. I hope you can keep it up :) --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'm hoping to be at number 20 by the end of the month, though it may take a few extra days. Working on two in tandem. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that you're a strong writer, why don't you participate the WikiCup? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been suggested to me, but there are a couple of strong reasons against it: I'm not all that prolific, not like the major cup contributors by an order of magnitude, and it would start seeming like a chore or an obligation, which is a sure-fire way to burn me out. I'm happy with how things are working now. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Spanish Teacher

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

RE: The First Time (Glee) reassessment

The parameter "episode-coverage-importance=low" should be added wherever the "episode-coverage=yes" appears. I added it to The First Time only because I was addind the "|listas= parameter to the LGBT-related articles. So yes, "the episode-coverage-importance=" should be added to all the Glee episodes. To know the importance of each episode (top, high, mid or low) see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/Episode_coverage#Article_assessment. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Heart (Glee)

Hello! Your submission of Heart (Glee) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mattythewhite (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Heart (Glee)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Coimbatore bypass

Heya, I just wanted to know your opinion, on the quality of the article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's taking shape nicely. One thing I don't quite understand is in the Neelambur–Madukkarai section. I get that L&T did the construction from 1998 to 2000, which (if I'm reading correctly) gives them tolling rights on the road through 2029. But it isn't clear how IVRCL is involved: were they widening a part of the road that L&T had built, are they doing a new section of road, or what? And how, if the court said that L&T couldn't have the road taken from them—by IVRCL, right?—IVRCL still had control of the project such that they could sell it to another company? I guess what I'm saying is that there needs to be more of a narrative here, so it's easier to follow what happened, in what order, and who is in charge of which stretches of roadway. The good thing is that it will take more explanation to make this clear, and might well get you close to or over 5x by the time you've finished. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliment. The issue is that L&T got the right to built a two lane toll road for 32yrs in 1998. In 2010, the NHAI gave IVRCL a larger stretch, which included the existing L&T road. This went to court, and IVRCL said they'd sell. That's all. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the info. I din't know that. Now its over 5x. Already I have reviewed twice, so please review the nom. BTW how do you calculate ? Thanks :) -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 11:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As I think I mentioned, I use DYKcheck to determine the current size of an article. It's clear from your checking that you also use DYKcheck. If I want to determine the size of an old version, I go into history and bring up that version, and run DYKcheck on it. If there are problems for some reason, then I'll just pull out the text into Microsoft Word and use its Tool for counting words and characters (including spaces). BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

For helping me with my DYK nom on Coimbatore bypass .. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I see two odd hooks for On My Way (Glee)

1. ... that the writer of the Glee episode "On My Way" wrote "The First Time" first?
2. ... that the Glee episode "On My Way" features a "Fly" mash-up? -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 11:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I would never have thought of either of them, and I'm usually a punster. Sometimes my brain can be a little too concrete.

I think of the two, I'd probably go with the first. However, I'm still hoping for more information about the episode in the hopes that something amazingly hooky is revealed—we got episodic pictures yesterday, but they're not really helpful, beyond showing that there's actually going to be a full Troubletones number (twelve girls, it looks like) instead of a number fronted by the four Troubletones in New Directions. (Wonder how they're going to handle that in the show?) Not that competition episodes are always ideal for generating good hooks, but all we officially know is that it's ND vs. Warblers; no idea of the third group or anything much else except that there will be at least four parents in the audience (about time!) and Karofsky returns. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

27th and MoS in DYK queue

While I accept that I was in error in not hyphenating the phrase twenty-seventh, I cannot understand your defence of 27th in the light of MOS:ONDINAL. This states numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words. This applies to ordinal numbers as well as cardinal numbers. Some exceptions are listed, but none seem applicble in this case. Kevin McE (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misreading WP:ORDINAL. It says that numerals or words are allowed. Numeric ordinals, by the way they are constructed, naturally include two letters at the end. They aren't words at all; ordinal numerals naturally include digits and letters. A deeper explanation is at English numerals#Ordinal numbers, and contains plenty of examples such as "25th".

Your underlining strikes me as backwards: the part to underline is "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals". This makes "10th" the common ordinal expectation, with an equally common "tenth" because it can be expressed in one word. Think about it, though: if there wasn't any possibility of 10th through 99th, why would it say "this applies to ordinal numbers as well as cardinal numbers"? If 27th wasn't legal, then that phrase wouldn't apply to ordinal numbers, yet it clearly states that it does. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If that is what is intended, then the MoS is incredibly badly phrased. "I wear a blue tie every weekday, or red if it is Thursday" means that I wear red ties every Thursday. Kevin McE (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that all numbers ten through ninety-nine can be written as one word or two words hyphenated together, your example becomes "I wear a blue tie every weekday, or a red one if it is Monday through Friday". It didn't make sense to read it as an exclusive or, so a choice seemed obvious to me. Not great phrasing, I agree, but remove the comma before the "or" and it snaps into focus. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding: for DYK, where space is a premium, ordinal numbers in numeric form are generally preferred for tenth or above, though there are times, such as when a first through ninth is required, where consistency of format becomes a desideratum. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I read the MoS as it was written, which included a comma that strongly shifts the focus to an exclusive or. I hope that my re-phrasing there is less ambiguous/misleading. There are many numbers greater than nine that have more than two words (ninety-nine is not an upper limit), just as there are many weekdays that are not Thursday. Kevin McE (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clearer now, though I would remove the "always" in "always given in numerals": the "general rule" still applies at this point, and the "However there are frequent exceptions to these rules" is about to come, which clearly contradicts "always". It's true that ninety-nine is not the limit, but many manuals of style divide into below ten, ten to ninety-nine, and everything above ninety-nine, which is why I'm thinking in those terms. Very few of the numbers above ninety-nine should be written out in words. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for On My Way (Glee)

Materialscientist (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"Non-episode singles"

If this is what they are, then "Santa Baby" and "I Want You Back" go in that section. Not "Other charted songs", which should not include singles. CycloneGU (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion initiated on the Glee Cast discography talk page, where this truly belongs. Not sure what you mean by "that section", since there is no "Non-episode singles" section on that page; please explain there. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK bot

Yes, I noticed the bot failure, but I do not know which bot it is. I think you need to leave a message elsewhere, either on that bot page, or on some Admin noticeboard (I am not sure which one) because no one may be reading that talk page. History2007 (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The bot talk page (actually Shubinator's talk page) already had a note on it; apparently the bot didn't do the previous update either, so a DYK admin had to handle it manually, too. I didn't know which admin page would work either; fortuately, Allen3 has just updated the DYK page manually. With luck, now that it's happened twice, there'll be someone around to do manual updates until Shubinator can get the bot working again. I've had decent response to posts like today's on that talk page before; most DYK admins check it—or at least their watchlists—fairly frequently. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. When you recently edited Sexy (Glee), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Rod Remington on Glee

I see you've done great work on Wikipedia regarding Glee and its characters. I also note that Bill A. Jones, the actor who plays Rod Remington, does not have a Wikipedia page. If you have any interest in helping in this regard, we can provide relevant information on Mr. Jones' career outside of his appearances on Glee, as well as photos, etc. Our email address is [email protected] 98.149.53.64 (talk) 17:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Bill, thanks for the vote of confidence, but I must confess that as much as I enjoy your performances, I'm not as interested in writing biography pages for the actors on the show as I am for the episodes or, to a lesser extent, the characters. There's nothing stopping you from creating your own, but before you do I strongly recommend reading the guidelines at WP:BLP, WP:Notability, and WP:NPOV. On Wikipedia, some folks are stringent judges on the notability issue, which means that you not only have to have appeared in significant works, but you have to have been mentioned in reliable secondary sources as having done so: part of the WP:Verifiability requirement. Yes, it's odd that you can't be the source of details of your own life, while an article in a newspaper or Entertainment Weekly is considered ideal, but that's how Wikipedia works. Insofar as photos are concerned, Wikipedia has other policies that prevent use of copyrighted materials such as photos, even your own publicity photos. Only photos that are made available through Creative Commons or a similar permission system can be used; it's very rare that a "fair use" rationale is accepted. Best of luck, if you or a friend or colleague or assistant should attempt it! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Episode articles needed

Although I see that you specialize in one show, I would like to call your attention to Wikipedia:TV-EPISODE#Important_articles_to_be_created?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that you think I would be a good candidate for writing about other shows, but Glee is one of a very few shows that I watch, and I'm not interested in writing about shows I don't know well. Besides, this show uses up all the writing time I can muster; there's a great deal to do and not enough time to do it in. Thanks, though. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Catshark: Galápagos or Galapagos ?

The vast majority of Google hits favour the version without an accent. The English language name of the islands has no accent. The name given in the cited document is only a proposed common name: it does not seem to have gained widespread acceptance in its accented form. The Wikipedia article is at the unaccented version. I would ask you to reconsider the proposed DYK blurb. Kevin McE (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

First, the article is at the accented version. If you try it unaccented, you are redirected to the accented version. (It will add the accent for you in its results when typing in the Search field.) For me, this was the primary consideration. I don't understand where you're seeing otherwise.

Second, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. For me, the Google hit level is an irrelevant consideration: we should present is what is correct, not what is commonly typed by users at keyboard where accents are a complicated proposition. I get 60% more hits for "fiancee" than I do for "fiancée", but the latter is correct and the former just wrong.

Third, "Galápagos" is almost invariably accented in English-language Wikipedia article titles. There's no reason for this instance to be different, given its origin.

Fourth, DYK should use the proper spelling, as noted at the article's source, if we're going to use the word at all. It's not as if people will be searching on Google to find the DYK front-page listing; we're displaying information on a new article. As such, people will be as happy to click on a link with an accent as one without it, and—just as important—they won't know that a bunch of Google pages are written by people who don't know how to include accents.

So, I would ask you to reconsider your desire to change this DYK blurb from its original spelling. Especially as regards to the name and contents of the article, the status quo seems proper to me. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Pamela Barnes Ewing

Thanks for fixing my mistake on Talk:Pamela Barnes Ewing. It's been a long time since I last nominated an article that I worked on for GA status. Haha! I was trying to base the template off one of Glee's episode articles, but I don't know if I was doing it right. Anyways, I noticed you put more work into Santana's page...sorry for the delay on that. I just wanted to finish off Pam before I started. I'll try to work on building it up tonight. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you should always use the template from the GAN page; it's safer. Though it's actually confusing the way they have it there these days for old-timers; I think your only error was adding an extra comma after "film"—I always copy-and-paste the subtopic to be sure the capitalization and punctuation are exact, because otherwise the software doesn't recognize the subtopic and you end up in Miscellaneous—but even removing it didn't work, and I had to go with the old topic name, "Theatre, film and drama" instead of what appears to be the new subtopic, "Other theatre, film and drama articles". I've started a topic on the GAN talk page to see if this can be straightened out; there was a problem earlier with the new "Episodes" subtopic before it got straightened out as well. Best of luck with the review; things are awfully slow in the GAN space, and at the current rate it may be May before you see any action.

I did the Santana upgrade because someone else had added a few sentences to bring her up to the present, but they weren't ideal, and the earlier episode storylines had gone into excessive detail. Since you haven't seen the third season episodes yet, I thought it would be easier for me to just fix it rather than let it sit and force you to do research. I'll look forward to seeing the article build; Santana's been deserving of more than "C" class for a while. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey there! Do you happen to mind if I wait a bit before giving Santana a go ahead? I hope that's not too much of a hassle...I plan on catching up on the series first and then jumping in and build some of the articles up. I've tried to sit down and do it, but I seem to be accomplishing nothing. Haha. HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Whenever you're ready is fine; there doesn't seem to be a crowd clamoring to write character articles at the moment, except for one IP who asked about creating a new article for Sugar Motta. I've been going nowhere fast this past week or two myself. I don't plan to touch on Santana unless someone edits there and I see problems with the additions; it's that kind of edit that seems to spark my work these days. I guess I'm, at heart, an episode specialist; characters aren't nearly as straight forward for me. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That means we're basically complete opposites when editing articles on Wikipedia! Haha. The episode articles pertaining to any show seem almost foreign to me. I've sat down and actually tried working on a few but to no avail. Character articles just seem to be my thing when working on anything. However, my heart's just not really into writing for Glee right now. I think the fact that I haven't watched it is affecting my ability to sit down and craft articles for the characters, so I think I need to catch up. HorrorFan121 (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Complete opposites is fine: that way fewer areas are likely to be neglected when writing for the task force! :-) (At the moment, we definitely need someone who can specialize in the soundtrack side of things.)

Do catch up on Glee. There's some really good stuff in season three. (Also some not-so-good stuff, admittedly.) Either your heart will be in writing articles after that or it won't; either way, you'll know what's going on with the characters rather than having to infer from the writeups here or in reviews, both of which will be missing important nuance that I find affects my choice of wording and fact selection. (And, let's face it, many reviewers miss so much, which is only partially due to writing on deadline; some of them aren't that fond of the show, and it comes through in their reviews.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

One year

Today's my WikiBirthday, and also the day on which I hit 6666 edits. (These things just happen. I also had 666 article edits in February, aka leap month...)

Thanks to everyone who's encouraged and helped me along the way: to Frickative for guidance on Wikipedia customs and matters Glee, to Rcej for introducing me to the world of DYK and for keeping me on the straight and narrow in my GA submissions, to HorrorFan121 for welcoming me a couple of weeks after my advent and general encouragement, and to the other members of the Glee task force and other Wikipedians for assistance and guidance in the past year.

I'm pretty happy with 25 GAs and 11 DYKs in the first year. Sometime in the coming year, I'd like to participate in a successful FL or FA, and a GT as well. More acronyms, that's the ticket! :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy birthday then! I am glad that you around, you make this a better place. Numbers: a recent DYK, related to my first article, received 1111 hits. I was happier even about the 2401 yesterday for my title pic (see talk), along with the painter (poor fellow, got only a third). Did you know that the day after my first Wiki-Birthday someone made my day (see user)? I didn't check dates when I said "Precious" but it's in the same spirit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's really been great having you on here. You've contributed so much to WP:GLEE and it's really great to see quality build articles coming from your contributions, along with Frickative's of course. Through a lot of our teamwork, we've also created quite a lot of beautiful articles (Kurt Hummel, in particular). Here's hoping to many more years here on Wikipedia! HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I notice you do a lot of work, including mopping up messes like mine. I think you deserve this. Ishtar456 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Very much appreciated. I try to help where I can. Ended up in an odd place today, finishing those DYK promotions that had gone awry; I hadn't ever promoted a DYK nom before! Now that I've had to learn how, I'm thinking about maybe working on building a prep area one of these days. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.87 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Game

I completely forgot as I been extremely busy at work, I will review it tonight, it looks like it's a quick fail in my opinion. Thanks for letting me know. Secret ^account 18:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

re: Hernan

Oh crap, forgot all about that review. Will get to it ASAP. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

GANs created by the nominator

Thanks for tidying up the incorrectly started nominations. I usually just tag them with {{db-g6|rationale=the GA review was started by nominator}} and let an admin delete them. AIRcorn (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the information. I'll do that in future when the nominator starts the review, and save wear and tear on the GAN talk page. Thanks for letting me know. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

M.K. Gandhi GA Review Overlink!

Hello, Can you add only the WP:OVERLINK point which you have mentioned in Wikipedia talk in GA review page too? Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. I used examples from the article, though I'm sure there are more there than the ones I cited. I put it right above the final table; I couldn't figure out where else to add a new section. Hope that's okay. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in reply, I was (actually "have been") suffering from fever. Thanks for posting it in GA review page! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 14:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of R. J. Hackett (steamer)

I am not planning on adding quotes. If someone else would like to do so, I have no objection, of course. Andrew Jameson (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. When you recently edited Saturday Night Glee-ver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Brother (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Big Brother (Glee)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	good articles
	Thank you for good information (25 times!) with attention to details (especially appreciated after my first GA nom passed), and for being helpful and inspirational on DYK, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Gerda. I very much appreciate it. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You kindly suggested a better hook for St Matthew Passion structure, which I dedicated to another victim. Will you also review it or should I ring a bell, because Good Friday is soon? Schiersteiner Kantorei is also open, same Passion, perhaps same day? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you should look for another reviewer for those articles. I can't seem to get my head into the mindset needed to do a full DYK review. I've been trying with another article since yesterday, but with no success. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, got it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Passion: He was despised - and the Bach Passion is in the queue (and on my user) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Found in the swamp: 10,000 Easter eggs, top of my user, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Saturday Night Glee-ver

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

8th hook

I see you were able to find an 8th hook promptly for prep area 3. We are moving back to 8 hooks per set. If you can find one fairly quickly, you cna add one to prep area 2 as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Tony, I decided not to, because I thought there should be a reasonable amount of time to vet any new hook I find by non-admins. It'll only make one hook difference in the long run. I did fill the eighth hook in prep 4, but someone else will have to find hooks 2 through 7. It's bedtime! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Poznan DYK

I've responded to your comment on the Template:Did you know nominations/The Poznań. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm troubled by the recategorization, as there have been no changes but grammatical ones since an independent reviewer initially gave the article a Stub rating. Can you possibly add more material? For example, you could note how The Poznań differs from the European version—the first source seems to cover that in detail. Or how it started in Eastern Europe yet is done in Western Europe countries such as France and Holland (and when they started using it). Another problem is the use of "Grecques" when your only source that uses it—the first one—is clear in its use of "Grecque". If that source is not following common usage, then you need to find one that does call it "Grecques" in the singular and cite it, too. Once proper usage is clear, the sentence needs some smoothing, which I'm happy to do.

I wasn't suggesting adding "football (soccer)" so much as using one of the specifications from the linked article, perhaps "association football", to the hook. Using simply "football", given the American associations with that term, would be confusing and certainly result in a subsequent edit. If you don't want to add anything, however, don't be surprised if you see something added once the hook is added to one of the queues in preparation for posting on the main page; DYK queue editors make changes for clarity all the time. Wikipedia is a worldwide affair, and the vast majority of readers will not see "Manchester City" and have any knowledge of what sport the team plays. If you have a preferred term, inserting it now (and linking it) makes it likely to be the one used when the hook moves to the Wikipedia main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Choke (Glee)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: DYK Pinging

Tnx for the pings. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Help with DYK

Hello, I was wondering if you would take a look at my DYK nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Pebble E-Paper Watch. So far User:Panyd has commented (because I asked). I'd like to know if there are further changes needed to move it forward. BTW, I haven't had a DYK before, but I listed those reviews there because I didn't understand QPQ. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you don't need to do a quid pro quo review for your first five DYK nominations of your own articles, so this first one's definitely a freebie. After those five, though, it really needs to be a beginning-to-end review to count as a QPQ. I've commented on many reviews, but it's only the ones where I do the initial length check, source check, paraphrasing check, hook checks, etc., and all the follow-ups until the article is finally passed (or finally failed) that I use to cover my own DYK nominations. (I think I have counted one that was in process, since I intended to and did finish it off eventually.) The rest is just helping DYK to run more smoothly.

As for the article itself, I think it would be better if you got someone with far more experience than I have to look at it. I'm not good at the nuances of balancing primary and secondary sources, and especially not NPOV issues. I'm better with the more concrete things like hook length and grammar. I'd suggest someone like Orlady, who has been around far longer than I have and seems to be quite good at parsing the more complex issues regarding DYKs. Given Panyd's serious concerns, you need someone with equivalent (greater?) experience for a second opinion on the matter. One thought from an initial read-through, regarding the waterproofing: is it "are adding" or "have added", and is it waterproofing, or making the watch water resistant? It's a fussy detail, but best to be as precise as possible based on what the sources contain. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I left a note at Orlady's talk page. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

... and no reply there. I've removed all primary sources from the article (and some of the details they provided). If you still feel uncomfortable reviewing, I understand. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It got approved and promoted without me; sorry Orlady didn't respond. I'd wanted it to be a pictured hook, actually, since it is cool looking, but as you see that was deemed overly promotional. I can understand the concerns. Still, you got the picture in the article itself, which is something. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw your edit moving it to the picture hook, thanks! I didn't say anything because I didn't want to jinx it. I thought that putting a promotional shot on the main page might raise an eyebrow. Oh well, at least the hook is going through. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

58.187.104.54

Sorry I should have just reported this 58.187.104.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) immediately, but I left him on User:Favonian's talk page. Fav was going to issue a range block the next time this vandal pops up. This dude has been sneaky vandalizing Eagles related articles for weeks now with multiple IPs in the 58.187... range and hence my warning you probably saw on the talk page. Fav is probably asleep now in the UK I believe. If the block/range-block doesn't happen now, it will be taken care of in few hours when he wakes up I suspect. Thanks for your efforts in this matter. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm just sorry I gave the vandal AGF's on the first two edits, and only after I checked the contributions did I discover the third one, which was clearly false (the episode hasn't aired yet, so the text was obviously a lie). I did see the warning on the talk page, which was why I reported it. You might want to check the two standing edits from May 3 and 4, since the odds are they did some damage, too, and one of them added 2,330 characters to an article. Hope the block works this time! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've checked the two outstanding edits you point out. One is certainly legit. The other is more or less accurate, but the content has been disputed recently based on whether or not the list belongs at all. This is all part of this vandal's M.O. He mixes completely legit content in with total B.S. and then throws in some borderline crap for good measure. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I'd give you a little update. The range block has been issued. Hopefully that puts a stop to it for a while. Understand your regret in using the AGF label on the first reverts. Wouldn't worry at all about it. No harm done and in my opinion you did precisely the right thing given the circumstances. Thnx --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear that the range block went through. I saw something about a one-week block in response to my request, though I assumed it only hit the one address because it wasn't imposed by the person you mentioned writing. Thanks for the update, and also for checking those two edits. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Semester is over...

Next semester starts 5/21, so if you need some more episode GAR, etc., its a good time...lol ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 09:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, congrats! Glad to see you back. Now if only Frickative would return (it's been almost two months!) my life would be complete. :-)

No GANs at the moment—I have four that need complete review/music workups—but I'll try to get a couple out over the next week or so. There are currently two unreviewed DYKs (just was able to do an ALT for "Prom-asaurus", which had been completely about the episode without any real world stuff; the other is "Dance with Somebody"), one on April 24 and one on April 25. I'll have to come up with a DYK for "Props" by tomorrow, and ones for "Nationals" and "Goodbye" by Sunday. The "Props" one shouldn't be too hard, because I think there's something in the body-swapping, perhaps using Colfer's comment about the difficulty. Still mostly have primary sources for the other two, which makes it very hard, but maybe there'll be some articles today that help out. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Later: "Props" is up under April 30. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Did 'em! btw, just pimp the celebrity names for the last two episode hooks...lol. Lohan, Estefan...awesome. Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, you got two of three. ;-) "Dance with Somebody" didn't get a dance partner; "Prom-asaurus" was super popular and is already in a prep area (albeit in the "quirky" spot) and will run on Monday. I'll probably got with Lohan (and maybe the whole judging panel), but I'm looking for a secondary source about how the final day of filming in the choir room was a real cryfest for "Goodbye". If I do use Estefan, I'll be sure to add all the material about how she was supposed to appear in a winter episode into Production to give plenty of options. Fortunately, I'm not booked on Sunday, so I'll have plenty of time to handle it. I'm not so eager for the last two to be reviewed immediately, as the tiny backlog of reviewed hooks means they'd be snapped up very quickly. "Dance with Somebody", though, I'm happy to have used sooner rather than later. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for picking up "Dance with Somebody"; it's already kicking up a storm in Prep 3, soon to be Queue 2, and will be on the front page for the eight hours prior to "Prom-asaurus" airing on the east coast. ("Prom-asaurus" will be on the main page the day before.)

I've just put "Nationals" up with its QPQ already done, and "Goodbye" up lacking a QPQ. So don't bother reviewing the latter just yet; I may not do a QPQ for a day or two; I want to get moving on the "Big Brother" reception sections. Both DYK noms were put up at the last minute, after I pulled together some Estefan sources for Production to give me more info to use in the hook. If you think either could use improvement, feel free to suggest ALTs on the pages, though if you do, we'll need to find someone else to sign off on those ALTs. (I've been doing a fair amount of prep area building lately, and have actually pulled a few hooks back from the prep due to issues along the way, so I'm something of a stickler for process. It's all your fault, too. ;-) You got me started on this DYK thing, and I have just about as many [DYK] template edits as I do article edits so far this month!) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

GAN on hold

Ah, I'd missed that box, and just copied the template on the GA page itself from a nearby nomination. Thanks. James McBride (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Prom-asaurus

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gino Martino

I'm not able to post on the DYK page but the episodes in question are used as cited references in footnotes 7 and 8. I assume this satisfies your concerns? 72.74.209.164 (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my comment on the sourcing referred to Stan Lee himself, not to Martino's appearance on Lee's show. After further thought, since you want a hook to catch the eye of as many people as possible, rather than mention Marvel comics at all, I'd probably go for "Spider-Man co-creator" rather than "Marvel comic book writer". Or, given the new movie's success, "The Avengers and Spider-Man co-creator Stan Lee". (Oddly, Stan's own page doesn't mention that he was Avengers co-creator, but the Avengers article does.) I think this might again require you to change the article text, but it would be worth it, yes? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Dance with Somebody (Glee)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wildwood GA reassessment

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wildwood (novel) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have made no edits of any kind to the article. My sole involvement was on the GAN talk page, when you were trying to figure out how to request a second reviewer, and to fix a problem with your edits to the GA Nominee template on the Wildwood talk page. So I doubt very much I'll be participating. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleting "publisher" field from "Cite web" templates

There are many commonly-cited publications that have their own Wikipedia article, which of course names and wikilinks the publisher. In a citation from such well-known publications, the publisher is of no value (e.g. it's no help to the reader looking at a citation to be told that the New York Times is published by the New York Times Company, or that Time is published by Time, Inc.). So I'm removing these superfluous parameters. (And, as you noted, they aren't always accurate anyway, which is another reason to remove them). I'm not touching lesser-known publications that don't have a WP article. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Props (Glee)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for the DYK credit on Dance with Somebody (Glee). Keep up the good work! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2

Darn those unannounced edit conflicts! Thanks for fixing things up -- and for the rest of your good work. --Orlady (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad I could help. I do have to remember not to move too quickly when promoting: forget a double-check and you're removing a hook after promoting instead of downgrading it instead of promoting it. I've taken to always rechecking my prep area changes to make sure nothing weird has happened, and that one was very weird!

I just posted a suggestion to WT:DYK that we reduce preps from seven to six hooks: we've got 13 passed hooks only to work with! A couple are ones that I'd like to see as picture hooks, but I've been the one to pass them because I found problems that needed to be fixed when I went to promote them ... which leaves me out of final promotion because I approved them (or rewrote the hook, or have a similar conflict of interest). BlueMoonset (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Nationals (Glee)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:DYK nomination for New England Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame

I've had another look at it but nothing appears to have been done to alliviate the sourcing issue so I've requested a second opinion. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I suspect the article will ultimately have to be failed: many of the sources used seem to state that such an event will be happening or is scheduled to happen, which is effectively worthless per WP:CRYSTAL: what you need are reliable sources about what happened at an event, especially when that event is well in the past. Also, I didn't notice that article statements used in hooks were directly sourced, and they need to be. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Oakley77

I went and undid them. It's not an easy thing to do, since the talk page, main page, and GA page all need to be fixed in those instances. I see you around enough that I trust you implementing the GA criteria properly; if you want to review one I can double-check your work and note anything that seems off. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That's good to know. I'm glad the five will be getting proper reviews.

Thank you for the vote of confidence. I think I'd like my first GA review, when it happens, to be a subject I know something about and therefore feel more comfortable applying the criteria to. I'm the sort who likes to do it right the first time, and that would take a good deal of care. That said, when the time comes, it would be nice to have you as a mentor for my first time out. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Santana/Brittany trolls

So I've looked recently on the Santana Lopez and Brittany Pierce pages and it seems like this is less of a problem than it used to be, but I have some more insight on the messageboard - The L Chat - that people were using to start organized trolling raids on those pages that involved moving all references to male characters. In addition to editing Wikipedia I'm also an occasional contributor to a really popular website for lesbian and bisexual women, and we've recently had a bunch of organized trolling raids from posters on The L Chat where articles that we wrote covering bisexuality, or women who come out as lesbian later in life, were linked on that board and people from there came to our site to post a bunch of biphobic comments. It sounds like people just use that board to troll all over the Internet, whenever one of their pet topics come up. It's not just Wikipedia. I don't know what particular course of action I'm suggesting from providing this info, but I thought it might be some useful insight anyway? Beggarsbanquet (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Goodbye (Glee)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion: Glee (Season 4)

I have removed the G4 speedy deletion tag you placed on Glee (Season 4) and instead redirected it to List of Glee episodes. G4 is only for articles that were deleted at AfD, not redirected. I've also done a non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glee (Season 4) since it was opened so soon after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glee (season 4) (note the capitalization difference in "season") was closed with a consensus to redirect. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that G4 was only for deletions; it seemed that creating an article of the exact same name but slightly different orthography was a way to bypass the decision, and should not be allowed. Additionally, I thought it was best to have only one article with that spelling and that the different capitalizations would just be confusing. I guess when the time comes for the article to be written, I can make sure it's stored under the lowercase version for consistency with the prior seasons. Thanks for taking care of this. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In general I agree with your first statement; however, as far as I can tell the user who created "(Season 4)" had no involvement in "(season 4)" and probably just didn't know any better. That being said, when we do have enough to create an article on season 4 the "(Season 4)" page would be a plausible redirect to the article – which rightly should be at "(season 4)" – so I don't see the point in deleting it when we can keep it as a redirect. Keep up the good work! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)