User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Petros Shoujounian

Can Petros Shoujounian be qualified for DYK in terms of how "new" it is? Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

If it wasn't nominated within the first five days of creation (in this case, by March 18), no. It's no longer new at 15 days old. (It also isn't quite long enough at 1495 characters.) Unfortunately, the 5x expansion would probably be counted from Petros's own version of the article, which was over 26 thousand prose characters, far longer than such a composer article should be. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The article went right into a deletion nomination which would prevent a DYK. I did a totally new make over so can it not be counted as new from the date the AfD has finished? The characted issue can be easily solved as well.Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Substandard articles in DYK

When I go to review an article for DYK, if I see it has problems I find the easiest thing to do (which I mostly adopt) is to go away and review another nomination instead. I don't want to get involved in arguments and criticism of the contributions of others.

Looking at the article Koyuk River, I don't fancy reviewing it as it is so sloppily written and inaccurate and some of it is gobbledygook. Its littered with red links because nobody has bothered to check them. Looking at the paragraph on the fish species in the river, it has several repetitions including northern pike rainbow trout and Dolly Varden and even includes a bird Bank swallows. The rest of the article is nearly as bad and what is the location map supposed to show? I could tidy up the article but what about the next one, and the next and the next? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The major problem with that approach is that the article might be reviewed by less discerning eyes, and its problems overlooked. I don't do a lot of reviewing, but I check articles when I go to promote them, and it's sometimes disheartening the number that I have to mark as needing more work for issues sometimes as blatant as the ones you're pointing out with Koyuk. Do you tend to check back later to see what a reviewer does? I'm pretty sure I've seen you point out problems with approved articles on a number of occasions.

It is not your responsibility to clean up articles in such bad shape, especially when they've been created by the most prolific DYKers, both of whom have hundreds of submissions under their belt and produce many articles each week. It is their responsibility to get their articles up to DYK standard. One of the two "major problem" icons, along with a brief summary of the article's deficiencies (perhaps with slightly more moderate language), would be a perfectly reasonable review under the circumstances, though I would (admittedly) not even have looked at the article until the QPQ had been completed. In this case, I think the article was nominated this morning because today was the last day it could be and still qualify for a 5x expansion: I'm hoping that Rosiestep will be back to whip the article into shape over the next couple of days; she seems to serve as cleanup on (in addition to contributing to) many articles where Nvvchar is a major author. As the article stands now, though, I agree with your assessment. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

What I did was to add the review template to my watchlist and await developments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds promising. With any luck it'll have been cleaned up by the time another reviewer stops by. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Good catch!

Hi, BlueMoonset. I noticed your edit to Patrick J. Hanratty to correct an error in date of birth. Thank you for taking the time to figure out what is common sense. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Happy to do it. With luck, more information will surface at some point that allows a new birthdate to be added to the article. He sounds like a very interesting guy. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A favor?

Hi, I wonder if you'd do me a big favor. I've seen you on countless occasions put DYK hooks into the correct set to run at the most appropriate or desired time.

I wrote the Walter Baxter article only because I saw the April Fools' Day potential and wanted to write one article specifically for AF. (I'm so glad I did, because it turned out to be a very interesting and worthy subject.) I don't write many articles (I've only had 17 DYKs, spread out over 3 years), and every one of my previous DYKs has been about a visual artist. That's what I intend to continue writing, so it's unlikely I'll ever write an April Fools' DYK again.

Although the subject of the article is an obscure English writer, the focus of the April Fools' Day hook is the perceived relationship between Batman and Clark Kent. These superheroes originated in the United States and are most popular in the U.S. The hook is currently in Prep 1, scheduled to run from 1 am to 9 am in Los Angeles. I would be very grateful if you could swap it into Prep 2 (9 am to 5 pm) where it could get exposure to the most appreciative audience, and so that I could actually be around to see it.

Thanks for considering my request, and especially for all of the hard work you do in so many ways to keep DYK running smoothly. Your efforts are much appreciated. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)  Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much! Crisco, you're another of the DYK all-stars. You and BlueMoonset are both so helpful! Thanks again to both of you. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'd have been happy to do it, and I'm sorry I wasn't around this evening to take care of it, Mandarax. Special thanks to Crisco for being here and able to do the swap in a timely fashion. It's always more fun when you're awake to see your DYK on the front page. Thanks also for the kind words, especially from someone who regularly ensures that DYK makes it to the new day, and keeps hooks properly formatted. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks once again. Yeah, I don't know how it is for people with dozens or hundreds of DYKs, but for me it's still a thrill to actually see my DYK on the Main Page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think I have two dozen now, but it hasn't yet grown old: I still like seeing them there, and am a bit disappointed if I sleep through an appearance. (Not so disappointed that I'd be willing to set an alarm, however.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I can't speak for the others, but I'm still happy to see the boxes pop up on my talk page. I've stopped taking screenshots and posting them to Facebook, however. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

GA thing

I guess you'll have to pool it. I wasn't that harsh in what I said, just blunt. It's not my fault a youngling editor scarpered.Zythe (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

No thought of fault on my part. Just a question on whether you wanted to work on it, since you'd already put in some effort. We'll put it back in the pool. Thanks for responding. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Query

Hi ... can you point me to the policy that says we cannot use images that qualify for wikipedia use under Wikipedia:Logos on the main page? Thanks. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure. The policy as regards DYK is at WP:DYK under the "Eligibility criteria" subsection under the "Images" header. It's mentioned in the first item, and then repeated in bold in the fifth: "Fair-use images are not permitted." Since the image as listed is both copyright and the license specifically says it's fair use, the Horween logo can't be used for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note that PD-simple logos could be used. Not sure about the logo in question, haven't seen it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. The logo in question is the one at Horween Leather Company. thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for your diligence at DYK and your content creation work. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

• User:Crisco 1492 submitted the following nomination:
  • I nominate BlueMoonset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as Editor of the Week as (s)he is one of the least squeaky yet best performing wheels behind WP:DYK. Without Bluemoonset, who has done tireless work at the project, I doubt it could run even half as smoothly as it does now. I haven't seen that many editors with as much diligence as Bluemoonset, who is also active with WP:GAC and article writing.  — Crisco 1492 (talk)

• You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

• Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 17:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wow! Thank you very much! This is very kind of all of you. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm really glad to see your diligent hard work recognised! Thank you for keeping everything running so smoothly at DYK and always managing to remain so patient. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This echos my thoughts entirely.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• You deserve it, Blue! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the nomination, Crisco. I'm honored and very touched. And thank you, Sagaciousphil and Gilderien. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Editors like you are the heartbeat of Wikipedia. Thanks for your efforts. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

One more thing, us over at EotW were a little behind, so we were delayed in getting you your infobox. Sorry about that, but here it is. Congratulations once again. Go Phightins! 23:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

BlueMoonset is a fan of the TV show Glee

BlueMoonset

Editor of the Week for the week beginning March 24, 2013

In just two years, BlueMoonset has become one of the key members of Wikipedia's Did you know project, ensuring that the items are queued up and updated smoothly. He has worked on 24 "Did you know" articles and 30 Good Articles, and has a plethora of barnstars related to "Did you know", Good Articles, and the task force for Glee. His dedication, diligence and quality work is highly commended and has been described by fellow editors as "phenomenal".

Recognized for

Work on Wikipedia's Did you know project and Glee-related articles

Notable work

30 Good Articles

Submit a nomination

It's very nice that this happened on my second Wikibirthday. I hope you don't mind, Go Phightins, but I've taken the liberty of correcting the gender in the box text here; I hope you'll do so on the other pages where the box is located. (I also have 24 DYKs, not 23, but didn't want to change numbers.) The interesting thing about DYK is that I've been very active doing behind-the-scenes work for less than a year, and as that activity has increased, my rate of submissions to DYK has actually dropped off. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Crisco. Since that page now says 24 DYKs, this page has been updated to say likewise. ;-) And thanks again to the entire EotW crew. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry that I'm late, but here are my congratulations as well! Cheers, and well done!! You certainly are one priceless editor here for DYK and for enWiki!!! [And my apologies for getting the gender wrong. I tried to find it out, but couldnt.] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Talk:The Wiggles Pty Ltd/GA1

Hi BlueMoonset,

So I've put several requests at User talk: Zanimum, asking that he move on this GAN. I'm a little concerned, since his contributions show some editing activity, but he seems to have ignored this. What do you suggest that we do? I mean, I don't want to put the article back in the queue; it's pretty much ready to be passed to GA, I think, and it'd waste everyone's time. I can be terse at times with my fellow editors, so I hope it wasn't anything that I did or said. I've thought about it a little, but can't come up with anything on my part. I'll go with your direction; just let me know what I should do, and if it's reasonable, will do it. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Christine, I'd say that if your latest talk-page request doesn't get any response in Zanimum's next significant series of edits—today's seems to have been a flying visit—then I might ask Wizardman if he'd finish it off. When a review gets to be a month old or more, he'll sometimes wrap up a review if it's just about done but the reviewer has not been back for a few weeks. Sorry you've had to wait! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, I didn't even notice that when I added a missing (pictured) to a hook that that made it identical to another hook. As usual, I can always count on you to clean things up.

BTW, I'd like to backpedal a bit from what I said a few days ago. I said that because I write about artists, I'd be unlikely to ever write another article suitable for April Fools' Day. I mostly stand by that, but I was thinking about it, and realized that April Fools' hooks can potentially come from unexpected sources. I think that someone cleverer than me could have turned my previous DYK, ... that a large sculpture by Caroline Shawk Brooks was listed by customs officials not as a work of art, but as "110 lbs. of butter"? (or some other fact from the article) into an April Fools' hook.

Anyways, thanks again for all of your excellent work. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That's quite all right. I don't think anyone really expects there to be two hooks that are identical except for (pictured) in the first place. I just came across an ALT hook today that had minor formatting issues, and that I'd failed to correct these when calling for a new review. (Now that it had been approved, though, I noticed and corrected it.)

As for whether there is more April Fools in your future, you never know what's going to prove suitable. For me, the question would be whether I'd want to wait so many months for the hook to appear. On the other hand, if you miss the five-day window with a regular hook, you have much longer to submit if the article can support a decent April Fools hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Dipali Barthakur

Thanks for your reply at DYK for Dipali Barthakur. Thank you a lot, Now I got it. Bishnu Saikia (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad everything's all set. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ready for Love (TV series)

I have responded to your belated DYK concerns. Can we put this back in the queue?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Tony, I've just reviewed it, and it's approved once more. However, since I've reviewed it, that means someone else needs to promote it, and that someone cannot be either of us. (It was your highly irregular moving of your own hook from one prep to another that attracted my interest to the article today; I hadn't read it until then, and when I did realized that it wasn't just the move that was problematic.) I suggest you post on WT:DYK to make the promotion request, since it is a special time request. I'm not sure whether you've seen it, but there has already been a thread on this nomination: WT:DYK#NBCpedia, which I commented on after I noticed your hook move. I'd advise starting a new thread, however, so it's more likely to be seen and acted upon in a timely manner. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Help (yet again!)

Hi BlueMoonset, sorry to add to your already heavily overburdened shoulders but I wonder if you can help? I know you deal with dozens/hundreds of DYK nominations but do you remember if one was fairly recently pulled from the prep area after being changed to a stub by someone from the military history project and if so, what the outcome was? It seems to ring bells with me but I am definitely having a cheesy brain day today......I'm asking because there is presently this nomination, which is not particularly substantial, needs some re-wording and has today just been assessed by MH as a stub. I'm not sure what to do with it at the moment. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

SagaciousPhil, it was Template:Did you know nominations/Ivan Petrizhitsky-Kulaga where Milhist had come in and rated an article a stub which was borderline with regard to length. Thanks for bringing this up: I'd forgotten about it, and have just pinged Piotrus, since he never monitors his nominations. The situation with your article and this one seems similar: both are at about 1750 prose characters yet both have been rated stubs. You've cited prose issues with yours, and those need to be addressed. but I'm not entirely sure that either should ultimately be refused once such issues are fixed: I don't know what other areas would/should need to be covered in these two. So far as I can tell, Milhist has far more stringent requirements for Start-class articles than those I've seen: the example articles they give seem to be more advanced than what the prose descriptions of the various levels would seem to indicate. It's a bit iffy at the moment, but if the articles added another couple of hundred useful characters, I don't see how we could justify withholding promotion on the basis of Milhist's stub rating. (But as it's Milhist's, we can't change the rating, either. We'd just go ahead and publish.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, very much appreciated. I'll wait to see if there is a further response from the recent nomination. By the way, have you noticed this nomination newly put in for 9 April......according to the article history, it hasn't been edited since March and appeared on DYK a couple of years ago, or am I missing something?. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You've got it right: it previously appeared on DYK, so it's ineligible. Worse, there hasn't a substantial edit since 2009, really: the March edit was Addbot doing the Wikidata migration, and there's been nothing in the past few years. Give it the big orange X, explain why it's ineligible in every way if you care to: this is for new or newly expanded articles, not old, inactive ones. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding: it turns out that this was also nominated under April Fools. It's still ineligible, but it seems to have been a joke. I've just reverted the April Fools add, and if you haven't already done so, I think I'll reject it. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Requests for Comment: Proposal for rewording WP:NSONG

Hi, an RfC has begun which proposes rewording WP:NSONG. As you participated in a related discussion, I invite you to join the RfC conversation. Regards,  Gong show 05:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Was this really necessary?

Was it really necessary to force a third review of this nomination? You know perfectly well that a list of sieges can't possibly be "promotional" - what is there to promote? - and two reviewers had already said the article was fine. Nobody is going to come back and challenge that. I honestly think you could ease up a bit. Prioryman (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Why does it need to be a third review? One of the people who reviewed it can simply add—as they should have in the first place when they were reporting back on the COI provision—whether it was promotional. You're the one who worded the review requirements and added them to the templates, and they are quite clear; I honestly don't expect there to be an issue (it's always possible but strikes me as unlikely), but one reviewer reporting back on both promotional and COI aspects is the requirement, and if the reviewers paid attention to the instructions it would be done by now. Note that I had to mention this on both of the latest double-reviewed hooks; Template:Did you know nominations/King's Bastion's reviews also both neglected this required aspect. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The review requirements come from the Gibraltarpedia options discussion last September, not from me. My point is that I don't see how it is useful to go back and forth between yourself and the reviewers demanding that they state explicitly what is obvious to everyone. There's no chance whatsoever that an article about events hundreds of years ago could be in any way "promotional" or that anyone alive today could have any conflict of interest in the matter. I appreciate that some article topics might lend themselves to "promotion" or conflicts of interest - tourism for instance, or commercial facilities - but simple common sense would suggest that such concerns don't apply to topics which have no conceivable promotional or COI aspects. I would suggest exercising common sense in the case of nominations such as the one I highlighted above. There was nothing to stop you from noting yourself that there were no promotional or COI issues, and there's no need to be so relentlessly literal about the review instructions when there is nothing useful to be gained from doing so. All I'm saying is that it would be better if you could use more discretion in closing these nominations, rather than chasing reviewers to verify that something which couldn't possibly be promotional or COI isn't. Prioryman (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman, Bluemoonset didn't create the special rules situation; they're just trying to deal with it. BMS is stickler for all DYK rules, not just this one. He/she tries to keep the standards high at DYK, and should be supported in that. I understand that it's aggravating working under these strictures, but that's the way the cookie crumbled. You tried to get these fairly obtuse rules rescinded, but the community didn't support that. The Interior (Talk) 14:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And that, in my experience, is DYK's greatest weakness. DYK has more rules than anyone can sensibly commit to memory, but they all serve the same purpose—to ensure that what we put on the Main Page is of a reasonable quality and adheres to the key points of policy. The way to make sure that's the case is to apply (the apparently misnamed) common sense, not to rigidly adhere to letter of the law, and not to require somebody to spell out the blindingly obvious. I would never ask for special treatment, but there's no reason we can't give a little leeway to editors with a strong track record, which in my case is several dozen DYKs an dozens of other quality articles including five FAs, not to mention my admin work in helping to keep DYK moving. In a case where you have an editor with a track record like that (and Prioryman's is many times more impressive), it's safe to assume that they're not trying to promote something, though quite what I could be trying to promote with an article about a series of events which ended 230 years ago is lost on me.

Anyway, not trying to beat you up, BlueMoonset, just asking you think about what the rules were written for before rigidly enforcing them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I think BMS does a fantastic job keeping on top of DYK and deserves a lot of praise for his exceptional patience and hard work. The rules aren't really that complex - I think a lot of the problem is that people don't want to review substantial articles so tend to avoid them in favour of hastily put together barely start class articles. I actually enjoy reviewing (most) articles so have taken the initiative of going through the lengthy and interesting King's Bastion article. I can't see any COI or promotional problems with it and have marked the nomination reflecting that. I don't know if that's acceptable (BMS can smack my wrist if I've done wrong, I won't mind ) but hope it will help. Perhaps it is the care taken over doing reviews generally that needs to be addressed - after all, BMS is only trying to maintain a reasonable amount of compliance? I'll get off of the soapbox now.... SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, The Interior and SagaciousPhil; I appreciate it. (SP, if a third person wants to come in and do a COI/promotional check as you have done, that's fine: I just thought to save time by suggesting that either of the first two reviewers do it, as they will already have done a thorough reading of the article and should be easily able to supply that final bit of required review.)

HJ Mitchell, Gibraltar is a special case: the greater Wikipedia community has spoken a number of times over the past several months, and they've been very clear that they want extra checking to be sure of certain things, which include that the articles are not promotional, nor are conflict of interest issues present. Occasionally, articles have needed to be trimmed to remove aspects that seem promotional.

As for your track record argument, DYK receives 100 to 150 nominations in an average week from dozens of nominators. There is no way that an average reviewer can keep track of who has done what, and their general level. I'm not sure its relevant, either: I've seen significant issues with nominations from contributors with any number of FAs and GAs, and from those who have many hundred successful DYKs under their belts, and I've learned the hard way that being less careful with such contributors can allow problems to slip through. Any nominator can make mistakes with hook or article—I've made a couple myself—so it's best to check for everything.

Articles about events long ago might contain promotional material: a siege could have left a picturesque ruined castle wall that the article says is not to be missed, or that a battle location is now a popular tourist destination with an annual restaging of the event. It's unlikely, but should be checked nevertheless: unlikely doesn't mean it will never happen. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever caught anyone with a conflict of interest? Or anyone trying to promote Gibraltar by getting their advert on DYK? My last FAC was easier than this, but what needs to happen now for my non-promotional, conflict-of-interest-less, thrice-reviewed article to get what any badly written, dodgily referenced, 1500-character stub gets without a second glance? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• "any badly written, dodgily referenced, 1500-character stub gets without a second glance" - You're certainly allowed to double check anything in the preps; I know Nikki has been doing / did it for some time. Quality has, fortunately, seen a general improvement since the DYK wars of July/August 2011. I agree that we should try and reduce super-stubs; I didn't nominate Herwin Novianto precisely because I thought it wasn't long enough.

On Gibraltar, I think it's time for another discussion about lifting the rules. There's been much fewer such articles recently, so the community may be more open. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The last discussion was only a couple of months ago. What has changed since then? If you look at the opposition to the proposal to lift the restrictions, you'll see that there was a dispiritingly high percentage of paranoid rants and even demands to strengthen the restrictions rather than any rational engagement with the reasons for ending them. What I'll do, though, is contact the people who voted to oppose (minus the crazies who are probably unpersuadable) and try to find out what would convince them not to oppose a fresh proposal. Prioryman (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough... although I would have thought that a couple of months was a long time on the internet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Cris, I agree quality has, in general, improved a lot over the last few years, but I glance at DYK every now and then, especially when something I wrote is on, and it's disheartening to see FA-quality articles sitting in the midriff, giving way to something little better than a stub (it would be unfair to give examples, because I'm not trying to disparage anybody's writing and good writers only become so with practice). But it would be equally unfair to use BM's talk page to discuss quality at DYK (unless he wants to host the discussion, I suppose); it would just be nice to know if my article is going to get onto DYK or if it's barred because of its subject matter, regardless of quality. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it's "barred" - certainly other Gib-related DYKs haven't been and yours has met all the requirements to run. It was only finally signed off on 6 April, and there are older signed-off DYKs that have not yet run. I'm sure the prep area builders will pick it up soon. Prioryman (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's my main issue with the current system (aside from the fact that such restrictions have been deemed necessary, of course); DYKs that far below the threshhold are essentially missed by prep builders, as people often forget to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think a major factor was once the article had received the required two reviews, BlueMoonset removed it from where it had been listed under March 29th. It was dual-listed there and in the holding area while it was awaiting reviews, but was removed from the date section once it had been reviewed. I don't see the point of doing this - it certainly isn't required by the restrictions - and as long as the article is still listed in the holding area, the restrictions are met. I'd suggest leaving the reviewed articles in the date sections until they are put into prep areas, so that this scenario of being lost below the threshold doesn't recur. Prioryman (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If you don't remove it from the date at the point of full approval, then there is no restriction at all: dual listing then just becomes a functionless formality where everyone ignores the holding area altogether and it serves no function. The whole point behind the separate area is that the hooks are in an area where it's very clear that only one hook should be taken in any 24 hour period. Your suggestion completely vitiates the point of the restriction. As it is, the hook waited under three days from final approval to promotion, which is a bit shorter than average at the moment given that we're sending 21 hooks a day to the main page and have a backlog of over 60 approved hooks waiting to be placed in a prep set: not a "major factor" at all. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I had thought it was longer than that, but looking again I see that you're right. I take your point about needing to flag the one per 24 hour requirement. Perhaps the solution is for editors to simply keep an eye on completed nominations and remind prep builders if it looks like they've been forgotten about. Prioryman (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Shooting Star

See Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting Star (Glee). Regards — Robin (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Robin! I hadn't seen any of those pre-reviews; you did a great job adding their information to the article. The nomination has already been reviewed; sometimes they get picked up right away, and sometimes they just sit. I've upgraded your DYKnom (nomination) credit to a DYKmake (creator) one, because of the significant work you did on Critical reception, without which there was nothing in the article that worked as a hook (and it was too short to qualify). I also supplied a quid pro quo review, since I would have done so if I'd nominated the article (which I didn't do because it was both too short and didn't have material for a good hook). The hook has just been adjusted by Status so it doesn't use "upcoming", since by the time the hook makes the front page the episode will have been broadcast. (The next open slot wouldn't run until Saturday, and that's just the earliest it could appear.) It looks like we're all set for now. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, thank you, and great! — Robin (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Kurtofsky

I left you a message on your Dave Karofsky page, not sure if you'd get notified f that already, but just wanted to be extra sure. I think it could be an important add. --Matt723star (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've responded there. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Glee articles

Hey! I understand you've reverted my edits (I'm not offended at all, don't worry) because you want to keep them standardized but I thought changing one word was not that big of a deal; it was an improvement that could easily be done on the other articles ;) And there are actually other Glee articles that have 'critical response' instead of 'critical reception' like almost all of the second season's articles and some articles in other seasons so that's already inconsistent with the rest... --Sofffie7 (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Every single review may not be consistent going back—we never got around to rewriting the first season or early parts of the second—but there's a long stretch of Good Articles that use that header structure starting in the second season and going through the third season (except the four episodes that haven't been fully written up yet). So that's why I reverted you: it didn't seem a necessary change, and made that stretch randomly less consistent. (Some words are more important than others.)

I've also just now reverted your new addition to "Hold On to Sixteen". I'm admittedly not a fan of "best/worst" lists, and if we included all of them from the various entertainment sites trying to draw readers by compiling such lists the various reception and music sections would become quite messy. In this one case, the existing article already has a reviewer who called "Red Solo Cup" the worst Glee number ever, so adding TV Guide's similar claim to the mix at this late date is duplicative and may not be representative of the overall balance of the universe of reviews, which we usually try to reflect during the original write-up. I've looked at this TV Guide article, and there are 35 "photos" of them, which covers at least 37 songs because they have "Don't Stop Believein'" on the first page, and at least one double play. That's just too many, in my opinion, such that "best" and "worst" becomes fairly meaningless. (It's also anonymous: I think "reviews" that no one takes credit for are far less compelling and worthy of being highlighted than those that someone signs their name to.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Shooting Star (Glee)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

DYKnom Ulucanlar Prison Museum

Some five days ago, I took action to clear the points you had listed. No progress has taken place so far. Is there something else I can do? CeeGee 18:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm very sorry; I lost track of that one. Taking a look, I think there's still something to be cleared; I'll check further, and then post to the nomination page. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Wilhelm Busch

Hello,

time flies... unfortunately, Wilhelm Busch did not appear yesterday. Would it be possible to show it this week, after the copyedit? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Once it's reviewed and has been approved, it should be promoted within three to five days. I've just put a "review needed" icon on it for better visibility; Gerda, as the proposer of most of the ALTs, cannot review them herself. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK Chippewa Nature Center

Thanks for your patience; I was on vacation, returned home for one day before a death in my family and four days in Michigan for the funeral, then catching up on work with deadlines. I have reviewed Leona Woods as my QPQ. Mgrē@sŏn 13:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to hear about the death in your family, and am relieved that the nomination remained open until you could return. Good catch on the close paraphrasing in the the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Page move being requested in middle of DYK process

I'm wondering whether you would be kind enough to take a look at this for me [1]. I've asked the editor in question to withdraw the request for a page move in the middle of the DYK process, but he has refused. Any suggestions you have for handling this would be much appreciated. I've already tried everything I can think of. NinaGreen (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Nina, as long as the move doesn't take place while the article is on the main page or about to go there, it can usually be managed. The important things are that the nomination template doesn't also move—adjustments need to be made to the contents of the file, so article credits are given out properly, if the move takes place before the hook is promoted, and made to the prep set or queue if it's made after promotion. Probably the two worst times for it to happen are when it's in the queue about to be promoted and the adjustments to the queue aren't made, or while it's on the main page, especially if it's done without DYK people noticing it. Even then it can usually be cleaned up, but it can be a pain for the admin who has to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Renewed :D

Glee is renewed. Not just for a fifth season, but also for a sixth! :) But I was wondering are you going to continue your trend of creating an accompanying article for every episode? For this season, media reception has dropped significantly. In the vein of Grey's Anatomy articles, I think it would be best to focus on character articles, season articles, and main articles for its fifth & sixth seasons. Thoughts?

Robin, I was surprised—but pleased—at the double-season commitment. Glee hasn't done badly in the ratings, but trend remains slowly downward, and while it's a good sign that it has been renewed, there is no guarantee that it will survive that long if the ratings tank. If Ryan Murphy is going to concentrate on New York over Ohio next season (or vice versa), that might alienate enough of the audience to put the show in danger.

As for episode articles, it's going to depend on how much reception the episodes get, and by whom. I have to admit that, as I haven't worked up any episode articles to GA status, I'm not sure what the review universe is like: I should probably do so. Regardless of what I do, it seems likely that someone will at least stub out the articles, as just happened with "Lights Out" before I put in place something more comprehensive (and sourced!): the choice at that point is to either go for AfD or let it slide, and I frankly don't have the energy for continuous AfD fights if others create articles from the inevitable redirects to season pages. I'll certainly finish the fourth season with individual articles; after that, we'll see. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I'm going to focus on character articles for the upcoming weeks. By the way, do you have any idea if Oliver Kieran-Jones will return :O :/ (his twitter account has been suspended). — Robin (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea about Oliver, though his Twitter account seems to be active: [olliekjones]. I tend to doubt he'll be back this season, at least, since he's not listed in any episode press releases, and there's only one more to go (which finishes shooting next week, and the press release with the guest star list should be out on Monday). As for next season... well, he was a senior, and given the other information we've been seeing around the upcoming Patty Duke/Meredith Baxter characters, it seems unlikely he'll be back in any major way, if at all. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Some closure would be nice, but the upcoming plot is exciting. I'm hoping it doesn't turn into the Finchel fiasco that plagued season 3... — Robin (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Plural?

I don't want to change Template:Did you know nominations/Sweetened beverage now that it was passed, but shouldn't it be plural beverages in the hook? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Piotrus, you're absolutely right not to change the template now that it's been promoted (and it even says not to edit it any more), but it's not a problem because the hook has already been edited to make it plural: hooks get edited all the time when they're promoted or afterwards in prep or in the queue, and if you look at Prep 2, you'll see that the hook has been modified to read "beverages". BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK(s) for William Orr

Hi BlueMoonset, as I just noticed you are around, if you get the chance could you have a quick look at William Orr and also William Orr? As you can see there has been a suggestion that both nominations should be combined. The trade unionist one does seem to have already had an approval tick at one point. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like both nominators seem to think it's okay (it wouldn't be a good idea unless both were on board). You'd probably want to put a hold on the one that's been approved if that's the way to go, but there is the issue that one of them isn't sufficiently expanded. It may end up making sense to let the one of the them go, but I think it's worth trying for a combined hook if the second one can be expanded sufficiently in a timely fashion and can be fully approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for such a quick response - Bonkers appears to be kicking around at the moment as well, so if we get an answer from him/her soon, it may at least let us know whether they can get a further expansion done on it or if the trade unionist just gets run on his own. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK reviews

Hi BlueMoonset, I think I'm either going to be sending the DYKbot crazy or causing a lot of annoyance at DYK (Dr Blofeld is probably going to think I'm stalking them). There seems to have been a run of nominations approved without QPQs being done and any I've noticed I have stuck a "DYK?" onto. Some of them are: Omaha Hotel, Sean Manaea and Fred Hobbs. There is also this one in Queue 5 that has a section with no inline citations in a couple of paragraphs but it's probably too late to do much about that - I think Gerda Arendt was a bit peeved at me the last time I pointed one of these out. Have a look at them if you get the chance? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sagaciousphil, you're absolutely right to point these out whenever you see them. Too many reviewers neglect the QPQ check; it should be automatic. (Dr. Blofeld isn't big on rules, so I'm not surprised he didn't check for the two reviews he did in that list.) When you do, though, there's no need to indent them so far: use an asterisk so there's a bullet, and only indent one more than the previous line, if you indent at all: we want this to stand out, and if you indent a long ways, it's hidden. (No need for a question mark either, if you're sure they owe a QPQ.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Aah, I see - I was putting the "DYK?" as I thought it would help the bot show how many are fully approved on the listings and would cancel the approval tick until re-instated. Maybe also make it easier for those promoting up to the prep areas to clearly see. The question mark at the end was just me making an attempt at trying to play nice instead of being the 'horrible baddie'. I'll get the hang of these things one dsy! SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• You absolutely need to include the icon: it says that there is a problem with the nomination, which cannot be approved until it is solved. It also cancels out the previous tick and prevents promotion (and does indeed fixes the count in the table on the queue and nomination pages). What the regular question mark at the end of the sentence says to the reader is that you're not sure this is the case: have the courage of your convictions! You're not being a baddie, you're being a DYK reviewer noticing something overlooked. (If it turns out you're wrong, an honest "I'm sorry" is all that's needed.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

CITIPEG article

Hi BlueMoonset, I thought I'd give you a quick update about the delayed CITIPEG article that you reminded me about a couple of days ago. To be honest, I am having difficulty sourcing it and am seriously wondering whether there is going to be enough material for much more than a stub of an article. I should have the opportunity tomorrow to consult a newspaper archive to see if I can get any more info. Prioryman (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Prioryman. Soman was clearly wondering about it, and I'm glad you're looking into the matter, since I hadn't the slightest clue, and not enough time to look into it myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Gilderien/GA-DYKRFC

I have read through your concerns on the proposal last year which seem fairly strong - would you be more amenable if there was a limit of say 2 per set? I could add this as an extra question below the main thing for those who want GAs to be nominated and if you have any other ideas feel free to add them. Obviously only GAs promoted within 5 days of the DYK nomination would be eligible, and not if they had been on DYK before, I did a survey of the 100 most recent GAs today and about 1/3 would be ineligible for previous (or imminent) main page appearance anyway.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Gilderien, I'm going to have to get back to this in a couple of days, but I didn't want to say nothing until then and leave you hanging. I need to go back, find the old proposal and my own comments, and also take a good look at the new one. One thing that struck me as unusual about the new one was that you refer to the supplemental rules as the only ones that GA articles would have follow, when they should be subject to all DYK rules wherever they are. Setting a limit, though, seems to me to complicate things even further: yet one more thing for people who assemble sets to juggle. Can I ask why GA hasn't pursued their own space on the main page to review and populate as they see fit? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you for taking the time to look at this. As an addendum, the proposal is here. The ommision of the DYK rules I think was unintentional, so I added it althought I think they are all included in the Supplementary Rules anyway. There has been much said about the Main Page already being rather unwieldy and that there is nowhere to put a new section without, for example, removing DYK, which obviously neither of us would want. However, I do believe it has been raised a couple of time, most recently here. However, there was only about 45% support, with some comments including "far too much text on the main page already. I'd be looking to reduce it in all sections except for TFP. Please see the alternative proposal on the DYK talk page, which doesn't require more real estate", "Make space by getting rid of DYK and ITN", "Support as a replacement or alteration of DYK or replacement of the trivial "on this day".", "Neutral'. My !vote has been tempered somewhat by the explanation of the original proposal in DYK. I now more strongly support the original, as it is the least disruptive of the two options of how to include GAs. But whatever the means, I support any way of getting GAs featured on the Main Page.", and "Good idea in theory, and I was thinking about supporting at first, but the opposers have raised some really good points. The main page is full as it is." etc. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Ping! :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm so sorry; I only just this minute noticed the ping! I'll try to make time this weekend. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ping.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The Grange, Monmouth

Certainly, I just went by the fact that the The Grange, Monmouth is listed as a defunct school in the Template:Schools in Monmouthshire. I'm happy for it to be changed if you so wish, however if its now a boarding house, its not strictly a school. Just to note that I have categorised Monmouth School as an active Independent school in Monmouthshire. Bleaney (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is that while it is no longer used as a school, just as housing for a school, the school still exists. It was always Monmouth School, but was housed in "The Grange, Monmouth", though the school now uses it for housing rather than classrooms. It is not a defunct school, if you read the article. "Defunct" means the school no longer exists; the template merely says it's a "former" school (in this case, a building that formerly housed the school, at least in part). One alternative is to remove the category entirely; I'd certainly prefer that to "defunct". BlueMoonset (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel I have no strong feelings on this. Bleaney (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the category from the Grange article later that day. That seemed to me to be the best choice. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Vibronic spectroscopy

Thank you for your comment, which was not unexpected. However, perhaps the application of the rule can be reconsidered in the light of the following comments.

1. Since I first posted the article it has been the subject of extensive revision/expansion in collaboration with user:dirac66. I first created the article in my sandbox. I don't believe that the sandbox is a suitable place for collaboration.
2. If I has submitted it for DYK then it would have been subject to many improvements. I considered that to be undesirable, preferring to present a "finished" article.
3. This article is part of a trio with Rotational spectroscopy and Rotational-vibrational spectroscopy which we (and others) had been working on previously. The three articles have much common ground and the creation process involved some interaction with the other two articles.
4. The revision process has taken much longer than expected because of professional committments and delays in trans-atlantic communication.
5. The subject matter is of considerable scientific importance and it would be good to alert readers of its creation, even though the "original creation" date was some time ago.
6. Lastly, but not leastly, this issue would not have arisen if I had (dishonestly) put today's date for creation as I had done with previous articles submitted to DYK. After all, the final version was only created in the last few days.

Petergans (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Petergans, the issue should have arisen regardless of the date you put on the nomination, as the history and a proper review (not to mention automated tools such as DYKcheck) would have shown the January 31 creation. If it didn't arise with previous articles, then you lucked out with them.

As regards using a sandbox vs. collaborating in article space, it's a choice. But it's one with consequences if a goal is DYK publication: while you can work in a sandbox indefinitely, once you publish the article, finished or still rough around the edges, the DYK clock begins ticking. Many people collaborate in sandboxes: it works for them. However, the collaborators need to be in place: you rarely find new ones when working in user space as opposed to article space.

You're welcome to take this to WT:DYK if you wish, to see whether the community is willing to make an exception in your case. I'm not inclined to, but I'll go along with whatever consensus develops. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to waste any more time on this nomination. Once again rules triumph over common sense. This article is new, created by me and user:dirac66. Common sense would suggest that it should qualify for DYK. Presumably there was a reason for putting the 5-day rule into place, but it's difficult to imagine what it was.

I'm about to nominate Spectroscopic line shape which I moved from my sandbox yesterday. The 5-day rule means that I have to nominate it now, rather than wait until it's been looked over by user:dirac66. I was working on this in my sandbox while vibronic spectroscopy was undergoing polishing. Your suggestion would have necessitated my using more than one sandbox, which is definitely undesirable.

Petergans (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Petergans, the nomination process usually takes a few days—sometimes many more than that—which allows time for polishing which many people take advantage of. Additionally, you can wait until the fifth day after the move from the sandbox to nominate to give yourself that much more time for polishing, but don't wait any longer than that. Best of luck with the new article.

I'm not going to argue about working methods. Some users maintain multiple sandboxes when they have articles at various stages of development, and do so with co-editors so the articles are more polished prior to publication in article space. Some, like you, don't want to.

DYK has very simple methodology for determining newness: when the article was created in (or moved to) article space, or when the expansion began there. As it says, "'Five days old' means five days old in article space. You may write your article on a user subpage and perfect it for months. The five days start when you move it into article space." With around 150 nominations weekly, it's not practical to have newness be an amorphous and variable standard that would allow for an article that had been in article space for three months to be considered new. The current guideline is easy to understand and apply, which is why I imagine it was established and has been in force for so long, well before I'd even started editing on Wikipedia. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The 5-day rule is arbitrary and irrational. What is the difference, as far as newness is concerned, between an article developed in sandbox or in article space? I suggest that you seek a second opininion to consider this and the points I made originally. Also have a look at the collaborator's comments on my user page. Petergans (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Petergans, if you wish to seek a second opinion, I have already offered you the DYK talk page. This is not my rule or my construct: as I pointed out, DYK has been active for many years under this rubric. You are not the first to feel that the five-day rule is wrong, but I doubt it will change. Exceptions are sometimes made: if you're truly interested in that, I suggest you post to the talk page. I have no intentions of pursuing this further. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Case closed. Petergans (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/John Christian Reid

Hi, I have a request to make from you, since you're one of the most respected guys (or girls?) around the DYK community. Abovementioned DYK nomination seems to be deadlocked. There's a nominator who is willing to work on the article, and a reviewer who refuses to explain himself. He also seems to have an issue with me, so I can't be the impartial force here who sorts everything out. However, I'm sure that your judgment would be respected by all parties. Could you please take a look at this article and its nomination and sum up your thoughts on the issue? It would be much appreciated! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 10:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! I happen to be a "he"; Anne's definitely a "she". (I've reviewed her articles in the past.) I've just posted there, and suggested a new hook (the old one didn't flow well). With luck, this will do the trick: please give Anne a chance to respond (48 hours should be sufficient, if she's active on the site), and we should be able to go on from there. I don't expect this to have to wait much longer before it gets approved again. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

WT:DYK#Prep 4 Glen Springs

You are the reviewer who rejected the hook for using the word, "beloved" in this nomination, so please respond to whether the most recent change is satisfactory. Mgrē@sŏn 12:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't reject the hook because of the word "beloved", I was reiterating the previous rejection, and noting that this was also an issue beyond those already given. The hook was, oddly, promoted despite not having been reapproved, so I brought it back for it to get that review, while pointing out other problems that needed to be addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK Jack Stivetts

I have been an editor here since 2006, quietly doing my thing, almost entirely without much fanfare. If I caused you a minute of extra work to correct my mistake, I apologize; it is usually a policy of mine to cause as little anguish or despair upon Admins or any other editor. Where in this guideline do the words "editors should NEVER (emphasis yours) revert their own queue item"? Or, "editors should probably not do such things"? In fact, it seems to indicate the opposite. As long as the instructions are followed correctly, it appears that any soul could make these changes. I didn't, clearly, follow them correctly, but to publicly scold (emphasis mine) me in a public forum such as you did, you may want to be correct. I wouldn't have attempted to do so, but due to the promoter not following his/her directions correctly, I attempted to reset it. Maybe you, who has taken it upon yourself to be put in your current editing status can initiate a change of wording, no? I will await your answer on what the guidelines say, or do not say, about whom may, or may not, revert a DYK queue item. Thank you.Neonblak ^talk - 04:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

First, at the top of every closed (promoted or rejected) template, it says "The following is an archived discussion... Please do not modify this page." You've already modified it twice, and both times you've added text outside of the inner template. This causes your comments to appear in the middle of the nominations page as if they were part of another template, because closed templates prevent their contents from appearing although they're still (invisibly) transcluded on the nominations page. If you add a comment after the end of the template, it isn't prevented from showing up, so your earlier comment about reverting the promotion was seemingly attached to another template once the hook was repromoted before I moved it.

I think I know how you feel about trying to avoid causing issues: it took me a long time before I started editing prep areas or moving hooks around, and that only because something had broken and it wasn't getting fixed. That was almost a year ago, and I've learned how things work in DYK. I do tend to write in absolutes, for which I apologize, but it is generally considered a conflict of interest to promote, move, or edit your own hook. This stems mostly from WP:DYKSG, both H2 and the header to the section after that, "Rules of thumb for preparing updates", and recent practice has been more strict than that to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. I don't know of anyone who promotes their own articles or articles that they've reviewed—indeed, people go out of their way not to—and I rather suspect that if someone did do so, their promotion could well be reverted. (I've seen hooks that were approved and promoted by the same person get reverted, and there is a valid reason behind it: the person who promotes hooks is another pair of eyes checking the hook and article to be sure nothing slipped past the reviewer: you lose that extra protection if that particular corner is cut.

The "How to" sections on the T:TDYK page explain how to do something, but they don't really explain when and who, do they? One problem that DYK has had for a long time is that there are various guides and explanations all over the place: Reviewing Guide, Rules, Supplementary rules, those "How to" sections, even an aging "One Page" version that has most things but not quite everything.

I'm sorry that I appear to have held you up for a public scolding. I didn't think of it as public: I did place a note on your talk page (which you can always delete if you wish), and very few people will have the template on their watchlist or notice it now that it has been promoted. Unfortunately, promoting the wrong hook does happen sometimes, especially if the reviewer hasn't used strikeout to strike problematic hooks to give a visual clue to the reviewer that the hook is not eligible for promotion. Promoters are supposed to check, and in this case we had a brand new person building the prep set, but I've seen it happen with experienced set builders who are in a bit of a hurry, or where the approver hasn't been clear on which hooks are approved and which not. DYK is kept running by volunteers, and sometimes there are hiccups in the process. Today was one of those times. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough explanation, it makes much better sense now. I am an "older" editor that sometimes get frustrated by the continual, albeit necessary, upgrading of policy and guidelines. I was "miffed", so I too sounded arrogant when, I assure you, am clearly not. In the future, I will refrain from moving around my own DYK, causing headaches and acid reflux among those who are trying their best to keep wikipedia awesome.Neonblak ^talk - 13:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)