User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 16

Lili Bosse
I have added a reference regarding her parents from The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. I don't think they can be accused of lying, and I don't think her father's obituary was published in the press as he must've been a private citizen, so would you please remove the block and let this go on the front page for DYK? And I will no longer submit articles for DYK, because it takes up too much time. But I think this one should make it to the front page. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Did I handle the mechanics of this pull right?
EEng (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * EEng, you've got all the basics; thank you very much. One minor point is to place, at the beginning of your comment on the nomination template, one of the icons reflecting that the nomination still needs work (I've added one lower down, which also does the trick)—this not only gives the current status, but the icon cancels out the previous approval tick. The bot-generated table of approved hooks by date that's near the top of the queues and preps page bases its "# Verified" column on the final icon in the review template: if it's either tick, then it's added to the total of verified nominations for that date. Also, on the /Removed page, since you've provided a link to the nomination page, a very brief notice of the issue is all that's needed, rather than a copy of what you've written on that nomination page. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Al-Risalah al-Dhahabiah
Thanks for your attention. I've already edited the article based on the mentioned items. But the problem is that I'd like to change the hook. is it possible? The new Hook will be as such: Mhhossein (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ... that Ali al-Ridha informed about the cells and complicated system of body organs in his Al-Risalah al-Dhahabiah almost 1240 years ago?


 * Mhhossein, this isn't a problem: you can add an alternate hook to the nomination template at any time. Call it ALT1, and mention that you prefer it to the original. Indeed, you can suggest more than one alternative. (Further alternates would be ALT2, ALT3, etc.) I think "informed" is an awkward word in this context, however—I'd normally suggest using "wrote" instead, although given how little there is about cells in the article (and how obliquely mentioned, apparently), something else may need to be done. Also, if this is a book or major treatise, it should probably it be in italics, like any book title would be. In which case, you'd use five apostrophes before and after the article link in the hook for bold italics, and change the article itself to use italics where appropriate. (See MOS:TITLES for further information.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey! The article is now edited and I've responded to the reviewer's comments. What should I do then? Mhhossein (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Mhhossein, you wait for the previous reviewer, or a new reviewer, to continue the review process. It may take a little while; please be patient. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK
Hi BlueMoonset, I doubt you want to know this, but I thought I'd tell you in case you do (and apologies if you don't): started review of old DYK nom of three articles here. Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 15:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Matty.007, thanks for taking them on. I'm all for encouraging GA authors by nominating their articles to get them to know about that DYK is available to them, but once they know, I think it's incumbent on them to nominate their own articles. If not, then some sort of compensatory review from them or the nominator, if not strictly required, is appropriate, and I'm glad to see you doing so. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I'll try and bear that in mind (if you think a review is required, just give me a ping and I'll do one). Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  17:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Template_talk:Did_you_know
Hey, can you have a look at the entry for De Akkermolen? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Done, Drmies. I think you're uniquely qualified for this one. I just realized I forgot to mention that you need to make sure the photo has the proper free license, too, and mention that as well. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Responded. Since you left me a laundry list, I hope I returned the favor by giving you much more than you bargained for. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Drmies. Not that I'm trying to outdo you, but I'm writing long tonight, which I suppose isn't much of a bargain. I'll be interested to hear what you think of the actual GA review. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Finished the sentence. I hope you understand what I meant with "not my article". Drmies (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I don't know what to say. Well, for a GA the sourcing is pretty bleak. Ref. 6, for instance, is basically a sentence containing the address. Ref. 3 doesn't actually reference anything in our article. And the review is way short and doesn't really address anything at all: I think it's lousy. Really, should have a look at it (Talk:De Akkermolen/GA1). Drmies (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, ref 3 is for Cullen stones coming from Mayen. Ref 6 could probably be replaced by ref 1 or 2, but appears reliable. As with all articles, it could probably be expanded a bit, but as it's passed GA it's good to go for DYK IMHO. BTW, you might want to take a look at Thelnetham Windmill, which is also a GA, might give you some inspiration. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I tweaked the sentence to make clear what that reference actually references. But it begs the question--if something passes GA review, is it always a good article? Drmies (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Not all reviewers are created equal, and some of them miss quite a bit. There have been a few GAs that have come through DYK and the articles have needed extensive revision once they came under DYK scrutiny. I just made some edits to Parental Advisory today because of the issues I found after the latest hook proposal... BlueMoonset (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Cudgel War
Sorry for the late reply,I was a bit busy at the time.I agree with the decision. Catlemur (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK question
Hello BlueMoonset,

I was browsing some articles that had been sent to DYK before becoming GA's, and became curious of this: after an article has previously been in DYK, can it ever be submitted again? Examples:


 * 1) DYK → Successful GAN → DYK again
 * 2) Successful GAN → DYK → delist as GA → Successfully bring back to GA → DYK again
 * 3) DYK → Successful FLC → demote as FL → DYK (if lead was really short)

Figured you'd know. Thanks in advance.

 Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 20:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the criteria for an eligible DYK is that has not been before, so none of the options would be allowable.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Very well, though it would be nice to have it appear multiple times.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 21:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Snuggums, the possibility of a repeat DYK was specifically disallowed years ago because otherwise a new, fairly short article could run as a DYK, and then the article could be 5x expanded later and qualify for a second outing. In this case, as Gilderien notes, a subsequent GA runs afoul of the rule that the DYK cannot have been run before. Note that articles that have previously run as main ITN articles are not subsequently eligible for DYK even if they never have been DYKs before. (Gilderien, thanks for answering; I've had very limited online time the past couple of days.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That could definitely come off as playing the system, thank you both for the explanations.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 04:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Use your famous diplomacy
I think we've got a problem with enthusiastic reviewer Papajeckloy -- see Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Shah_Rukh_Khan and Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Zearott, plus his own nominations. I don't really know how to raise this. But you're hard-hearted with nerves of steel, so you'll know what to do. EEng (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Aspergirls
I'm hoping that you adding the reviews in block quotes doesn't ruin the 5x expansion. DYK check doesn't detect them. SL93 (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * SL93, any quote long enough to be a block quote per MOS shouldn't be counted for DYK in any event—it's not your original prose—and these were well over standard length for a blockquote tag to be needed. I hadn't checked the length before, but I now see that pre-expansion was 955 prose characters, which means 4775 is needed for expansion, and it's currently at 4280. Another 495 prose characters will be needed, I'm afraid. Sorry about that, but better to catch it now than have it pulled from prep later. One way to handle this is to summarize or paraphrase (but not closely paraphrase!) what's in the block quotes in your own words, with short quotes where the reviewer's own words work best. Right now, the Reception section is almost entirely quotes, and should be mostly prose. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing it. That might seem to be a bad move, but I'm not up to the task. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * SL93, it's your decision, though I wish it were otherwise. I'm sorry you don't feel up to it. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I will just see what I can do. SL93 (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'll hold off closing it until I hear further. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks good. I did a bunch of editing to your latest version, including breaking up another long quote, and it's at 4789 prose characters, just over the 4775 required (5 × 955). I'm glad you persevered. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

GA templates
Hello Blue: It seems to me there is a disconnect between the GA nominating process and the post-GA approvals. Am I correct? To explain, we get articles listed at Category:Uncategorized good articles because the approved GA has "|subtopic=" used. An example is Talk:Gasketball. It is listed with subtopic "Video game". Did Gasketball start off with Video game as the subtopic in the nomination? If so, then the nominating templates should be the same as the approved results template. I ask because of the change you made here. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * S. Rich, did you read the instructions I pointed you to in my comment on the GAN talk page? If the approved GA has a "subtopic" field in its GA template, someone has made an error filling out said template. The valid field is called "topic" for that template; "subtopic" is not a valid field name. User error is unfortunate, but it isn't a problem with the template itself.


 * The nomination process starts on the article's talk page with a substituted GAN template that includes the subtopic being used, which in turn generates the GA nominee template that is used while the nomination is in process (it automatically fills in the timestamp, nominator, page number, and so on). After the nomination review has been concluded, then the GA nominee is replaced either by a new GA or FailedGA template, depending on the result; for both of them, a topic field is used; its value can either be the topic name or the previously used subtopic name. The bots know how to deal with either value. (What they can't deal with is a field named "subtopic"; this was incorrect).


 * This is not to say that there might not be disconnects in the various processes, some of them automated: there are bots that are supposed to take the post-approval GA template, add fields to it, insert the green "plus" icon on the article page, and add the article name to the official GA lists. Some reviewers do these steps manually. (Sometimes the bots are down; wmflabs reboots or other issues can unexpectedly kill them, and it can be some time before the bot creator notices and restarts them.)


 * Because these processes have been modified over time, they aren't always completely logical. There were originally only topics, until some of them got so many nominations that they were divided into more manageable subtopics, and the GAN and GA nominee templates modified accordingly. The subtopics have changed over time, too, as have some topics, and there are many more subtopics in the actual GA listings than there are for GAN. I don't know who would do a rationalization of this, assuming one is needed, but I do know that any changes to subtopics or templates need careful planning, as otherwise the bots break and the process grinds to a messy halt. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've posted on the Project talk page. Someone who understands the logic needs to fix the disconnect. As I understand it, the bots deal with the subtopic in the nomination template, but not the approval template. – S. Rich (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Lansdell
Hi, could you enlighten me as to the new policy that Belle is citing? I was under the impression that if the reviewer suggests an ALT hook, s/he cannot approve the nomination. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (watching) I think it's a misunderstnding. She approved a hook which wasn't hers, and "her own" ALT1. That should leave the other one approved, just ALT1 should not be taken unless approved by someone else. One of you two could have done that, instead of holding up the proceedings ;) (Needless to say, I prefer "my own") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yoninah, Gerda Arendt, I just replied there. Gerda, you're the nominator: if you express a preference for your own hook, then we can go with nominator's preference and strike the ALT. Why you think I could have reviewed the nomination when I didn't know about it until Yoninah posted here is a puzzle to me, as well as why I should be thought to be gumming up the works. If anyone's "holding up the proceedings" it's Belle, who proposed the ALT hook and thinks its okay to have the promoter also review it, when that's not how DYK works. You might already have had a reviewer (or might not) if she'd called for a new reviewer for her ALT when she proposed it. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK review on Brod Pete
Hi, please see note on your review, Thanks -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! &#60;3) (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * PapaJeckloy, I've seen it, and done some edits to the Brod Pete article to show a few of the things your "major" copyedit missed. There's a great deal more that needs fixing; I've left a suggestion there on where you might go for assistance if you can't find someone other than yourself to do the copyedit I recommended. Please don't do it yourself again, as it's clear you do need help with this one, and the nomination is likely to fail if the article remains in rough shape. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK review on Brod Pete
Hi, please see note on your review, Thanks -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! &#60;3) (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please kindly check if there is any problems left in the article, because the copyedit problem you stated is now fixed, my request on the Guild of Copy Editors is granted and the page is now majorly copyedited. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! &#60;3) (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK review on Brod Pete
Hi, please see note on your review, Thanks -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! &#60;3) (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The Mandarax Barnstar of Excellence

 * Thank you so much, Mandarax. This means a great deal, coming from you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK review on Brod Pete
Hi, I add some references to the article that I was nominated it for DYK section. Please take a look and see is it right.--LordMilan85 (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * LordMilan85, you should definitely reply on the Cave Church nomination template you linked to—that's where the information that you added the references is needed. You should probably also ping Yoninah, who noted the problem on the nomination, to see whether the new references fully address the issue. Best of luck! (Not sure why you used this header, since the article in question isn't Brod Pete at all.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK:Lake Murray Meteorite
I have responded to the request on the template talk page. I hope I didn't completely misinterpret the comment by Casliber. If you have any additional comments, I'll make another try. Thanks for your interest. Bruin2 (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked again
I took care of it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The Blood of Olympus
On your recent edits to The Blood of Olympus; I understand that he is American and is entitled to mdy and it was wrong of me to apply dmy (I'm just used to it). Rick Riordan has books with various covers: some American that use American English, some British that use British English. Removing the file made no sense as all covers symbolise the book. Me using dmy and you removing a file on such a basis seems very biased on both sides. - Esmost  πአלϰ   03:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Esmost, this is the fifth book in a series, and the four volumes before it have been consistent in their usage. It makes all the sense in the world to continue that for the fifth book, especially as all that material is easily available from the same source. Calling "bias" when the obvious thing is to aim for consistency doesn't make sense to me. Riordan writes in American English, just as Rowling wrote the Harry Potter novels in British English (and if you'll look at the Harry Potter novels, all of the infoboxes use the British hardcover dustjackets; for the Riordan series novels, they've been the American). It makes the most sense to use whichever is the original/primary variant for that particular author/artist/singer/etc. I imagine you'll find that the image has been replaced with the American cover before too long... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine but until it is legitimately replaced by the American cover (preferably by just uploading a new version on the current file page), the British cover stays. - Esmost  πአלϰ   04:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User:PapaJeckloy and his questionable DYK nominations and reviews
Hi. I'm sure that you have encountered this guy many times in WP:DYK. Ever since I nominated and overhauled this article in DYK, which incidentally he created, he wants to take "all" of the credit for that and even bashed me in my talk page, telling me that I "stole" his opportunity, where in the first place, the only thing he did on that article is to create it. Then after that incident, he nominated every single article he created to DYK, even if it is full of grammatical and factual errors and contain mostly original research. Now, there's an incident in one of his self-nominated articles (Template:Did you know nominations/Juan Karlos Labajo), where he harassed the creator of the article in his talk page. (See this very lengthy discussion) Then after a few days, a new editor User:EtitsNgKabayo (which by the way is Filipino for "horse's dick") passed the article's nomination. I do believe this is one of Jeckloy's sockpuppets. I want to report this user to ANI but I would like to ask your opinion about it since I think you knew his mannerisms after the bunch of DYK nominations he created and you have reviewed. -WayKurat (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * WayKurat, this is the second time this month a brand new editor showed up and approved one of PapaJeckloy's nominations. The same thing happened when Gelkia31 approved Template:Did you know nominations/Brod Pete on August 10; and then turned around and did a GTG review minutes later that PapaJeckloy "helpfully" expanded on a little over an hour after that. To me, it's a clear WP:DUCK situation, and I believe you're right to report this. I suspect that ANI will recommend you open a Sockpuppet investigations, and maybe that's where you should go first. Either way, PapaJeckloy will need to be notified when you file the report. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: I have filed the report myself, since it seemed important to do so right away, and you were likely to be off-line for several more hours. I did notice that you tagged both user pages; EtitsNgKabayo had already been blocked due to the improper name. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help... :) Man, he's becoming more of a headache instead of helping. -WayKurat (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's really too bad, WayKurat. I like his enthusiasm, but something we all need to do is recognize our limitations. I don't work on featured articles because my prose, while good, does not have the elegance and flair needed for these best of articles. If I ever were to want to submit an article I was working on to FAC, I'd get the assistance of someone who does have that extra quality that I don't. In this case, it's been pointed out that his prose is weak: therefore, he shouldn't be working in areas where he needs to judge the prose of others, which includes GA and DYK reviews. (His own nominations have faltered due to prose issues, so how can he tell if others have similar weaknesses?) But his persistence is making it clear that he doesn't truly care about improving the encyclopedia: I'm still appalled by him approving his own DYK nominations (I suppose he could have gotten a confederate to do it for him, but that would be just as bad). No one comes on Wikipedia and for their first non-user-page edit does a cover-the-bases DYK review. For it to happen twice to the same nominator: that duck's quacking is deafening. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The last time I was aware of a similar situation, I left a note – WT:Did you know/Archive 66 – listing five known instances where socks verified the user's own nominations (and there certainly could have been others). In this case, the sockpuppetry was CheckUser-confirmed. Although I didn't mention it in my post, I thought that the consequence should be a permanent ban from all aspects of DYK. The actual result? Absolutely nothing. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  18:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I created an ANI report against Jeckloy based on my experiences and the findings on the SPI case. See the report here. Feel free to edit the report if I missed something out. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A request for DYK review
Hi, I've nominated a DYK here. The article title is The Fifteen Whispered Prayers (Munajat) and I've proposed two hooks. Could you please review my nomination? Mhhossein (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Mhhossein, I'm afraid you'll have to wait for someone else to take on the review in the usual way. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Source?
Hey, thank you for your message :) Well, my only problem is I'm not sure if my source is really good for Wikipedia, that's why i did not add it yet :/ It is this one: http://www.mjsbigblog.com/glee-season-6-song-spoilers-loser-like-me.htm Do you think it is a good source? :) 86.75.160.150 (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI
FYI I refactored your talk page comment as you had inadvertently put the admin in the category which also complicates deletion. Helen Online  09:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * HelenOnline, thanks for that—I don't use categories enough to have realized that just putting them in brackets in a regular comment actually adds them to the page. (It seems to have been successfully deleted.) And FYI, I have removed your addition of the Jeckloy-sock nomination to the Did you know/Removed page. That page is for nominations removed from a queue or prepare area (or even the main page!) only—regular rejections of nominations still under consideration, even if it's by a sock, are just processed normally, and do not belong in that file. The remaining active nominations by Jeckloy when he was indeffed were rejected in the same manner. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK thanks I learned something new. The colon after the opening brackets is handy for suppressing images and categories if you just want to link to them in a comment. Helen  Online  14:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

W. Stanley Proctor
W. Stanley Proctor talk page I would appreciate it if the DYK can be revived. Please consider and take a look at the alternate hook, too. User: Doug Coldwell approved it, too. Although he has not yet seen the final wording. I've left a note on his page so that he can react (he's out of town this instant). 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Added ALT1. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Histrionics
I'd dispute the primary meaning (a critic saying "I very much enjoyed the histrionics of the lead actress in this film" isn't going to endear them to the actress in question), and that clearly isn't what is meant in the review. (It's going to be very dry if reviews can only say actor A's performance was superior to that of actor B; rice cake dry; indigestible [coughs up bits of rice cake and review]) Belle (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Belle, I think that since we can't know which meaning the author intended, it's better not to decide ourselves, but take what can safely be interpreted: the dog clearly far outacted the girl. It doesn't necessarily mean that she badly overacted. One solution, of course, would be to quote "histrionics" from the source ("easily outshin[ed] the histrionics"), and let readers make up their own minds. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

David Hume
Hello. I appreciate your supervision on the GA candidates, but when a reviewer abandons the review, such as the David Hume case, the process is considered failed. That means that the article's history should be updated and the article should be re-nominated. Otherwise, the statistician bot report is providing false information, and considers the article to be still on hold.--Retrohead (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, found a way to fix the mistake. I re-nominated the page under GAN number three. I incorporated the original date and person, which changes nothing significant. In future, when a review is abandoned, add new at the top of the talk, and then correct the date and nominator field.--Retrohead (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Retrohead, I did not make a mistake. What I did I learned from Wizardman: this way the nominator does not lose their place in line when a reviewer abandons a review, or even starts one by mistake, which happens more frequently than it should. I've done this many times, and StatisticianBot has yet to consider the nomination still on hold, so long as "onhold" (or "onreview") is removed from the GA nominee template when the page number is incremented. Further, what I did is recommended in the documentation: please see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/FAQ under the "What should I do if a review page (Talk:ArticleName/GAn) becomes inactive?"—I followed those steps exactly, while you have done something entirely different. If the article's history should be updated, that's a step I haven't been acquainted with; however, I'm very sure that you should not be the nominator, as you originally had it, and that the nomination date should have been original August date. I'm glad you've fixed that. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What you did was revert to nomination number two. No. 2 was already done (abandoned) and it's logical for the bot not to recognize that. What you need to do is open a third nomination, and then change the date to the original one and add the correct nominator.--Retrohead (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not revert to nomination number two. If you look at what I did, the resulting GA nominee template is identical to what you've now done: page is 3 and status is empty, but the template is otherwise unchanged. If there is also supposed to be another step to add to the article's review history, then that should be made clear in the FAQ, if the bot isn't set up to figure out such changes and adjust the history itself. Wizardman? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for (calmly) fixing the queues after I forgot to delete a set in prep. Cheers. Victuallers (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy to do it. I figured Crisco would be around soon and could take care of the minor wording change in the queue that needed an admin. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I really am that predictable, eh? Someday I'll surprise you all. Maybe I'll write a species article or something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh. The odds were very good that you'd check in before your bedtime. If not, plan b was to try an active admin directly when I'd had my own night's sleep, with a subsequent post to the DYK talk page if that didn't pan out. No need for plan b, y'see... (If you did do a species article, what might surprise me would be if it wasn't one native to Indonesia.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

8 DYK noms
Does it seem strange that all 8 of Carlojoseph14's first DYK noms are nominated by Shhhhwwww!!? Is there any way to check if the latter is a sock? Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yoninah, it seems odd to me that Shhhhwwww!! has so many DYK noms when he's never responded to any of the DYKproblem templates we've put on his or her talk page. If this continues, I'm tempted to propose that the account be blocked from continuing to nominate, since it's the responsibility of the nominator to vet and follow through on all nominated articles. However, that account dates back to January 2013 (with active use beginning that October), while Carlojoseph14 only goes back to May 2014, with high levels of activity since mid-August.


 * Shhhhwwww!! seems to nominate articles wholesale if they're Philippines-related. At least three by RioHondo have been nominated (which puzzled the heck out of RioHondo), and I found two reviews by Carlojoseph14 of Shhhhwwww!!'s nominations of other users that don't match what a sock would do: Carlo gave Template:Did you know nominations/Betty Go-Belmonte an X, and a slash icon for Template:Did you know nominations/Aserradora Mecanica de Tuason y Sampedro. There's also the ? icon on one that you commented on: Template:Did you know nominations/Sampaloc Church.


 * If you ever do believe that there is compelling evidence of sockpuppeting, the place to report it is Sockpuppet investigations. You'll need to provide supporting evidence; here's the one I was recently involved in, the PapaJeckloy case. (Another Philippines-based user, but I imagine that's coincidence given how long the others have been around, and the different topic interests.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the explanation, and thanks for keeping an eye on Shhhhwwww!!. I'd like to go ahead and propose to Carlojoseph14 that he start nominating his own articles and doing QPQs, so he'll get better acquainted with policy. Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am a new editor and it seems that Shhhhwwww!! is nominating most of the Philippine-related articles. It also seems odd to me that s/he keeps on nominating my articles. My purpose on writing those article is to have a start-class article and later expand it, without the idea of DYK (because I did not knew it). Just like RioHondo, I am also puzzled of what he has done with those nominations and I am on the track answering all those DYK nominations. I am working on those type of article because I am a volunteer of Wikimedia Philippines nationwide cultural heritage mapping project that started since May 2014 (reason why I signed up last May). If you will check, after I knew DYK (because of the nominations done by Shhhhwwww!! and later was approved), I started to self nominate my articles which were later approved like Kawayan Torogan, Gavino Trono and Indang Church. Only Paete Church nominated by Shhhhwwww!! was approved as of the moment. I am in great trouble right now, because of his nominations and I tried my best to answer all of those. Carlojoseph14 (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yoninah and BlueMoonset, Shhhhwwww!! is back. Check nominations of Template:Did you know nominations/Hofileña Ancestral House and Template:Did you know nominations/Lichauco Heritage House --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Carlojoseph14, thanks for the heads up. I'm continuing to monitor the situation, and if there continues to be no response from Shhhhwwww!!, I'll ask why there isn't any follow through on the nominations. Sorry I took so long to respond! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * (Sorry late) Minor point - the nomination of articles is a good thing! If we have someone doing it via a sockpuppet then thats sad as it should not be that difficult to nominate an article. Why would anyone bother? You can nominate your own articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victuallers (talk • contribs) 09:17, 28 September 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Victuallers, the odd thing about Shhhhwwww!! is that the account nominates large numbers of articles but never responds to any issues that come up during nominations. There is also clearly no check of the articles before nominating, since so many of them are too short or have other issues. All in all, it's an odd situation, and if there's no response to the latest DYKproblem template, I'm going to post a request to the user's talk page. The only practical reason I can think of to create a sockpuppet nominate your own articles is to avoid the QPQ, and if that's someone's reason, it's a very bad one. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, its odd. Avoiding a QPQ seems a very silly reason as I would volunteer to nominate these and move them through. These articles are "thin" but the ones Ive seen have notable subjects and merely lack easy good sources in English... which is a problem but nothing to get excited about. Its just a problem that needs solving. If we can find the owner or puppetmaster then we should aim to turn them being kinda useful into being very useful. Thanks for investigating this odd occurence. If the community decide to "take action" then I would volunteer to help curate the resulting orphan hooks so that we don't lose the articles. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Shhhhwwww!! again nominated a PHL related article, these time: Template:Did you know nominations/Lichauco Heritage House. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Locus iste
(This place) - The article talk page is not the place for general discussion of infobox yes or no, like or not, - that was the one good outcome of the Infoboxes case (which you mentioned): "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" (highlighted by me). The case was requested because of massive reverts of infoboxes, - sadly that aspect was not considered by the arbitrators.

Instead of reverting (and not even to the attempt of a compromise) you should explain why you think the particular work by Bruckner should not have an infobox while most of his other works have one, those of the symphonies dating back to 2007. Reverts are past, additions are present, please compare L'Arianna, Carmen, Il trovatore, on top of my featured article and good articles such as the most recent Magnificat.

A heard a new argument: the infobox is unneccessary. Yes, of course, so are images. Both are mentioned in the standards for B class. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gerda, this has left a very bad taste in my mouth, and for you to come here to lecture me—that's what the word "should" conveys—is not helping. Since you've used bold above, it would appear you think that I was attempting to turn the discussion; I was, in fact, simply pointing out that infoboxes were not required (which was what I thought the GAN invocation was supporting). If some WikiProjects want their B-class articles to have infoboxes, I suppose they can require them for their projects, but the more rigorous Good Article standards do not mention infoboxes, though they do have a section on images. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we have misunderstandings which I would like to clarify. If it comes across as lecturing I am sorry. I saw that you didn't discuss but revert. - The term GA was brought up by Nikkimaria, please address her for why. - Infoboxes are not required for B-class, nor any other, nor did I ever say they are, but for an article for which I wrote most of the content I would like one. I have to go now, sorry for being brief. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gerda, brevity is fine. I did explain why I was reverting when I posted, so I did participate in the discussion. I read the discussion already there, thought the argument for retaining the infobox was very weak, and removed it with an explanation. It seems I misunderstood you above to be citing B-class article standards as a point in favor of infoboxes; if you weren't, then I'm puzzled as to why you mentioned it at all here—it seems to be irrelevant. However, I don't want to keep rehashing this; as far as I'm concerned, the matter is now closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK Cross-border Terminal, Tijuana International Airport
Hi BlueMoonset. Thank you very much for your comments and advice on the above nomination. I'm quite interested in the process, do editors now have a period of time to clean up the article and is that what is for or is it simply the article won't pass? - L &Ograve;&Oacute; kingYourBest (Talk&#124;Edits) 11:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * LookingYourBest, when we point out issues with a nomination—I'd say the majority of nominations have some issue or other that needs fixing—we expect the nominator to work on fixing them, and we keep the nomination open while they do. Only if we don't get any response in a week or two might we close it. The red arrow is used to call for a new reviewer; usually, if initial reviewers raises issues, they'll have the nomination on their watchlist and go back to it when the nominator posts that the issues raised have been addressed (or asks questions). Things can go back and forth a number of times during the review process. Some nominations don't end up passing, but that's usually due to a failure to respond by the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I added sources to the article where missing. (In fact the source material was provided by the original project manager as images, but OK I added the ref tags.) Please have a look again to reconsider.Keizers (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm slammed with real life work but really feel this guy's article is deserving, and working in Mexican aviation I think the subject is so incredibly cool... I made the additional changes that you pointed out. Let's see if this is a go now? Thanks! Keizers (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Luang Namtha
Hello, Blue,

I have fiddled with this nomination every way I know how, with no result. How about deleting it so I can try again?

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Georgejdorner, I fixed it up so it's now all set; it took a couple of steps. Did you want to reinsert the transclusion on the nominations page, or should I? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

re:User talk:AldezD
Please review WP:3RR. That concerns reverting edits in articles and edit war behavior. There is no limit to the number of edits a user can make to an article in a 24-hour period, so long as those edits are not repeated reversions of a specific edit by another user.'' AldezD (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR says: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Helen Online  11:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Complete misunderstanding on my part. Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding and for DTR. AldezD (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, HelenOnline. AldezD, not a problem. I just didn't want you ending up with a block because you didn't understand that, whether you think of it as an edit war or not, the three revisions to an article in a 24-hour period was a bright line you should not cross, except in those very specific and limited circumstances listed on the page, which these clearly weren't. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * George, you're most welcome, and thank you. I've just inserted it back on the nominations page under October 10, so it should show up there again. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for resetting those icons in reviews. I'll try not to trouble you with that in the future.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like I misinterpreted your prior helpful message on this. You must have the patience of a saint to keep harping on me. Thank you for the help.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

All Clear Nomination
All refs fixed, thanks for the reviewing by the way.--Catlemur (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Remade the delete sections.Any more issues?--Catlemur (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Catlemur, I'm not sure why a November 3 entry is placed in the middle of the Operations section, since that's almost a month and a half before the beginning of it, but that should be fixed. After that, we can get a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed it and added the needed citiation.Thanks again for pointing out issues in the article.Cheers.--Catlemur (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello BlueMoonset: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –   Snuggums  ( talk  /  edits ) 21:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Template:Did you know nominations/Kızıl Kilise
Hi! Herewith, I want to thank you for your efforts to get the DYK nom passed. Unfortunately, I couldn't be engaged in the process because for a long time I had no access to WP.--CeeGee 16:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK method question
Hi BlueMoonset, I have been trying to do some DYK reviews. Just now I took a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Czech language and have received an interesting response, that it is not required to check all the online citations in the article for paraphrasing/copyright violations. Is this right? I may have been doing too much work :) I'd be grateful if you can let me know what the best practice is for fulfilling the instruction that you get when you hit "edit" for a nomination ("Within policy – meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism"). Thank you! 184.147.131.89 (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

BMD-3
Care to point out which sentence didn't make sense in the article? What do you know about military equipment? Khazar (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If you look at the GA review of the article, I pointed it out there. If the English doesn't accurately convey what's meant, it's a problem regardless of my level of knowledge of military equipment. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for consensus about QPQs for self- and non-self-noms
Hi, it looks like we have near-consensus. When can we implement the new rule? :) Yoninah (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yoninah, while I'm all in favor of the idea, I think we need to let this run for at least a week before a consensus can be declared. It's only just starting day four. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. (Hope it doesn't get archived first!) Yoninah (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be—archive checks the latest sig date in a section, and only archives those where that date is at least a week old. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been 15 days, and we have 19 Supports and 2 Opposes. The hook list is up to 352, with only 22 approved. Can we implement the 5 QPQ rule for everyone already (after the first 5, of course)? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yoninah, I suggest you find an uninvolved admin and ask them if they'd be willing to close (and think it's been open long enough). Uninvolved means they haven't voted, which would let out Graeme Bartlett, I JethroBT, and Cas Liber. I suppose, of admins active lately in DYK, Crisco 1492 could close it, or HJ Mitchell, or even The Rambling Man. You could also make a request at WP:AN to get a non-DYK admin to close it. After two weeks, I think it's clear how the DYK community feels, with only a couple of exceptions. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

GAN abandonment
You might be interested in giving input here.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 18:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

For good order
The central discussion on which of Magnificat (Bach) or Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 should be the content page and which should be the redirect is at Talk:Magnificat (Bach). Thought it best to let you know for good order. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK Review Colleen Ballinger
Hi. I see that you commented on this. I removed the fair-use image, as you suggested. If you can do anything to move this DYK along, I'd be grateful, as it's been sitting there for a long time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ssilvers, I'm going to give Panyd a chance to weigh in; if nothing happens in a day or two, I'll put up the "review again" icon and add it to the "oldest" list on the DYK talk page, which should get some attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Panyd has put a message on the item stating that he or she has abandoned the item. Can you possibly review it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone reviewed and approved this last week, but it is still sitting at nominations. Colleen Ballinger will be appearing on Jerry Seinfeld's show Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee starting on November 27 -- is it possible to get it into the queue?  All the best!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, I wanted to say thanks for birddogging that GAN for Danehill Dancer and for giving me time to let the lead editors have a shot at it. Though we may spat a little bit from time to time on stuff, I'm glad you do what you do and I just wanted to say that I acknowledge your hard work and the way you keep an eye on things. Wikignomes are not always appreciated. Montanabw (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also thanks for your work on the DYK noms. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Review David Hume
The reviewer and I seem to have reached an impasse. I think the remaining bone of contention, which I think will result in a fail if we can't see eye to eye, is that the reviewer thinks that there are too many quotations in the article. See Talk:David Hume/GA3. S/he said that s/he would ask for a second opinion, but I've seen no sign of this. Is there some way out of this? Myrvin (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This has been failed, and is on review again. Myrvin (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ambush of the steamboat J. R. Williams
BlueMoonset, Please take a look. Trying to move this along. Thanks. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 7&amp;6=thirteen, thanks for pinging me. I think at this point, given the heroic level of work you've made on this article, you are a contributor rather than a reviewer—I added a DYKmake for you—and someone else should do the review. I also think that first Background paragraph does need a citation per DYK requirements, and it's something that Bruin2 should easily be able to supply. I've called for a new reviewer—the nomination is still on the DYK talk page as one of the oldest needing review, so I hope someone will come along fairly soon. (ALT1 will need an independent reviewer anyway.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I knew all that. Thanks for adding me as a contributor.  Just trying to get the moldy oldies out the door. {:>{)> 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Rambler
Thank you for your care supervising the review of The Manchester Rambler, and sorry the first reviewer did a somewhat skimpy job. I think the (eventual) reviewer will find the article pretty thoroughly prepared with good sources. Anything I can do to help... Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Israel College of the Bible
Thanks for your note. I agree. I just nominated it at AFD. Yoninah (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP
I'm in the process of adopting the numberal style for episode aboe 10. Please stop following me & reverting. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * GoodDay, when the current style meets the criteria of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, it is not appropriate for anyone to decide to change it without finding out whether there will be objections. As it happens, there are objections to your blanket change, so it is beholden on you to stop and discuss the matter. In the meantime, I will continue reverting your unnecessary changes. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is apparently more important to you, then it is to me. I honestly thought my changes were harmless. Anyways, I don't have the time to fight over something insignificant. In otherwords, have it your way. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * PS: FWIW, My goal was to adopt consistency across those articles :) GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * GoodDay, it will be better to have them consistent: I hadn't realized how varied they were. (They were supposed to have been cleaned up to written ordinals long ago.) Thanks for continuing the work. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No prob, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * GoodDay, I wanted to let you know that while WP:NUMERAL allows one- or two-word numbers ten and above to be written out either way, it requires numbers that would need three or more words to be written only with digits (plus the ordinal "th", "rd", etc.), just a numbers from zero to nine are supposed to be written as words. So we'll need to mix them after the one hundredth episode: the normal words for episodes within the season, but numbers for the total episodes starting with the 101st. Oops, I'm wrong. I missed this in the "Notes and exceptions" section: Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures. Never mind. Carry on. I'll revert myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Computer Engineer Barbie
As far as I'm concerned this is ready to be sent on. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Mamadou N'Diaye (basketball, born 1993) GA Nomination
Hello. You may want to take another look at the Mamadou N'Diaye (basketball, born 1993) page, as I have nominated it for good article status. Looking at the heavy revision it saw through its DYK nomination, I feel like it shouldn't be too big of a deal to review. Temple of the Mousy (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Temple of the Mousy, I'm not planning to review it myself, but though it was a nice little article for DYK, it doesn't look ready for GAN. The Good Article criteria are considerably stiffer than DYK, and to my eye the article needs more work in its prose, and also in the broadness category: from my reading of the sourcing, it seemed that the reason he went to Stoneridge Prep was because it was a good basketball school, and Stoneridge was limited in what they could do for him when he became ill—he got tired while playing basketball: while I imagine they could give him a full scholarship, plus room and board if it's a boarding school, there seems to have been an issue with the school also paying for his medical bills. This is one example; there are other places where the article could be more robust. Best of luck with the review, but expect to be told that the article needs more work. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Thank you, Yoninah. Happy holidays to you and yours. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Vor Arneths Grab, WAB 53
Thank you for improving it. I confirm that it is indeed scored for men's choir (TTBB) and three trombones. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Ambush of the steamboat J. R. Williams
Hi BlueMoonset,

Thank you for not giving up on this article. It has taken much longer than I expected, but I think I have found at least one source that explains the logistical issue that you had asked to be better documented. I think I need to rewrite the paragraph containing the citation needed flag. It will take another day or so to incorporate the info into the article so that it reads well, but if that is the only issue remaining, we are very near the goal. I'll notify you when I have completed the task. Bruin2 (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have revised the Background section and included more citations as promised. Please have a look to see if I have addressed the issue adequately. I noticed that the last sentence of the introductory paragraph has six citations. The information in the paragraph was only in citation #4, but I am having trouble getting rid of the other five. I'm not sure why, unless it has to do with my old Mac OS. Can you help me? Thanks. Bruin2 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year BlueMoonset!


Happy New Year! BlueMoonset, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 05:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

DYK nomination of Ali Akbar Aboutorabi Fard
Thank you very much indeed. it is my firs DYK and I don't have enough experience. please help me if there's something else. M.Sakhaie 16:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Sakhaie (talk • contribs)

DYK reviews
Hi BlueMoonset. I've been advised to have a chat with you by Yoninah after encountering a problem with how to sign off my DYK reviews.

I am visually impaired and edit with the help of a screen magnifier and text-to-speech software, which are great for helping me to build articles, but often mean I'm unable to use some of the tools effectively, particularly when reviewing pages. The main issue I have with DYK concerns the checking of close paraphrasing as text-to-speech doesn't bring up highlighted text, while because I see only a portion of the screen with the magnification software, comparing two versions of a document can be a slow and cumbersome process. I can pick up things such as vandalism through diffs, but anything longer can present difficulties.

This issue did come up a couple of years ago at FAC, where someone advised me to create a disclaimer page explaining the situation. I have done this, and now automatically add it to any review pages I'm involved with. I've filed several DYK reviews since then and it doesn't usually cause an issue, but I understand the rules have been tightened up a lot recently because of several problems with close paraphrasing, and I've been asked about it a couple of times.

I wondered if you could advise me on the best way to tackle this. Yoninah suggested it might be possible for me to request help with things such as paraphrasing checks, but wasn't sure about the best way forward, so thought I should raise the issue with you.

Thanks for your cooperation in this matter, and I look forward to your response. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Also I need to ask if this counts as a QPQ for me as it looks like the guy who submitted it may not review another article. Happy to pick another one though if needed. Thanks again, This is Paul (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)