User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 8

Happy Holidays and thanks for helping out so much at DYK!


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

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Thanks, Rosiestep. Wishing you also very happy holidays and a joyous New Year. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

 * Many thanks, Northamerica1000. Glad to know that the big guy in red and white won't be handing out coal this year chez BlueMoonset. :-) Have a wonderful next few days and into the New Year! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays

 * Thank you so much, Orlady. The same wishes to you and yours! (Much appreciation likewise for you!) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings


Wishing you very happy Christmas and very happy New Year 2013. -- Nvvchar . 12:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays, Mister! Have a great one! ;)  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  04:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You too, Robert. Many thanks! If you have to be on the roads tomorrow, take care! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Chartered Institute of Public Relations/GA1
Admittedly I didn't read over the article before closing it, just figured that Hahc looked through everything already; clearly that's not the case. I'll trust that the issues will be fixed since the writer is active, and if not in a few days I'll reverse it. Guess I'm getting lazy of late, I'm no longer re-reviewing articles if the first reviewer can't be bothered, I don't have the time or desire anymore. Wizardman 04:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you to please reverse it now to get it open again? If the author hasn't figured out the problems yet, I doubt anything will be fixed without specific guidance. Hahc21, to my mind, should be asked not to initiate any further reviews until he completes this one. I really don't think this should stand as a Good Article. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I will finish the review between today and tomorrow. — ΛΧΣ  21  05:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is the holidays for you, there's no reason to forego celebrating; another day or two wouldn't be a problem if you're busy off-wiki. But if you're spending time here, by all means finish it off. About the article itself, I'm worried about its overall quality. The History section makes a point of Privy Council telling the IPR in 2004 that it needed to do more to become chartered, yet the next year the group is chartered without anything about what measures it took to make the necessary improvements. (It should have been a big deal to do that much in one year, especially since they'd been aiming for it since 1956, and started their code in 1963. (I'm not fond of the vagueness in "As of 2003 few members have been expelled for breaches in the code." How many is "few"? Two? Ten? What kind of complaint level was involved? Anyway, I'll leave you to it. Best of luck. Thanks for your quick response just now. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I have spotted those issues too. My main concern is that the information needed to make the article meet the broadness guideline seems to not exist, or at least it is unreachable to me. I have spent a couple of days searching for sources to see if the article can be improved. Also, yes, this days are holidays for me, although I have nothing to celebrate but to mourn and remember, and thus my overall emotional stability falls down a bit. This doesn't affect my work on wiki too much, but it marks some unconsistence in my editing. I will take care of the article as a top priority; I know I have left it forgotten way too long. — ΛΧΣ  21  05:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see that broadness is a concern: however, it's up to the author to try to find it once the lack has been pointed out, who may have access to more sources than you do. If they don't exist, though, perhaps this is an article that—unless they later become available—isn't one that can become a GA because the information on it is limited. Sorry this season is so hard—it is for many people. You have my best wishes. I sometimes find music helps (not necessarily seasonal; just music in general), but I know it's not for everyone. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Assistance
Thank you so much for your assistance! I am in the process of learning :) I hope my Confiscation of Armenian Properties in Turkey DYK article is okay for now. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. The Armenian properties article looks long enough and new enough, so that's the most basic requirements right there. One thing that will have to fixed is the bare refs—reference citations that only contain a URL. The citations will need to be filled out further for the article to qualify for DYK. When your article is reviewed, other issues may come up, but I'm sure you'll be able to fix them. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Axel Törneman
Thanks for reviewing and catching the paraphrasing issue. I've fixed the issues I think, so if you'd have another look I'd appreciate it. Thanks &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Pritilata Waddedar
Can you do the copyedit yourself please? --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't have the time. I'm sure there are people out there who are capable and have the spare time to do it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV of Anti-Armenian rally
Thank you for the concerns you have raised in the talk page of the article. Every article on wikipedia can always be more neutral and I am willing to work to attain that goal. Please point to the certain segments of the article that need to change. I am going to remove the "The Interior Minister and the protest organizers have yet to issue a formal apology" and if there is other major issues please let me know. I would love to see the article on DYK. Thanks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/First Assembly of Madras State
The additional citations are added in the article First Assembly of Madras State, now you can review it. Good Day Gfosankar (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the citations. Unfortunately, they (and others) are bare refs (URLs only), and DYK requires more extensive information in the references. I've made a comment there to that effect, and apologized for not noticing that omission last time. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

confiscated Armenian properties DYK
Your concerns for the confiscated Armenian properties have been assessed. Thank you for your assistance. Let me know if you have any other concerns. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concerns once again. I have changed the article to fit a more correct standard like you suggested. Please go over it if you like and let me know what you think. Also, I have a DYK for Alfortville Armenian Genocide Memorial Bombing and if you're willing to check it out that will be great! Thank you! Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply from danjel
I've unstruckthrough those two on the needing review list at WT:DYK. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 01:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Although I think I may restrike Half-Blood Blues because there's no point in getting a reviewer until the fixes have been made to the article, and a new hook has been devised. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/First Assembly of Madras State
Thank you for pointing out the mistakes, with your suggestion bare refs were filled out in the article First Assembly of Madras State. Please review it and make your comments. Good Day Gfosankar (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Refs 6 and 9 are still bare; perhaps the Reflinks tool doesn't work with PDF files. These two still need to be fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now all refs were fixed please review it. Good Day Gfosankar (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A question
If you could help with a final answer, I will be clear on the direction for the prose, and begin that process. Template:Did you know nominations/Half-Blood Blues Thanks -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. ARCs do not count. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

William Dixson
Hi BlueMoonset, For what it's worth, I've made some edits to the William Dixson article that I believe address the concerns you and Nikkimaria raised in the DYK nomination. Here's the diff in question. I hope this brings it up to scratch. Thanks, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Shatrunjaya, Palitana temples
Your demands have been met. Buggie111 (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks. I hope the wikistress diminishes soon, with the new year beginning. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DYKQ
There are now 80 hooks verified. Is two sets per day good enough? --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much. Please accept my apologies as well. I certainly could have phrased my reply/question/request far more tactfully. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Added ALT hook
Hey BlueMoonset -- I added an alt hook yesterday for my DYK nomination you had an issue with. All the best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I just replied there. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for responding so quickly. Much appreciated. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a Barnstar
I don't really do barnstars, personally I think the message is more important. So in that spirit I want to thank you for you contributions. I have noticed you quite a bit at GAN, and recently I have been following the talk pages at DYK. You are an editor that quietly goes about their business with very little drama and fuss. You get things done and I respect that. Keep up the good work. P.S. feel free to convert this to a barnstar if you want. AIR corn (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Aircorn. I very much appreciate your message and the thought behind it, and fully intend to keep on with what I've been doing. I'll leave this message just as it is: it's not a barnstar, and barnstarifying it would feel all wrong. (Even more wrong than using [creating?] the term "barnstarifying".) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

RE:Broken Sword Director's Cut
Thanks for the message - I've been waiting for a review for a long time, and it seems that Arsenik won't be giving any, so a new reviewer is needed... :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 12:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. The GAN page should shortly reflect its new status as available for reviewing. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for eloquence
Greetings BlueMoonset. When you have a free moment, please consider the question raised at Talk:Half-Blood Blues. I am confident that you would form much better prose in addressing the query, which deserves an answer in my opinion. Thank you! -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What have I done to deserve this long-term pattern of persecution?
For months you have demonstrated a pattern of behavior where in the DYK nominations I submit are persistently rejected for the image slot and placed into unfavorable times and locations in disproportionately large numbers. Examples of this problematic behavior is available at Template:Did you know nominations/17th Arizona Territorial Legislature, Template:Did you know nominations/20th Arizona Territorial Legislature, Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew J. Doran, Template:Did you know nominations/Fred G. Hughes, Template:Did you know nominations/Hiram Sanford Stevens, Template:Did you know nominations/John G. Campbell, Template:Did you know nominations/John Y. T. Smith, Template:Did you know nominations/Mulford Winsor, Template:Did you know nominations/Samuel C. Hughes, Template:Did you know nominations/William Augustus Hancock, Template:Did you know nominations/William F. Fitzgerald, and many other nominations. Most of these promotions required you to search through large numbers of approved hooks before you found my nomination. As a result we can eliminate "random chance" as an explanation for your actions and I am forced to ask why you have decided to single my nominations out for this long-term pattern of disproportionately bad treatment? --Allen3 talk 00:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am quite frankly shocked that you would think this was any sort of deliberate persecution. There isn't. The notion that I'd want to go through to find a nomination—your nomination—for the purpose of giving it bad placement is simply beyond my comprehension. You couldn't have just asked? If I'm being uneven, it's something that I need to correct, but a simple application of AGF would look at it as something that needs to be brought to my attention, and long before now. I have little recollection of who I selected for what over time, especially over months: sets are brand new. Today, I built three sets, and the last was for Asia/Pacific and western US. When I found your hook, the picture didn't appear clear enough as a thumbnail, so I didn't think it was appropriate for a lead hook, otherwise I would have left it there: I thought the image looked nice at full size, but not small. I was looking to fill slots three and four at that point, and slot two already held a bio, which left four. Yours looked interesting, and the hook fact checked out, so I picked it. I honestly have no memory of favoring or disfavoring your hooks: if I've picked them too often for the quirky slot, or after I've started building the set and thus already set the lead slots, then I apologize for it. But I think you'll understand why I'm going to try to remember to avoid selecting any of yours in future: after an accusation like yours, I'd be too busy second-guessing myself as to its placement: it'll be safer to treat it as if I had a COI, much as if I had devised an ALT hook or reviewed it. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Response by a wandering talk page stalker (edit conflict with BlueMoonset): I didn't look at all of those noms, but all of the ones I looked at were illustrated by black and white head portraits of men, and none of the hooks related specifically to the image. Considering that images are used in DYK to add visual interest, we get far more images submitted than we can possibly use, and black and white portraits of men's heads are about as predictable as a class of images can be, these images are very unlikely to be used. The main exceptions to that generalization are when the hook relates to the image in some way or when the image is of exceptionally good quality.
 * You're hardly alone in having your images ignored. We ignore some really good images. Most of my noms don't include images, and relatively few of my nominated images have ever been used. My collection of DYK hooks includes the images that ran on the main page. Almost all of the images that ran in DYK (I count a few exceptions) were either very interesting/striking images or images that added substantial value or interest to the hook fact; some of the hooks were explicitly about the image. If you want your images to run, aim for more interest. --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Arghhh, I wonder if you were the Machiavelli who placed my DYK about a defunct 100 year old French manufacturer of car spares in head to head competition with Jessica Ennis and Mo Farah on Super-Saturday at the Olympics. Even I didn't see it. :) Chienlit (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, since I wasn't paying much attention to the Olympics except trying to get the athlete hooks posted before their first (or final) event, it could easily have been me: Super-Saturday wasn't on my radar at all. If you want to see it now, I'm sure it's in the archive. ;-) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK
My relationship to you and your methods reminds me very much of Dirty Harry and the San Francisco Police Department.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this about something in particular, or just in general? The latest thing that involved you was moving the Martin's Cave template to its proper spot in the Gibraltar holding area, but I can't imagine why that would be a problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Go Ahead Make My Day!". Nah its not that, just your general military approach to DYK that's all.. Not saying that's a bad thing for consistency's sake though... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  22:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very far from military here, though an office manager or have-the-trains-run-on-time point of view is certainly in my makeup. I suspect I'm not likely to change... BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe once in a blue moon you could bend the rules slightly..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Anne's unresolved QPQs
Are now all resolved. I've also flagged one of the old Gib DYKs she nominated sans QPQs on the WT:DYK page.

By the way: "Priorityman"??? Not quite right, but it's such a good username I'm kicking myself for not registering it. ;-) Prioryman (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Also by the way, I noticed an unusual nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Solano castle - you might want to take a look to see if it qualifies. Prioryman (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Completely embarrassed about the "Priorityman" typo, which I corrected right before coming here and seeing you'd already seen it. Redderfaced now. I need to proof myself better if my fingers are going to go freeform on me like that without warning.


 * Great to hear that Anne's QPQs are all resolved now, and thanks for doing the reviews for them. I noticed you'd taken care of all but one of the submissions earlier; glad that you got the Bruce Cooper duo, and thanks for adding it into the older reviews list in the Gibraltar section. That page has gotten a lot of good attention, based on the number of strikeouts. I should probably do a new one, but we have so many approved hooks (118!) that I'm almost afraid to add to the number. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at Solano castle; thanks for the heads up. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

DYKbotqueue
Just to let you know, the bot doesn't automatically transfer prep areas into queues. --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I ever said it did; I certainly didn't mean to. The bot does, however, automatically transfer queues to the main page, so long as the queue has the right template in it that tells the bot that the queue has been checked by an admin. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK - Dami mission
Hello again, sorry to bother you. The discussion as Template:Did you know nominations/Dami Mission has stagnated. I have long since fixed the date error (totally my bad, sorry) and the two direct quotes you mentioned. I have also fixed other issues of close paraphrasing that I found myself or were pointed out to me. The fact of the matter is the article is now significantly better than when you would have approved it if only I hadn't of gotten the date wrong like an idiot - so can you please have a look at the article now and either approve it or tell me what I need to do in order to get it approved? Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Final
Hi BlueMoonset. Do you think that the fourth season of Glee will be the last season? &mdash; Robin   (talk)  22:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any evidence of that. The ratings are down a bit from last year, but they seem decent and pretty steady, and what little there's been in the reliable entertainment press seems to indicate that the show's quite likely to be renewed. As long as there isn't a major ratings dip in the winter episodes, it will probably return. Don't let a drive-by IP worry you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! With the lower ratings I was already assuming but your notes really do seem as if its going to be renewed. Do you mind me asking/discussing Glee-related topics without it having to do with Wikipedia itself? &mdash; Robin   (talk)  03:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you have not responded in a couple of hours, I'm interpreting this as a no. I completely understand that you only want your talk page to be about Wikipedia. Regards &mdash; Robin   (talk)  13:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not responding earlier, at least to specifically say "no". Generally, I'd like to keep discussion of the show off the page, though I'm not always successful. If there's a particular issue with Glee-related Wikipedia articles, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, TV Line is calling Glee renewal "A sure thing". In their eight-level hierarchy, the only thing that's considered more likely is a show that's already been "actually renewed". So it's looking even better than I thought. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On glee-wiki good! On TV Line; thanks for notifying me on their prediction. Now I'm worrying more that the apparent fifth season will be the last season.. Regards &mdash; Robin   (talk)  22:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarifications needed
For reasons I can only guess at, Fram (who as I recall was a strong proponent of a total ban on Gibraltar DYKs) has intervened to object to a number of Gibraltar DYKs. Each of them has had the requisite two reviews and is ready to go on the Main Page. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify a few points:


 * Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Casemates Gates‎ - Fram is arguing that although this article has had two reviews, a third review is now needed as there is a new hook for the article. I don't recall this being required for other Gibraltar DYKs, could you please clarify?


 * Template:Did you know nominations/Tourism in Gibraltar - Fram has objected to the originally proposed hook, apparently without realising that the ALT2 hook has been approved. Fram is now questioning your intentions in "amending" the original hook (actually removing the image that I originally suggested). Could you please clarify the status of this hook? As far as I am concerned it's been signed off and is ready to go into a queue.


 * Template:Did you know nominations/Breakneck Battery - Fram seems to have misunderstood the hook (though to be fair, it was ambiguous) and I've clarified its meaning by adding a couple of words. Could you please confirm that this article is now ready to go into a queue.

Thanks for your help with this. I'd suggest getting these articles into queues as soon as possible to avoid further interventions of this sort (actually, I think we are a bit behind with clearing the backlog). Prioryman (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Where have I been "questioning your intentions"? Prioryman, could you please remain civil instead of poisoning the well? Your actions (and those of a few others) are one of the reasons that I favoured a total ban of Gibraltar DYKs. You seem to want to have Gibraltar DYKs at all costs, even if that means having clearly incorrect hooks. I have identified a fair number of clearly problematic hooks in the past few months (not only from Gibraltar-related articles, but more from those than from other ones), and the reason I do this (and which was too hard for you to guess apparently) is that I believe that the front page of Wikipedia should be as correct as possible, and featuring clearly incorrect DYK hooks is not helpful to achieve this. You are exhibiting extremely defensive and divisive attitudes, being more interested in your projects or in articles by your friends or associates than in getting it right. You are not taking a neutral position and are not presenting facts in a correct fashion at all, making me question your value as a contributor to DYKs about Gibraltar-related articles and the like. Please take a step back and reconsider your approach. Fram (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've responded to each of the three templates directly. Since there's an approved Gibraltar hook ready to go, we have a bit of time to get these three squared away again. If there are problems, let's address them and get the articles and their hooks back at approval: if it means additional edits, or a recheck, so be it. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

GAR
Thanks for pointing me those issues. I didn't use Google Translate, but I have recently seen that my personal translations are somewhat close to the ones the program makes. I have fixed all the typo issues and reworded a lot. I am still learning how to write castle articles so I apologize for all the issues I have caused... — ΛΧΣ  21  19:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I had to do it, and I apologize for being wrong about Google Translate. Are you mostly doing word-for-word translating? I think the issues stem from still being unfamiliar with the technical concepts and ideas and terms: if you don't truly know the concepts behind what the original is describing, then you're hamstrung in attempting to put it into your own words, because you don't have the technical vocabulary or a way of describing it without those special terms. Is there anyone around who might have that knowledge, in Spanish or in English? It's going to be difficult if no one involved with the article has that kind of technical grounding. Even descriptions of objects will use specialized terms that aren't likely to translate well. Dictionaries can only get you so far, since a native speaker will instantly know which meaning is implied by the context, while that knowledge just isn't there for the rest of us. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm no expert on construction topics and I've had a hard time trying to wikilink things there. Although I'm improving :) And well, At first, I do a close to word-by-word translation to later tweak it as much as I can. Although I am native in Spanish and have a high level of english, translating is one of those things that are hard to get done to me at the first try. I have to tweak and tweak several times to get it to work in english. I do not intent to commit copyvio :P I will try to do as much as I can on that castle article to get it up to standard. I am right to assume this solves the DYK issues too no? — ΛΧΣ  21  21:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Detroit Historical Demographics DYK? Nomination
I responded to your last post here--Template:Did you know nominations/Demographic history profile of Detroit. Please check it out whenever you'll have a moment. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Status!
I have either followed up or following up the TB messages. Can you please have a look here Template:Did you know nominations/Khandana Bhava–Bandhana? --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything has been done from our side, including the image --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Poeticbent already passed it, and I moved it to the special holding area for January 12. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Twerking
I wonder if my review is disregarded. --George Ho (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not at all. The article has been expanded with new sources since the last review entry, presumably to address some of the issues you raised and to make it more robust and less likely to be deleted outright, and is now over 1500 prose characters. (Yerevanci should have mentioned this on the review page.) It seemed appropriate, when I saw that the AfD was over and there had been changes to the article, to call for another look and a summary of where the article stands with regard to DYK requirements. Are you willing to take this on? BlueMoonset (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar-related updates
Hi Bluemoonset, I thought I'd update you on a couple of Gibraltar-related things. First, you asked in Template:Did you know nominations/Spur Battery why Anne (User:ACP2011) hadn't done a QPQ yet. Sadly it seems that she has quit Wikipedia - she hasn't edited in over a month and nobody seems to have been able to contact her by email or on her user talk page (I've tried too). If it's OK with you, I'll take on her outstanding nominations to ensure that any QPQs or queries are resolved.

Second, the Gibraltarpedia Challenge is now over and there is no further competition to create Gibraltar-related articles. There is no further excuse to restrict them appearing on DYK, especially as none of the concerns of COI or promotion have been substantiated in practice and the frequency of Main Page appearances has been low - only 3 articles in December. There's no ongoing controversy about it, even counting the ginned-up faux controversy stirred by Wikipediocracy. Tomorrow I'll be asking that the restrictions be lifted with immediate effect, specifically:


 * The holding area to be ended and articles redistributed into the normal daily slots as per any other DYK nomination;
 * The requirement for two reviews to be lifted, with articles that have already received one review going into queues at an acceptable frequency (I'm happy to stick to an informal "no more than one daily" limit, which I'd think would be sensible for any topic area).

I hope you will be willing to support this. Prioryman (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've very sorry to hear that Anne has apparently left Wikipedia. It's good of you to shepherd her remaining DYKs through the process, and to my mind it's fine if someone other than the creator supplies a QPQ for a self-nomination: the key is that a review is done by someone. (We had a like situation within the past week, where someone did a QPQ for someone else's self-nom. And, of course, nominators sometimes do supply QPQs for the articles they're nominating, even if they aren't required to.)


 * As to the Gibraltarpedia being over, that's fine, but it doesn't mean an automatic reversion to the previous review method just because you request it. Although it might be tedious, I think a formal request to WT:DYK, along with supports and opposes, needs to be done, and it should last the usual week to be sure people can participate. So I will not be supporting "immediate effect" as in December 27 or 28, though if the lifting of restrictions is agreed to in the course of the discussion and voting, it could occur on January 3 or 4 if the consensus is in favor of it. I'd like it if we could retain the formality of no more than one Gilbraltar hook in the 24 hour period until all the current hooks (submitted during the Gibraltarpedia period) have been processed, after which it could safely lapse, and will probably suggest doing just that during the discussion.


 * About the further mechanics: assuming the vote goes through, I wouldn't mind if those hooks that have one successful review and no caveats associated with a second were eligible for promotion right away (though no more rapidly than daily, if that's retained). But if a second review was started, I think it must be finished and approved separately from the first reviewer. I don't know of any COI issues since the restrictions took effect; at least one review has resulted in toned down (more neutral) language, though I imagine that was WP:PEACOCK writing rather than promotional. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the good advice. I've kicked off the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. You're right that the change in language was more about peacockery than promotion - as I recall, the original concern (which I always thought was far-fetched, to be honest) was more that editors might write articles in the style of adverts for Gibraltar tourism. Anyway, the proposal is out there now, so see what you think of it. Prioryman (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The usual week-long period is coming to an end in about 18 hours' time. In advance of that, I thought I'd ask your opinion about the best way of closing it and moving forward. I was thinking of asking an uninvolved DYK regular to do it - someone like User:Carcharoth would be an ideal candidate. Prioryman (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking! I like the idea of an uninvolved DYK regular—certainly someone who hasn't participated in the current discussion. One who's also a sitting arbitrator or past arbitrator sounds like a good idea. Does it matter whether they participated in the original discussion that resulted in the restrictions? It probably wouldn't be a good idea to get someone who was strongly in favor or against at the time either, I suppose, which might make it more difficult to find someone. (I haven't looked yet to see who was involved back then or what their positions were.) If Carcharoth isn't available, Casliber? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither of them participated in the original discussions, which is why I suggested Carcharoth, but Casliber would be just as good a candidate. Prioryman (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan, then. One of them is bound to be available, so a third alternative shouldn't be needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So where do you think we go from here? Frankly I am annoyed at the prevarication of Carcharoth and Casliber - it's obvious neither of them want to be the one making a decision that could earn some people's displeasure. We have a very clear majority, ten to three, in favour of lifting the restrictions, so should we go ahead as proposed? Prioryman (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * One thing I've learned the hard way through a few AfDs and RfCs: you don't always get the result you want. In this case, you asked people of their caliber to close because you wanted the winding up to have weight behind it: they've presented issues that they believe have weight. To decide to go ahead despite them strikes me as the wrong course. Although it's a pain, I think we need to continue with the restrictions for the time being, which unfortunately affects the post-GibraltarpediA submissions of Gibraltar hooks. When is that WMUK thing supposed to end, anyway? Later this month? Unless there's something unexpected in the report, its publication should clear away some of the objections. Or you can take Carcharoth's suggestion of starting over now with a new proposal based on some of the points brought up. I'm not sure your new proposal, which I've just seen while checking back on his words and noticing a new entry on the WT:DYK page, is going to have the desired results; even if the contest is over, GibraltarpediA still exists (as does, presumably, MonmouthpediA), and who's to say which articles about Gibraltar are and aren't appropriate for it? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the WMUK review was never related to the restrictions in the first place - turning round now and saying that the restrictions depend on the outcome of the review is just moving the goalposts. And frankly, it's becoming apparent that some of the people who argued in favour of banning Gibraltar-related DYKs completely are now seeking to perpetuate the restrictions indefinitely. When the review is released (at the end of this month, apparently) I fully anticipate that the same people will use its outcome – whatever that might be – to argue for the restrictions to continue or even to be tightened. Unfortunately we seem to have got into a situation where a minority can block any progress.


 * As for my current proposal, it's entirely up to Gibraltarpedia which articles they tag. For my part, I've not tagged any articles as "belonging" to Gibraltarpedia. The problem we have now is that any article I write now that touches on Gibraltar gets caught in the net of the restrictions, even if Gibraltarpedia has nothing to do with it. For instance, I wrote Soldier Artificer Company under the auspices of WP:MILHIST. It wasn't part of the Gibraltarpedia competition (in which I didn't participate), it wasn't written "for" Gibraltarpedia, it has no possible COI or promotional value - it's simply an historical article about a British military unit. It's been reviewed and passed without any problems. Yet it is mouldering away in the holding area because someone has decided that it's "Gibraltar-related". How does this benefit anyone? As Maile has said on WT:DYK, the restrictions were intended to address Gibraltarpedia specifically but because of the vague wording they have unintentionally ended up causing collateral damage to any other Wikiproject that writes anything even touching on Gibraltar. This can be resolved quite simply, as I've proposed, by focusing the restrictions on their intended target, Gibraltarpedia. Prioryman (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * GibraltarpediA and its separation from Gibraltar is less distinct to most people. When the whole thing blew up, the involvement of officials there was an issue, so mentioning Gibraltar at all on Wikipedia's main page (in the DYK spot) became an issue, which swept up all matters Gibraltar. I think you're going to find that a significant number of people think it's Gibraltar that remains the issue and was at least in part their intended target, though whether they think enough time has passed is another thing altogether. Some of the tangential articles being claimed this past fall were clearly ludicrous (that painter you mention, for instance, or some places nearby in the Mediterranean), but articles about Gibraltar's history—including the Soldier Artificer Company, which is a Gibraltar-based British Military company—are going to get caught up. It's predictable, it's inevitable, and after the blowup this past year, it's something that though you clearly dislike and think is unreasonable, it is currently the consensus that exists. The fact that there were restrictions in place helped defeat the attempt to block all Gibraltar DYK hooks for an extended period of time—that and the fact that the proposers badly overplayed their hand. Yes, Soldier is mouldering away, but with another review it could be in line: if you want, we can try to get reviews for all the single-reviewed articles there: as long as these second reviews include a COI/promotional component they'll be ready for promotion. Or you can let them sit there for another ten days in the hopes that the current redefinition you're attempting works. If you want to try for second reviews now, I can always add them to the new list of old hooks I'm putting together. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess there's no harm trying for second reviews now, it's better than just leaving them unactioned. It still seems absurd to include a COI/promotional component when there is not even the slightest possibility that COI/promotion could be an issue - these are historical topics, centuries old, after all. Prioryman (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if it seems absurd, it doesn't hurt to have reviewers mention it in the review regardless of subject matter. Prevents anyone from claiming that the requirements weren't met, and a proper reviewer would have noticed any neutrality or COI issues while reading the article anyway, so it's not like we're asking for extra work. Did you want to add the second review boilerplate, or would you rather I did it? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added the boilerplate to each of the articles, and I've added them to your list on WT:DYK. Please don't forget there's also a discussion outstanding on the restrictions at WT:DYK - I've notified this to a number of pages along the lines of Carcharoth's suggestion. Prioryman (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Törneman dyk
It appears at least one person (and an admin, at that) thinks this hook should not have passed muster. What are your thoughts, if any? Thanks, &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure what can be done. It's a fact that they were able to do this if they wanted to find him, but why or how often it happened aren't clear. Sometimes hook facts don't have any payoff. If it becomes an issue, the fact could always be removed, I suppose, though it seems a shame: that he'd always leave sketches behind him when he visited cafes is interesting glimpse of him, his habits, and his friends. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anything needs to be done about it, and personally I'm inclined to remove the template, but that's just me. I tend to agree with you that because the fact is an intriguing tidbit about him doesn't necessitate holding off mentioning it without more detail, as it is sufficiently cited and uncontroversial. I personally found the hook, even without more, to be particularly funny as it well describes many artists, including sometimes, me. This is of course why I proposed it to begin with.
 * At first, upon reading the comment I was concerned that perhaps the commenter had some knowledge about DKY hooks of which I was unaware. Then I thought, well maybe s/he was just grumpy upon reading it and decided to be a killjoy, lol. Seems to me I often find information on things, everywhere, not just on WP, that I wish had more information available right then and there, but that wish doesn't make me so disappointed that I think a fact shouldn't have been mentioned at all because of lack of detail. It seems ironic to me as well that in this case, an admin says whoa you need more, yet in the next section on this talk page, another admin says whoa, you need less. For what it's worth, imo more info is usually better than less, but if it doesn't yet exist or hasn't been found, one need not ignore it entirely. Have I missed some requisite within DYK here that I should be aware of? Thanks for taking the time to help me understand and illuminate this issue with another point of view. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK rules
I want to make sure that you are fully aware that I recognize and celebrate the astonishing amount of work you do in the DYK process. I honestly believe it would die without your efforts. So in what follows I want to you to understand I treaded very carefully, because I made you do a little extra work for no real gain. I weighed the benefits and downsides, and I think I've made the right choice.

The extra work I've asked of you is to post the same statement three times. I did so to ensure that I was absolutely sure what you were saying. Yes, I could have short circuited this by simply asking, but that might defeat the purpose. Anyway, I hope you'll forgive me that discretion, looking over your edit list, it seems it has been a trifle in the grande scheme of things.

So onto the meat of it...

You have stated three times in the SABS DYK that there is a need for every non-intro paragraph to have inline citations in order to be passed.

But no such requirement exists. It never has, and almost certainly never will.

In a broader sense, no such rule exists anywhere on the Wikipedia. Quite the opposite, even the article on the topic specifically states that 'Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles.'

The DYK process is designed specifically to be lightweight and easy to use by everyone involved. In order to meet this goal, it should have as few hard and fast rules as possible. The single inline requirement was introduced largely to make reviewing easier, not because of the desire for better citing in general.

In spite of this clear statement of principle, which is stated across many DYK pages, several rather vocal members of the DYK process repeatedly impose this "rule" during hook discussions. Over the years, they have generally outlasted those among us who have continued to try to point out this is not true, and the general problem of "mil-speccing" this would imply.

There have been repeated discussions about enforcing this "rule", but to date every one has failed to reach anything even remotely like consensus for a change. In every example, it's pointed out that demanding something that even FA doesn't require flies in the face of everything DYK stands for.

Across the wiki, statements specifically rejecting such requirements can now be found on official pages and MoS-like discussions, and rejection of policy changes in this direction are continuous. It appears widely understood that imposing rules like this would be a terribly bad idea.

So it is important to consider the spirit of the DYK... is the article good? Of potential interest? Catchy? It meets all of those? OK, so what about the citing? Is the hook referenced? Do the references seem reasonable? Are facts or statements in the article in the references, and/or inlined? Yes to all of those? Then it's good to go. Fast and lightweight.

By slavishly applying picayune rules, we are in danger of destroying the DYK in order to save it.

Ack, that's both long winded and pretentious, my least favourite qualities in a letter. Worse, I haven't even gotten to the point yet:

Why did you believe this rule existed?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Maury, if you had asked directly, I would have been happy to tell you. While Wikipedia as a whole does not have such a requirement, DYK does: it's a rule listed in the supplemental guidelines, WP:DYKSG: "The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." So you've wasted time to make a point, something I hope won't be necessary in the future.


 * I haven't been around DYK for nearly as long as you have: in fact, I don't even go back to the pre-bot pre-template DYK era. So I'm going by the rules that I found, and applying them as best I can. My guiding assumption has been that the rules were devised because of issues in the past that showed a need for guidance, and are there for what the people thought at the time was a good reason. I've always felt a tension on the inline citation rules because Wikipedia in general does not have similar requirement: it's more understandable for the hook facts, as these are clearly "extraordinary claims" and should be cited clearly, so having the citation at the end of the sentence or multi-sentence quote is understandable. For paragraphs, it's a bit murkier, but for something that it going to be linked to directly from the main page, I can understand the desire to have each new area be cited.


 * So that's my take. It could be that by my strict interpretation of the DYK rules, I'm hurting more than I'm helping. That's certainly implied by Dr. Blofeld above. Given the reaction from the old-timers, I should probably take a look at my approach. In the meantime, though, I'd appreciate those cites, unless you'd prefer to raise the issue of D2 on the DYK talk page. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "it's a rule listed in the supplemental guidelines"
 * No it's not. Read the language carefully. The item states "The article in general should use inline, cited sources". The rest of the test is a "rule of thumb".
 * Don't take my word for it, look over any of the dozen or so very busy threads where this has been discussed in the past.
 * So before we open the issue again, perhaps you can consider the issue (as above) and let us know you're decision on this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * D2 is in two parts. My take was fairly direct: "rule of thumb" is meant to give a guideline as to how to apply the rule, how it works in practice (as opposed to vague generalities like "should use" which are extraordinarily unhelpful). When I started reviewing, I took note of how it was being applied, and what I saw followed the the rule of thumb, so I did as well. If that isn't what the practice should be, then the rule of thumb—a "method of procedure" or a "general principle" according to my dictionary—should not be there as guidance. Can you point me to the discussion around its adoption and why a rule of thumb was deemed necessary, plus any others you think are particularly germane? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. Glad it worked out. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Solving huge load of backlog influx and returning back to normal?
Amount of verified hooks is now 76 out of 233 total nominations. However, there are several "almost overdue" messages sent by bot, and DYK administrator activity is... not stellar. Should the amount of verified hooks be 30 to 50 to reduce daily sets from three (21 hooks) to two (12-16, depending on situations)? I couldn't propose this in WT:DYK, so I thought that I go here. --George Ho (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * George, I think you're focusing too much on the activity rather the backlog. The backlog is enough that we need three sets a day to keep bringing it down to a reasonable level. Even if we were to have all the prep sets and all the queues filled—over three days worth of sets—we'd still have 36 approved hooks left over, which is far too many. Admin activity might not be ideal, but we can usually find someone to move a prep set to the next queue when it comes down to the wire, just like we can usually get prep sets filled when we have to. Right now, with three queues filled, we're set for a full day. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What "reasonable level"? As for activity, I realize that I was not concerned about prep areas very much, as they allow people to insert hooks. You're right for now; unless amount is down to 21 verified or less, backlog may be most that matters. --George Ho (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * George, I'm spending far too much time responding to you on DYK queue matters that—I strongly believe—really aren't the significant problem you think they are. It's time to end this thread, and this subject, too, at least on my talk page. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A gentle reminder
Have we resolved the issue with Template:Did you know nominations/Breakneck Battery yet? I left a reply for you a few days ago but I'm not sure if that answers your question. Prioryman (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just replied. It was premature of you to move an article with an active ? icon into the "ready to be promoted" section; I'll be moving it back. I hope it stays in the "not fully approved" section until all is settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't intended to move that one; I got it mixed up with Template:Did you know nominations/Spur Battery, which has been completed. Thanks for catching that error. Prioryman (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Sorry that I didn't notice that Spur belonged in the fully approved section. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Polistes exclamans
Sorry for the long delay; I've been getting ready for the new semester myself. I'll take a look again later this afternoon and see where we stand. Best, Choess (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Wonderboy 1998
Wow, that's a surprise. You wouldn't expect that from someone someone in GA review. Thanks for the notice. Nightscream (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Sorry it's delayed things. As I noted, if there isn't any sign from him in a week to ten days, I think you can reasonably decide to try to find another reviewer. Whether you'd want someone to take over the current review or start over from scratch is up to you; if the former, ask at WT:GAN, and if the latter, I can put it back in the reviewing pool. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A note of appreciation
Hi, BlueMoonset ... I'm not sure we've ever "met", but I've been a long admirer of your work, as you seem to be one of the few helping Nikkimaria deal with copyvio etc at DYK. As followup to Crisco's request on my talk that I look at Spanish sources in Template:Did you know nominations/Vamos A Celebrar, I found on his talk that you had mentioned that the work was beginning to burn you out. I just wanted to stop by and express my appreciation for all you've done for so long, and hope that if you need a well deserved break, that you'll be back helping soon! This is another unfortunate example found after many problems were created, so please feel free to ping me in if you encounter Spanish sources in the future. I'd give you a barnstar, but someone told me they're only for decorating barns :) :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, SandyGeorgia. The good words mean as much without decoration as with. I appreciate the offer about pinging you on Spanish sources, since languages other than English tend to be a problem for me, even if I use translation apps and dictionaries. I don't know if we've interacted before—I'm inclined to think there must have been a thread or two somewhere in the past year and a half—but I don't think there have been any formal dealings. I've been impressed with what I've seen of your work in the FA space, though I've personally only ever tried to shepherd one FAC through the process (I wasn't the one who submitted it, but got stuck doing the work and it didn't make it anyway; GAN is more my style). I actually wish I did more to help Nikkimaria: I'm more likely to uncover a problem and ship it her way for a more comprehensive check, which doesn't seem fair some of the time, but I know my limitations. We're very lucky to have her checking DYK submissions; she's saved us a lot of embarrassment. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think so highly of Nikkimaria's work that I actually stormed off in a huff resigned (for the first time ever) over her recent block, which I thought was unhelpful, spiteful, unnecessary and could have been dealt with via discussion. It's embarrassing to resign and then come back, so I'll not make that mistake again!  Anyway, Nikkimaria handles whatever is sent her way with aplomb.  So, thanks for all you've done to help her, and also to help DYK!  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that: I was flabbergasted that Nikkimaria would be blocked, and then when I looked into it, completely puzzled by the blocking admin's "justification". I'm glad it was settled quickly, and very glad you decided to return. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Request
Hey Blue. I have checked the DYk you asked me to. Sorry for taking so long. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21  01:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I appreciate it. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I hope you're doing well. All the hard work you do at DYK is very important and critical. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ  21  02:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name
-- My 76 Strat  (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the vote of confidence. As for actually running for admin, thanks, but the idea was first broached in November and I remain uninterested in taking on the job. I'm afraid that mop will have to find other hands. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * BlueMoonset - Just wanted to chime in that I, too, think you are an exemplary wikipedian. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much, Rosiestep. That means a lot, coming from an exemplary Wikipedian of long standing: you've impressed me with your work on so very many articles and the quality of your DYK reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you do ever change your mind, you're guaranteed my vote at RFA - you do an outstanding job on DYK. Prioryman (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Note about Yu Zhou DYK
Thanks for commenting on the DYK nomination page for Yu Zhou. I'm confident that the article I wrote was neutral (the current version, with changes from User:Shrigley, has a few problems and is missing some key information, but I am not going to edit war). Had anyone other than Shrigley reviewed nomination, and compared the presentation of information on the page with the sources cited, I doubt they would have said there were neutrality issues. If you have some time, actually, I would invite you to do that (this version is one I wrote:).

I've recently discovered that User:Shrigley has a history of advocating against Falun Gong on Wikipedia, or more accurately, a history of removing and minimizing information about the Chinese government's human rights abuses against it. I'd witnessed a little of this myself, but apparently there is much more where this comes from. In light of that history, I am concerned that his involvement here may not be entirely in good faith.

I have a idea, though, and maybe you can help us work through this. The anniversary of Yu Zhou's death falls on February 6. If a neutral, experienced editor can review the hook to make sure that the article meets basic requirements, then maybe we can hold it to run on the anniversary. In the mean time, I would be happy to pursue dispute resolution with Shrigley to hammer out any legitimate concerns he has. I can't imagine that process would take more than a week or two. What do you think? Seems like a win-win. The Blue Canoe  13:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK submission review
Please review Template:Did you know nominations/Mount Jackson (Antarctica) This is dragging out forever and I'm getting a feeling that the nominators are really stretching to make the 5x requirement. I'm uncertain how strict to be about the language for a DYK, but I've requested another copyedit regardless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how strict things need to be, but there's duplication between the new first and old second paragraphs of Geography ("demarcate" and the Welsh/Welch Mountains are clear instances), and between the Geography and Geology sections. There's also a lot of unnecessary verbiage (i.e., the first half of the second sentence in Geology). It does strike me that there's a fair amount of unnecessary detail here: the last sentence of Geology seems apropos of nothing. I would give it more time, because we do like articles to succeed, and there may be more sources out there that can contribute meaningful material. But trivial factoids and unnecessary phrases like the parenthetical "(many inlets are dissect this area)" should be cut, and as you noted, the new material needs a thorough copyedit and trim. Still, if even half of the new material is retained after these are done, I think the article will be very close to 5x, if not just over the line. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think so, but I'm not so sure that it will make 5x, especially since I read through one of the pdfs looking for more material and didn't find much that wasn't already there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

New hook for Breakneck Battery
I don't know if you've seen it yet, but I've proposed a new hook on Template:Did you know nominations/Breakneck Battery which should hopefully resolve the issues that we've been having with it - the hook is based solely on existing content and won't require digging up any old issues of After the Battle. If you're happy with this, could you please sign it off so that we can get this one out of the way? Prioryman (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem has been as much with the article as with the hook. Right now, the article is using that 2006 magazine source, which itself uses present tense: "the crowning glory of the defenses of the Rock are the 9.2-inch guns. Five batteries still remain on the Rock". Since we know "still remain" isn't true in 2006, something is wrong here, and needs to be fixed in the article itself. Have you looked at the 1978 issue of that same magazine you said you have? Does it have the same quote or something similar that you can use in its place? What that quote needs, in the leadup to it, is something that sets when "are" and "still" was. Until the article makes sense in those terms, I can't sign off on any hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. I tracked down the reference in question. The text you're citing was actually written in 1981 and appeared in issue #33 - it was about the dismantling and preservation of Spur Battery in that year. It was reprinted (or rather requoted) in 2006 in an "on this month 25 years ago..." retrospective column. The original article is described here under "ISSUE No. 33". Prioryman (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, I've amended the reference in the article to point to the 1981 issue. Prioryman (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks fine now; you've settled all my objections. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I should add, though, that Fram's objections to the second clause of the original hook seems to rule that one out, the lack of a year in ALT1 would seem to make it problematic since it certainly isn't true today, and I haven't yet checked the ALT2 hook. Also, if I approve any hook, I can't promote it, which means it has to find another prep set builder. Speaking of which, there are no queues with hooks in them, and only one prep with any hooks at all (and it needs five more to fill it), so I'm going to do that now, quickly, before going to bed and then out for all of tomorrow. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll ask one of the original reviewers to look at the new hook. Regarding the prep areas, I wouldn't mind having a go at building them but I can't work out what template you're using to close nominations. Could you advise? Prioryman (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a quick update - has signed off the ALT2 hook so I think that pretty much resolves this, finally. It's ready for prepping. Prioryman (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)