Open main menu

This editor is an Auspicious Looshpah and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix.


Template:Did you know nominations/Given (manga)Edit

Hi, I am having trouble getting my point across at this nomination. Anyone can write up the plot and characters of a book and say it meets the 1500 character count. But 68% of this article, including the plot, is unsourced. I simply don't think it meets WP:DYKSG#D7, but the nominator is arguing with me tooth and nail. Could you have a look at this? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, it looks like the nominator has added to the article; when I just checked, I got 1508 prose characters excluding the entire Plot section and the language parentheses in the lead's opening. Plots, by their very nature, are not expected to sourced; this one is 1301 prose characters, so under half of the total. (The characters lists and such are just that, lists, so no affect on the count.) There's not a lot of meat there about the actual manga series itself: 670 of the 1508 characters is devoted to adaptations, and the Reception section doesn't have a single review, just some bestseller info. And it's not very clear: the second volume had sold 30,308 copies in its first two weeks according to its source; we don't know how many it has sold to date. (There's no information on volumes 1, 4, and 5.) So it's close, and a touch more on the actual manga should get it there. Anything about the creator? That would help. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Aletta JacobsEdit

Hi, what are we going to do about this nomination? It's really stretching it to ask us to hold it for six months, no? I would promote it now, but the hook is written for a September promotion. Yoninah (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, regrettably, four/five/six months (it's now a hair under four, but it was nearly five when nominated) is not six weeks, our standard maximum, and DYK doesn't hold hooks that long. They can always try to appeal to the talk page, of course... BlueMoonset (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019 GOCE drive blingEdit

  The Minor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK waiting since eternityEdit

Template:Did you know nominations/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir this DYK is GTG as far as the recent reviewrs are concerned. Any idea why this is not moving to the next stage ? --DBigXray 12:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Cwm already replied on the DYK page, so you may ignore this post now. --DBigXray 11:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Happypillsjr is back at it again with the nominationsEdit


If you recall, other users and I failed and questioned Happypillsjr's motives for nomination of GAs. You warned the user on the talk page with the header of "Please stop making GA nominations". After scouting for a GAN to review, I noticed that Happy has nominated Times Square and Lower Manhattan for GA. After a quick check, I found some unsourced sections and also that Happy has done little to no work on the articles. Is the user back up to their old ways or do you think this user nominating them is justified? AmericanAir88(talk) 18:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @AmericanAir88 and @Blue, before we make things clear or making any decisions, I am fully aware that I failed few GA nominations recently but my goal is to do a little work on these articles I nominated but I am trying to figure out how do a little work and mostly justified to these articles. -- Happypillsjr 20:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Happypillsjr: We all have had our failures in the past (Me recently with the BMT Broadway Line). I get it. I was just concerned because it seemed that Blue did not want you nominating and it seems you did minimal work on the articles you just nominated. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Happypillsjr, it isn't about doing "a little work", although the right kind of work can help things along. What's needed is making a significant/major contribution to the article and improving it to the point that it meets the GA criteria prior to making the nomination. People have tried to explain this to you before, but you just don't seem to understand why your nominations have not been helpful, or when an article falls far short of meeting the criteria. Instead of coming to one of us and telling us what you'd like to accomplish and how you were thinking about doing it to see whether the new approach would work—and given how similar it is to what you've done in the past, you had to imagine it might not meet muster—you went ahead with the nominations despite the earlier concerns. Looking at your talk page, it seems like you do things with the best of intentions, but the results are that people need to clean up after you, which takes them away from making their own useful contributions. Instead of concentrating on Good Article status and the like, why not just work to improve the content of articles? That's the most useful thing in building an encyclopedia, and would be a worthwhile effort.
I would strongly advise you to give up on the idea of making nominations from now on. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Which GA nominations?Edit

Hi BlueMoonset. Re: the Happypillsjr issue, where are the GA nominations you are taking issue with? I see one at Times Square. Thx. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, in addition to Times Square it was the one for Lower Manhattan. Times Square hadn't been edited by them at all; Lower Manhattan had a few minor edits, but in no way were they significant, and they hadn't consulted the major editors of the articles prior to nominating as per WP:GANI. All of this was explained to them last August, when they made similar inappropriate nominations. (The first thing I noticed at Lower Manhattan was that the lead was far from adequate given the size of the article, a clear failure to meet MOS:LEAD, one of the "well-written" GA criteria.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "BlueMoonset".