User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Burt Hummel review

Hello there, I've reviewed the article here, if you have any questions, feel free to post me a message, thanks, Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 01:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification here; I actually found it through another method! Just posted my second replies there; I think we're very close, and appreciate the time you're putting into it to move it along so quickly. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm so sorry!

Okay, I'm extremely sorry about not being active for the past few days. My router malfunctioned and the cable company had to send me a new one by mail from their storage center. My router broke on Saturday, and I'm just getting it now! I had no way of getting on here to check up on the FAC nomination. Thanks so much for explaining the source issue on the nomination page. You really saved me on that one! Haha. I'm looking over the latest changes regarding that as we speak. HorrorFan121 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't worry; life has a way of intervening, and connectivity is one of those things that can go wonky and leave one cut off. It was actually very quiet these past few days—no responses at all in the FAC section. I'm currently working my way through the edits Orane/Journalist made early this morning—I was just finishing Storylines Season 2 when your message popped up—but aside from that my guess is that everyone took the weekend off. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess that worked out for us then. Haha! And yeah, I noticed that. I'm glad he decided to help out and copy-edit some portions of the article. He seems experienced with FA's, so I think that will help us out! :) HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been quiet lately on most fronts, though "Special Education" just made GA, so we're up to 51 for the task force. How's work on Dave Karofsky coming? And are there any others (aside from Santana, in the collaborations section) that should be included on your list of projects on the main task force page? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've actually made some progress on Karofsky's page. I started building his "Reception" section with some commentary from his season two storyline with Kurt. It's not ready to be saved yet, but it's slowly coming there. Also, I hope I didn't mess up the talk page for Kurt and made Journalist miss your message. Haha! Not sure if that's indeed what happened or not, since he hasn't replied yet. I've also noticed some of the edits you've been putting into Mike Chang and Puck (Glee). They're probably the lowest in terms of quality for the character articles, but they already look ten times better. Nice work on that front! HorrorFan121 (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is going to sound like an odd question, but why aren't you editing the "Reception" section directly on the sandbox page? When I'm dealing with regular articles, I'll edit off-line and copy onto Wikipedia, but with Karofsky's storyline, it was all in the sandbox. Kind of convenient that way. On the other hand, it can look quite messy when assembling lots of source review material into a coherent narration. I finished "Prom Queen" on the 30th, and I'm trying to figure out how to start the "New York" music section. I think Mike and Puck are going to have to wait for a bit more attention, though I'd like them to get to "C" level so we can get rid of those "Start" circles on the project page table. Actually, looking at them right now, they're pretty close, if not already there, Mike especially. His "Reception" section could use more work—it would be nice to find something from the first season, and some storyline comments from the second—and I think more is probably out there somewhere. Some Murphy or Falchuk would be nice as well...I wonder if there's something from PaleyFest or Comic-Con that would be useful. As for Puck, a little more up top would be nice, but the Music and Reception sections are pathetic. Once those have a bit more heft, I think a C is in the bag, though it may be close even without more work there. I've asked Frickative her opinion; I'm hoping that she'll be back later today.

BTW, Journalist found the comment just fine. I think the FAC nom is a bit stalled right now, though I confess I'm hoping the action picks up again after Labor Day. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You might find this odd, but I draft my edits on Microsoft Word. Hah! Every time I go to make a massive edit, I somehow end up losing it in the middle and have to restart. It's not really fun to have that happen. Once I'm finished, I either save it to the sandbox and make minor edits from then on or save it on the actual article page. Do you want me to jump in and help you out with Mike after we get more feedback from Kurt's FAC? I feel like I've been very non-active lately... HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Not odd at all. I draft in TextEdit on the Mac for the regular articles, mostly because it doesn't change apostrophes and quotes on me like Word does, which is annoying for Wikipedia, but highly desirable for most of my writing, and why I use Word. And there is the issue of sometimes losing changes, though that's why I always save the edit buffer with Ctrl/C before I preview, show changes, or save, since the Wikipedia servers are sometimes uncooperative. But once the draft or new paragraph is in, I'll tend to edit on screen and do those precautionary steps before saving.

I'm actually not feeling that impelled to do a lot of work on Mike, just enough to get him to C level. I'm concentrating on episodes at the minute, and need to get moving on "New York". (I also need to cut "Prom Queen" in the Critical response section, though I'm hoping Frickative will return and help out there.) If you think there's any area that's keeping Mike from being a C, please feel free to jump in, though let me know, so if I do get inspired, we don't both work on the same aspect. But I rather, frankly, see Karofsky out there before the beginning of the season. (On the other hand, if you need a change of pace, by all means do some work on Mike.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess Brian and only Brian can confirm that the source check is done and all his concerns have been addressed. However, Brad101 said he didn't see any outstanding source problems, so I think that's good news. HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it means we have to wait for another eight days or so until Brian comes back, and I imagine he's going to have a pretty big backlog after being out for half a month. As long as they keep the FAC open until he can get back to it, then we can survive. Thanks for taking charge of this. I could handle the prose edits, but when it started going afield, it was more than I could deal with just now.

I went through all the sections of Kurt Hummel where I hadn't previously checked, looking at the many citations. As a result, I:

• fixed a few title fields,
• added a handful of new episode citations to cover plot points that weren't covered in the already cited reviews,
• made sure that all the episode citations listed the credits as director and then writer rather than in either order,
• removed one citation that didn't cover the specific matter being discussed (atheism); the cite already at the end of that sentence worked just fine,
• changed a few formatted apostrophes and quotes into plain ones
• added spacing in the title fields to prevent double and single quotes running together

So it's in even better shape than before. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I should be the one doing that sort of stuff anyway. Haha! I really hope we have enough time to complete it. Maybe we could ask for an extension if we run out of time? HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that there's a hard and fast deadline, but they may end it if there doesn't seem to be much activity. If they close it, we just resubmit. I am going to take Dank's advice, on reflection, and post about this on FAC page. At least they'll see that we're still working on it, and with luck, they won't pull the plug, but the article is even more ready than it was a few weeks ago. You might want to drop a note on Brian's talk page now, asking him to check our FAC when he gets back, so we're in his "queue" of things to do when he returns. You should probably mention that Dank has offered to check the prose, but not until the sourcing has passed, so anything he can do to move that process forward will be a great help. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so what do you think we should do? I'm kind of going through a debate in my head here. Do you think it would be worth taking it back to FAC for another go around? I feel like if we do, we should already have everything covered with the prose from Journalist. Let me know what you think. Also, fantastic work on Burt Hummel! You and Frickative completely revamped the whole article in less than a week. HorrorFan121 (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

First, some general thoughts on the FAC in general and all of us as authors. We're writing good articles—you, Frickative, and me—but our prose styles don't seem to fit what Wikipedia is looking for in Featured Articles. We tend to a less formal style than the encyclopedia wants: we're more colloquial, though not excessively so, and feel comfortable with it. I, for one, don't find the FA style a natural fit, and when I'm copyediting, what they're looking for doesn't leap out at me, so it's hard to "fix" problems that the FAC reviewers see. I can find some, but by the evidence, not nearly enough.

I think it would be very nice to have one FA as a show piece for the project, and Kurt's the ideal one to go for at this point, since so much of it has already been brought up to FA level. This last go-round was a frustrating experience, both for things we couldn't help—like the lack of people showing up, or for the sources check to get sidelined when it did—but we also weren't really ready, given what we now know about things like prose style, standardizing sources, and making sure each reference is a complete source for the material being talked about in the preceding sentence(s). (I have every intention of getting rid of the references to those two articles from Emmy magazine, footnotes 6 and 7; one of them I actually found on line and it didn't seem to be strictly necessary, and the other one, a sidebar that is a completely unknown quantity, is suspect. Anything that isn't covered in the Hulu interview featuring Colfer can be dropped from there, as it's safer. At this point, I'm not willing to risk an FAC over two footnotes added along the way by someone we don't know.)

If we do continue, it makes sense to have someone—Journalist, perhaps—review the prose from an FA point of view before we try for a third time. They don't have to fix it; I think it would be enough to say "X section, paragraph 2, sentence 2 needs work". With that kind of granularity, I could probably identify problems myself, but without it, I think we're going to be frustrated again. There are bound to be some issues even if we get one editor to say he or she is satisfied, but we stand a reasonable chance if we can get that one before going into this again. Once we have that, we can probably get other people to support an FAC. If not Journalist, maybe there's someone from the copyediting Guild who does FAs.

However, we don't have to. An FA takes a lot of work to keep up to level, and this will be especially time-consuming with everyone wanting to chronicle the latest developments from the show on his page. For that matter, there are landmines to starting an FAC during a period of heightened activity. However, this is a character that is the reason Chris Colfer was named to the 2011 Time 100 (we should absolutely mention that if we do resubmit), and if we want an FA for the project, now's the time to try. And this time, I think I should be co-nominator, given that the prose issues will have to be handled by me regardless. ;-)

Y'know, I thought I'd done a decent piece of work on Burt, but what Frickative has done today is nothing short of fantastic. This one should sail right through when she gives me the go-ahead. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see Burt passed! I knew it would. You guys did a ton of work on it. As for the FAC, I completely agree. I don't want to take it back there until we have everything settled with Journalist and/or possibly another experience editor in FAC's. PS: Sorry for the late reply! I haven't been able to check in here for a little while. HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't all need to be here every day. :-) Hope you've been busy in a good way, not off because of connectivity problems or the like. Hope you're soon able to get back to working on one of the character articles on your list! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's not connectivity. Just hectic everyday things that have prevented me from getting on here as much as I used to be able to. I should make a list like Frickative has on her talk page! Haha. I haven't done a major expansion in quite some time but I'm itching to put some work in on here. We're not that far off from reaching Good Topic status for all the character articles. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could always add to the list on the task force page. At the moment, it says you're working on Karofsky by yourself, and Santana with Frickative. Maybe adding another one or two to your list there would help spur productivity? :D I hope your life gets a bit less hectic soon.

It looks like we'll get the season two episodes done well before the listed characters, maybe even by the end of the month, though the characters are coming along nicely, and 10 of 19 are now GA. It would be nice to get an eleventh, so that when Karofsky comes on line, we'll still be above 50%. With six C-level articles, though, there's a fair amount of work to do, especially since five of them need goodly music sections (close to Finn-sized) on top of the usual expanded critical reception (as do two of the B-levels, I believe).

I have a suspicion that, given her soon-starting story arc, we may well have enough material for a Shelby page by December. I also expect to see new entries in the Characters of Glee article for Sugar and Marcus/Shane in fairly short order, though I have no idea whether they'll ever make the leap to their own pages. Coach Beiste is another who, like Shelby, could make the leap. Getting back to Karofsky: are you hoping to put up the article initially so that it's very close to GAN, at a B level? Or were you thinking of C? I think it's Start level even now; with another section plus a couple of starter sentences in the others, I'd guess it'd easily be at C. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Gleek Banner

	Glee Ninja
	To BlueMoonset, in appreciation for the incredible body of work s/he has done editing, improving, contributing to and protecting articles related to all things Glee on Wikipedia! Rcej (Robert) – talk 08:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Glee episodes

BlueMoonset, I apologize for removing your question from my talk page without a response. Once a familiar contributor merged the articles I felt that your concern had been addressed (and honestly, I thought that your redlinked username implied less experience with Wikipedia than you have demonstrated). If the articles were created too soon, I apologize for moving too quickly. I have a habit of "planting seeds" (creating stubs) whenever I see an opening, resting assured experts on the topic will take over and expand the article(s). After I saw the "I Am Unicorn" episode article and did some online research, I saw multiple websites displaying titles for the third and fourth episodes, including imdb.com which I assumed was reliable. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding above. Actually, there's a template that states IMDb is an unreliable source (it's on display in the Vanessa Lengies article), and WP:USERGENERATED specifically mentions Internet Movie Database, aka IMDb, as being not acceptable, unless you can establish that the material is by the site's editorial staff. The site is, alas, open to edits from anyone, so the fan site information quickly replicates there whether accurate or not. We've been trying hard to make sure only reliably sourced information gets up, and that includes not starting articles or redirects until there's an official (usually Fox press release) announcement of the real title. The fan sites are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, which is why we go with Fox. (I suppose I ought to set up a User page soon, if the redlink ends up being an issue. It's been almost six months and five GAs; about time, wouldn't you say?) So if you can hold off any Glee episode article creations until there's at least one reliable source, and you include and cite the relevant information from it, that would be great.

Funnily enough, we've had an issue the other way: JDDJS redirected the first incarnation of "I Am Unicorn", which was posted after the Fox press release and had all sorts of information about guest stars and the like. I was expecting that to be the name on the redirect, actually. I was surprised that "Asian F" was added to WikiProject Television even before we know for sure it's the right title; I'm holding off on adding it to the Glee task force until we have that all-important reliable source. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: IMDB, good to know. I will keep this in mind. Your reply is appreciated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Purple Piano Project

Hello! Your submission of The Purple Piano Project at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rcej (Robert) – talk 03:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Purple Piano Project

Orlady (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you DYK Asian F...

Do mention Ralph Malph in the hook...lol. If you can nominate it and get it listed before the episode airs, something like: ... that "Ralph Malph" of Happy Days will appear as the father of Emma on an upcoming episode of Glee? Rcej (Robert) – talk 05:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Y'know, I hadn't even thought of it. It's a good hook, too. I realize that many of our DYKs have been of episodes that haven't aired, but that leaves a pretty small (and incomplete) article for people to read when they get there. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? I was under the impression that it wasn't so great. Also, I think we're in trouble insofar as the five-day rule: while we expanded from a redirect to what you see now, that was eight days ago, so we're kind of caught. If we did that DYK, it would have to wait for the inevitable post-broadcast expansion to give it the fivefold boost needed. We'd stand a better chance with the fourth episode (which doesn't air until November 1): Damian McGinty got shoved into a locker 25 times on his first day of filming. :-)

I was interested to note that the DYK didn't do much for our page views on "The Purple Piano Project"—they seem to have continued moving down in the normal post-episode slump, even if it was still 6.3K (down from 7.9K on the 25th). BlueMoonset (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

lol...I seriously don't know what I was thinking, we're 5 days away now. Its tricky to get tv episode articles to DYK. If you have enough src info to create them at 1500 prose (~3 k) from the start before the episode airs, that would solve the 5x headaches. The highly anticipated and hyped episodes would be the ones best served by pre-air DYKs. Regardless, if you ever have trouble finding a hook, give me a yell! :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 04:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of hookage. (Is that the proper term? :-) ) I actually have a hook ready to go for the fourth episode (Damian got shoved into a locker 25 times), but it won't be broadcast until November 1, so we probably won't have a reliable source for the title until October 16 or 17. Unfortunately, the article for the fourth episode was created as the tiniest of stubs (by someone who didn't realize that IMDb was not a reliable source for Glee episode titles), and didn't get turned into a redirect for a day or two. Still, what's five times a redirect? Do you just go for the 1500 prose, or what? (It was posted with 731 bytes, and had an edit up to 735 before being redirectized. So even if you count all 735, which you wouldn't because it was almost entirely infobox, we'd only need 3675 characters.) At any rate, I have enough material ready to get it up to the 3k-4k range. All I need is that reliable source for the episode name... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

When a new article just created is at or above 1500 prose, it is elligible for DYK without needing to be 5x expanded. So a new Glee article could be nominated immediately if it began at that size :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Ausiello just gave us an official "leak" of the "Pot O' Gold" episode title in TV Line, so after a one-line stub was put up, I followed with a real Start of an article. I think I have enough at 6600 bytes for the McGinty hook. As for "Asian F", TV Line also just posted an article about Emma (and Jayma Mays) which actually uses "Ralph Malph" in it, so there's good sourcing for the hook you suggested. The big thing will be making the five-times barrier in the next five days. Frickative and I still need to divide the chores, and I'm woefully behind on "I Am Unicorn", since I still haven't written the critical response sections on the episode and on the music. Plenty of data, but no construction yet. I wanted them done before the US chart data becomes available on Thursday, too, but that's looking less likely. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks BlueMoonset for helping to promote Rumours (Glee) to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 03:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify invitation

Thanks for the invite, and for the barnstar!, but my plate is overflowing with Glee task force articles, including several that I'm trying to get to GA status like I just did with "Rumours"; I'm already a couple of weeks behind on where I'd hoped to be by now, and coming up on a busy period in real life. Good luck in your wikification drive! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've become a Leprechaun!

We actually needed many redirects! lol...we had the apostrophe on the wrong side, so as a safeguard... Rcej (Robert) – talk 08:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Your lucky day. Did you notice my query about DYK Prep area 4? It still has the old name. And, speaking of magical creatures, did you notice that I responded to your "I Am Unicorn" GAN request with a fix? :-)

It's been one of those nights. First that, then working on "Asian F" Reception section was interrupted by the big gold pot, and then someone posted a very long addition to the Rachel Berry storyline (episode by episode summary for season 3 that was longer already than either of the previous seasons) that I did a quick cutdown to, but it's still too long and missing a few salient points. Still, it's far better than it was, which was inappropriate for a GA, which Rachel is... BlueMoonset (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahh yes...the exciting world of chaos..lol Rcej (Robert) – talk 08:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's deja vu all over again, aka chaos weekend. ;-) Thanks for all the help! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pot of Gold (Glee)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Glee: The Music Presents the Warblers

Hi Bluemoonset.

I'm writing to respectfully disagree with your edit to re-include the description under the Chris Colfer picture "Several critics felt Chris Colfer's presence on tracks like "Blackbird" and "Candles" was lacking in strength.".

First of all, from what I've seen on Wikipedia, most captions accompanying a picture usually have general info (i.e. name/location/year/part played by actor etc..), and not personal opinions. Second of all, the caption is incorrect. It is the opinion of one critic in the paragraph, not "several" - the caption is misleading and makes it seem like it was the general consensus among critics, when, in fact, there is nothing in the paragraph to support that statement.

You reasoned that the caption "reflects what's in the reviews, and is the reason for the photo's inclusion. If the caption goes, the photo should as well". If that is the case, then the caption should state that Colfer received mixed reviews, not simply negative ones.

Lastly, I am perplexed as to why Colfer's picture is included in the "reception" section in the first place. Darren Criss and the Beezelbubs were the main contributors to the album, not Colfer. Why is Colfer being singled out for an album that he minimally contributed to?

Wouldn't it be best to simply delete the picture, or simply move the picture to a different section and put a general caption stating that Colfer contributed to the album? Let me know what you think. With kind regards, --Mimi C. (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Mimi C., I don't think that Colfer's picture has to be there, either in the section or in the article. A photo should never just be there, it needs to illustrate the adjacent material, and the caption should explain why. That same photo of Colfer has appeared with a number of different captions over a slew of articles, depending on the context of the paragraph it appears with. As the photo here is in the reception section, it should have a caption related to the album's reception, and the only two comments specifically about Colfer, from two different reviewers in that section, are not positive: "lacking in confidence" and "did not work well with the song's high notes". They aren't personal opinions, but professional ones, in this context. And, technically, "several" can be as few as two, though I think it's not the best usage, and there may have been other criticisms that weren't cited, but the reviewer had seen and selected among. I can't say I was particularly fond of the caption, but with all due respect, it simply wasn't appropriate to remove it entirely and just leave Chris's name, under the circumstances. This is why I reverted the edit.

Mind you, I don't agree with those reviewer comments, but those are the sources and selections that are used in the article, and not having worked on that section, I can't say whether it is a good representation of the universe of reviews. Unless there's a specific positive comment about Colfer in the section—and there may be positive ones out there that could be included for balance, and thus illustrate the "mixed" you were suggesting for the caption—the reception section as written reflects a negative opinion of Colfer's singing. It seems odd to me that there's only one specific mention of Criss by name yet two of Colfer, given that Criss is featured on twelve of thirteen tracks, and Colfer only three. Frankly, the section could use further work, as could the article as a whole.

My suspicion is that because it didn't make sense to have two pictures of Criss, and an image of him naturally needed to be featured early in the article, someone chose to include Colfer's picture later on since he was the other lead singer on the album... but having put it in that section, since it was only one of two where it could go, the caption choices were limited, and not favorable.

One thing you might do after removing the Colfer picture, assuming that's what you decide to do, is to put a picture of the Warblers in the Promotion section. Just about the only decent free-use image I know of is "File:Dalton_Academy_Warblers.png". It's from this summer's tour, and only shows four Warblers, two of whom are actually dancers from the tour dressed in Dalton blazers, plus Riker Lynch (who plays Jeff) and Darren. Unfortunately, it doesn't show the other TV Warblers from the tour: Titus Makin, Curt Mega, and Jon Hall, who were in the sections that have been cropped. But since the paragraph talks about the tour, it makes sense to include that photo there, and I think it'll fit without overflowing the section. If you do use the photo, a caption like "The Warblers during Glee Live! In Concert!" should do the trick (mirroring the Blaine Anderson page infobox caption). (It was taken in England, and they were performing "Teenage Dream" at the time. The original of the photo has that information in its name—File:Dalton Academy Warblers Teenage Dream.jpg—but we cropped it so it would fit within an article.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarifications! I agree that the section could use further work. Regards , --Mimi C. (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Gleek Barnstar!

		The Gleek Barnstar
		Keep up the great work with Glee-related articles. Your hard work has not gone unnoticed! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dave Karofsky

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

HELP Please

I'm sorry I don't know how to do all the fancy stuff yet. But can you please help me out? The Wikipedia Curt Mega page has been requested to be deleted. I would think he is notable enough to pass the A7 edit. What do I need to provide to make sure this doesn't happen?? Thank you Mozartchic01 (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Mozartchic01

Sorry to have been so long in responding. Here's my best shot at an explanation, though I've only been editing on Wikipedia for just under seven months myself.

It looks like the article on Curt is being challenged on Notability grounds. Wikipedia has basic guidelines on what is appropriate for inclusion in its pages—whether a person, place, thing, historical event, artistic creation, or something else is important enough to be featured. These guidelines can be found on the Wikipedia:Notability page, and for people, there's a special Wikipedia:Notability (people) page with more specific information, including a section on entertainers with additional criteria beyond the general criteria for people.

You'll note a heavy emphasis on reliable secondary sources for Wikipedia articles. This is the way Wikipedia operates: the information needs to have been deemed important enough to appear in (generally) professionally published sources. Fan sources such as fan wikis or fan entertainment sites are almost certainly not eligible for referencing or as a basis for inclusion. Sometimes a bit of information can be culled from an interview on one of those sites (I don't know if a blog would be eligible) if they are quoting a person, but not other information.

Notability isn't an area in which I have much experience or a good sense of where the line is drawn. I've been writing episode articles for Glee, and those always have not only many reviews after they appear, but information on them before they are broadcast, which is printed on the major professional entertainment websites such as Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, E! Online, and so on. For Glee character articles, only characters who have a significant body of sources get their own articles. I haven't been much involved in the actor articles.

For Curt, Dominic, Jon, and the rest, they will all need to meet Wikipedia's idea of notability, regardless of their merits or experience. It's an arbitrary measure, but there are reasons behind it. My reading of the notability page leads me to believe that material that might help show notability could include reviews in major metropolitan newspapers for professional acting or singing appearances that mention the person by name. As you saw, the number of Twitter followers isn't considered in and of itself an indication of notability (and the same with MySpace, Facebook, etc.). If there were an article on Glee fandom and on the Warblers in particular, but not just Darren, that might help establish notability, though I'm unsure whether it's sufficient for the "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" criterion: specifically, whether it's large or significant enough. (From what I've seen, it certainly is quite impassioned.) The one article for a Warbler actor that would unquestionably qualify as notable would be a Telly Leung article, given that he's on Broadway now, starring in Godspell. I don't know enough about non-Glee work by the other actors to venture a guess.

I see that a new comment on the discussion page for the deletion proposal references the WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING pages, which discuss the issue in further depth, though the acronyms on the former are excessive, in my opinion. Despite that, it lets you know what the general Wikipedia thinking is. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

American Horror Story

Curious, but have you seen it? Its Ryan Murphy/Brad Falchuck's new horror-drama on FX. Its brilliant, although the language, gore and sexuality are pretty shocking for regular tv; don't care for that kind of stuff, but I still love it, it is such a great series. Emmy-worthy cast, including Jessica Lange! Rcej (Robert) – talk 02:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to confess I haven't. I'm not much for horror to begin with, and when you add in gore and all the rest and it becomes something I plan to stay far away from. I don't doubt that Murphy and Falchuk are doing a bang-up job on it, but disturbing and very competent horror has no attraction for me at all. They'll have to be satisfied with having captured me with Glee. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I absolutely love that show! It's right up my alley for a television show. The show would definitely not be for some (probably you, BM, if you don't like the gore/horror stuff) but I definitely think it's the best new show this year. Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuck also cast it perfectly. For me, Jessica Lange and Frances Conroy are the best parts of the show. I can't say enough good things about it! Anyways, I just got my necessary computer parts (my charger and battery went to my laptop), so I'm ready to work! HorrorFan121 (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Horror! lol...who'dve guessed you'd like a horror show? Seriously, though, it has surpassed Glee as my fav show! Jessica Lange steals every scene...she's incredible in her role ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Great to have you back, HF! I can't imagine being without a computer for any significant length of time. Frickative recently dodged a bullet after having water spilled on her laptop—after three days drying out, it worked fine again. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with. I've just decided to slow down and work mostly on the new episodes as they come along, both pre- and post-broadcast. (I kind of went GA-happy in October.) Plenty of information out there: it seems to me that Glee is deliberately letting more intel slip to the entertainment reporters this year. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

"On"

This might be a tough one for you to pull through (seeing your Glee edits). I originally created Dream With Me (note the "W") as the source I had showed a capital W. However, someone changed it to Dream with Me (notice the "w") and after arguing against this on the talk page I was voted down. The guideline quoted: Wikipedia naming conventions. Evidently it doesn't matter what other sites do, we must do what Wikipedia dictates we do for a certain convention. To date I still haven't been able to reclaim "Dream With Me" as the album's article location.

See its talk page for the ensuing discussion in the described instance. CycloneGU (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't agree with it, but it seems that Wikipedia is serious about their "house style"; the one that seems to guide in general is MOS:CT in particular (and would thus affect the "on" I've been trying to keep capitalized), though in your case you were also hit by MOS:CAPS since it was the title of an article as well as being the name of a song.

I appreciate you letting me know, and giving me the pointer. Thank you. Yet another rule that I'll be learning to live with... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For racking up an extraordinary 7 GAs and 2 DYKs within a month—not just a huge boon for WP:GLEE, but a highly commendable achievement in and of itself. Absolutely superb work! Frickative 16:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Really

Really, you are wrong--not just with a dismissive edit summary, but also in your interpretation of the meaning of the word 'central'. I'm not going to go to war over this--but I guess you need someone to point out to you that a list in the lead of 15 or 16 characters and the actors that play them, is extremely ugly, very unreadable, and far from "central". Happy days, Drmies (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but when you come into an article and simply delete a list—ugly or not—without determining an alternative or simply posting a suggestion to the talk page pointing out the problem, a dismissive edit summary to answer a dismissive edit summary was admittedly far from ideal, but it was what I could summon at the moment. I could have changed "central characters" to "main cast" (that is, everyone who is listed as "starring" in the show's credits), but I thought it deserved more thought and input from others in the task force and that it was important to maintain the names there for the time being. Have a nice evening. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, as part of the FL process for Glee (season 1), we were asked to expand the lead to cover the characters. While I complied, I also enquired as to whether this caused a WP:LINK issue, but did not receive a response and the article subsequently passed. The later seasons have been following a similar layout since. If you have a suggestion as to how to incorporate the cast/characters so as to adhere to WP:LEDE without it being "extremely ugly, very unreadable" or introducing OR in picking and choosing which of the fifteen-strong main cast we believe to be the most "central" I would be glad to hear it. Frickative 11:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, one could remove the actor's names--that would seriously cut down on the clutter. Is there a requirement that the actors be mentioned? They have their own sections and lists and probably articles. Or, one could find that reliable source that lists a couple of the central characters and limit the lead to those, with a reference, which is always better than without, since selection criteria are always involved. I have watched a couple of episodes of the show, and IMO the plain fact is that not all of them are equally central, not even over the course of a season. It doesn't have to be all or nothing; or, they can't all be zingers. BlueMoonset, sure, I didn't go to the talk page (one can't do that for every edit) but I gave what seemed to me an explanatory edit summary. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Riker Lynch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Orange County Fair

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Glee

Hey, so you sort of rebuffed me for the edits I made to the Glee article this morning. I was not aware of the WP:LEADCITE provision, but, in reading it, I am still confused as to how I was incorrect in suggesting that information in the lead needed to be cited, as the rule even states that "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." Perhaps you can clear that up for me? I also believed that some of the information in the Conception section of the article was irrelevant, as, in one place, it is stated that the shows through the second season have already been written, and in another, it states that the episodes have been mapped out through the third season. I feel that both of these are obvious, since the show is now nearly halfway through the third season. I don't think it is necessary in the article for understanding the show or the process of writing it, but if it really needs to be kept, I am wondering if changing it to the past tense would be appropriate, or if that would be considered poor editing, as well. Hopefully you can help me to understand some of these things. Thanks a lot.

(PS: I didn't blank my talk page because of your message; I just looked at it and realized it was a total mess, so I cleared it off. Lest you think I'm being an internet baby, lol.) ShandraShazam (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

ShandraShazam, the reversion of your edits wasn't personal. I leave edits alone or improve on them or revert them, depending on what they do, not who did them. And I've had my edits undone in the past. It happens to most everyone at some time or another.

In this case, you added two templates to one of the most frequently accessed pages on Wikipedia, yet you didn't know the relevant rules. The reason I believe you were incorrect is that you are not giving due weight to perhaps the key sentence in WP:LEADCITE: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." The article has been around for a long time, with dozens (hundreds?) of editors and literally millions of readers. I don't know of anyone who thinks a particular point in the current intro should have had a citation—that it has "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" and thus "should be supported by an inline citation". Was there a particular sentence that you felt required a citation, or was it just the complete absence that got your attention without regard to the actual content?

It is really up to you to challenge material that you believe needs such support, which at this point calls for you giving the specific instances on the talk page. Or—and this is what a helpful editor would do—to identify the instances and then add in the citations yourself, since they're already available in the body of the article. There is a chance, if you do the latter, that other editors would disagree with your assessment as to the need for the duplicated cites, and then discussion on the talk page would ensue, and a consensus develop.

I've already addressed the Conception section on the article talk page, in response to your post there. Thanks for posting there and here! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

All right, I understand better now. Thanks for clearing that up! I don't necessarily feel that the information would be "challenged," per se, but I thought that perhaps linking to an article where these things were stated would perhaps be more pertinent and helpful to understanding the show. I now see that that was just me, and, as I full well know, having been around here for a good five years now, my opinion really has no place in the wiki. In the future, I'll stick to what I do best: just fixing grammatical errors. :) ShandraShazam (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Don't know if you're from the U.S., but enjoy nonetheless ;) Oh how I miss our easy Glee reviews... compared to the tedious FA review I'm undergoing as a nominee. I like reviewing much better...lol Rcej (Robert) – talk 09:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I am from the U.S., so I'll doubtless eat too much turkey today, too. :-) Hope you also have an enjoyable day.

My one experience with an FAC—the one for Kurt Hummel that died a slow death (I ended up the primary point person from the task force)—was not a pleasant experience, and left me disinclined to get involved again. Among other things, my prose style is a bit too informal for the job. Best of luck in closing the deal: I see you have two Supports already.

I'd like to send another GAN your way before the end of the month—it's been a very long time since we had a month without a Glee GA—so I'm going to try to finish something by the end of the holiday weekend. I expect December will see more coming your way. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

More Glee DYK schmeel

Just poking around, and noticed that a couple pre-air articles you've expanded from redirects–and very nice job, I must say–were just a few characters away from being eligible for DYK as 5x expansions at the 1500 mark! I.E. I Kissed a Girl (Glee) was only 173 characters shy on Nov. 9. If you write really wordy to stretch things out, which is okay when its close, we could probably get more articles in there. And if hooks aren't really there, holler! I'm insane enough to find one out of left field. ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 09:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I should have thought to consult you; your Karofsky idea was quite effective. Well, it's too late for "Hold on to Sixteen", but "Extraordinary Merry Christmas" is eligible now and for the next couple of days, and long enough already, though I can't think of a decent hook. There is an AfD, which I put in place because the created redirect was based on unreliable sources (according to Wikipedia) for the title, accurate though they may have turned out to be, but the AfD is now obsolete (otherwise I wouldn't have replaced the redirect), and I'd withdraw it now if I could, so an early closure saying to "keep", if such is possible, is certainly in order, and its inevitable resolution should not interfere with a DYK nomination. A possibility for the hook could revolve around the fact that the episode title is the same as the name of the original song in the episode (and on the new album), though it sounds dull to me... I suppose "I Kissed a Girl" could be eligible again if the article is written up in five days, like was done with "The Purple Piano Project", but it's a lot of work to get it done that quickly. Still, it's an episode that should have decent hooks, given the storyline... though, come to think of it, the best hooks usually aren't story driven, are they? BlueMoonset (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope... trivia- or logistic-driven. Don't worry about the articles you've already done up unless you see a golden opportunity; just keep DYK in mind for future stuff, if you want...could be cool ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 09:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So, any ideas for "Extraordinary Merry Christmas"? Or is the episode name from original song name likely to be the best possibility? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Drive-by suggestion - how about it being Matt Morrison's directorial debut? The free images of him aren't as good as some of the other cast members, but you could try for a top-spot hook with one. Frickative 14:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for driving by! That sounds like it has potential. :-) As for the top spot, while we do have a cropped shot of Morrison, and could make another from a different photo, the problem with putting it in the article—and as I recall, the image must be included there—is that there really isn't room for it, since the infobox extends almost the entire length of the article proper, and the text isn't supposed to be squeezed between infobox and image (or two images). I was about to put some images into "The First Time"—if you see any howlers in the just-cut Plot section or anywhere but the unfinished Critical reception or lede let me know, since as soon as the latter two are done I'm going to submit it for a GAN—but there isn't room up top yet, and I was hoping for putting one couple in plot and the other in Critical reception, with maybe a third for Santana under Music. The problem: no room in Critical reception, and the intro isn't long enough for a Plot dual image to clear the infobox. So I'm waiting until I've written more. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the Mattmeister directing, but the episode title coming from an original song written for the episode is very rare! There's your Extraordinary Merry Christmas hook! ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like a plan. Thanks! I'll see what I can come up with in the morning. Also working on finishing up "The First Time" for a GAN. After that, only one more DYK before I have to start reviewing to do more of 'em... BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This feels a little long and diffuse, but how about:

• "...that the upcoming "Extraordinary Merry Christmas" episode of Glee shares its name with an original song performed in the episode by Lea Michele and Darren Criss?"

I get 164 characters including the initial periods and closing question mark. While I feel sure that the song title came first, I don't have a source that confirms it, so I'm using "shares its name". Suggestions? I'd like to get it up tonight; tomorrow's going to be busy and I'm up against the deadline. (It can be further modified, of course, but I'd like this to be reasonably close.) I'll be sure to remove the expansion template before I submit, and with any luck, the AfD will be closed overnight. (Do you think "an original song" is self-explanatory, or is "a song created for the show" more clear?) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the actors' names distract from the premise. How about:

• "... that the Glee episode "Extraordinary Merry Christmas" shares its title with the original song written for and performed on the episode? -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 05:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; you have a better sense of this than I do. I thought the actors might help, but if they hinder I'm happy to leave them off. I think we can justify "written for", since the song was written for both episode and album even if the album was released first. The only change is "an original song" for "the original song", since according to one of the references both original songs from the album are in the episode. That takes the character count down to 138. :-)

Okay, now to submit it... BlueMoonset (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

ETA: Submitted. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a good First DYK Reviewee

Unless it gets grabbed! ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 09:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it got grabbed. I still have one more freebie, but thanks for the pointer. I think I'll probably hold off until I submit that fifth DYK nom... but once that happens, I wouldn't mind getting pointers. This one was a bit outside my area of knowledge... BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Santana's significant others

Do we have enough consensus now to decide the matter as Brittany and Puck being her significant others? It seems like the only people who don't want Puck there are IPs where chiming into that discussion are the only edits they've made on Wikipedia. And while I was looking at other Glee project editors' talk pages to see more views on the issue, it seems like the IPs chiming in are all from one site full of Brittana fans. I like the couple too, but I think it's counterproductive to cleanse the Santana page of her dating history before coming out, and if that's someone's only interest on this site I'm not sure why they should be counted as part of the consensus. I'm kind of new to this, though/don't edit Wikipedia much, so I am not sure how this all works. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I found out that the IPs (after the first happened by) were actually recruited from a fan site of Rivera/Morris (Brittana) supporters, which is a violation of Wikipedia canvassing rules and a whole bunch more. So as far as I'm concerned, they've completely corrupted their case by doing so. I have a link to the original request the first poster made; the funny thing is that there was a fair amount of disagreement with her position in replies there that Puck should be eliminated as a SO, though that point of view never came here, unlike those on the other side.

I'm not all that much older on the site (only seven and a half months so far), so I've never really drawn a controversial discussion to a close. I would have liked to have a few more people who were clearly more experienced on Wikipedia beyond the two of us, but it didn't happen. If you'd like, I can post the link to the inappropriate off-site post, and point out the rules violation. The page had died down on its own, so I suppose I was hoping it would just go away. It would appear to the unpracticed eye that the majority is for keeping only Santana, but in reality one person has recruited a group of outsiders trying to influence Wikipedia content to match their views. Not cool. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I just saw this discussion; sorry, I'm drawn up in a bunch of Glee-related and other discussions right now on Wikipedia as well as real-life worries (applying for graduate school). So yeah, please post the link to the offending discussion. That really isn't cool. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's the request for assistance link (post #60819). At this point it's pretty old news, though I did confirm that the link still works. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it happened several weeks ago, but is there any way we can draw attention to it, or find out who the anons are who keep tag-teaming like that and spamming the Santana and Brittany pages? (Personally it bugs me because I'm bi and a Santana/Brittany fan, but I'd never dream of using those preferences to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy.) Beggarsbanquet (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear what others think, but my basic feeling is to let sleeping dogs lie if they aren't making noise. It bugs me that they swarmed, yes, but they've managed to shoot themselves in the foot, so if they'd attempted to change the page after trying to stack the deck, the reversion would have been quick and easy to justify. Otherwise, as I've had to learn the hard way, it's a painful process to try to protect the page or go through other official processes, and no guarantee that the Wikipedia powers will grant the results we want... and it's totally out of your control once you've started it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Extraordinary Merry Christmas

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Shannon Beiste

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hold On to Sixteen

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Er...

"There has subsequently been a 19th review from Dec. 2020"

Doesn't this qualify as WP:CRYSTAL? =D (From your edit summary at Glee (season 1).) CycloneGU (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Bad enough that I typo 2010, but I even use copy-and-paste so it appears twice. Still, the point was valid: somehow, a December 2010 review was added, after the fact, to the original Metacritic collection of 18 reviews from the first season. Worse, there isn't even a link to the damn thing. I'm not a fan of using Metacritic to begin with, because they're not comprehensive season reviews: most of them are from early episodes, and don't get a season-long perspective. This was certainly true for season two, where I make that point in the article itself; for season one, I haven't read them all, but I'll lay odds that the bulk cover only some or all of the first thirteen. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the review; I simply have Glee (season 1) watchlisted (can you blame me since I helped Frickative get it FL status?) and the edit summary appeared there. I found it funny. =) CycloneGU (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album Volume 2, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Chris Butler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Glee page editor

Do you think it was a good idea for me to place warnings for disruptive editing on this editor's talk page? S/he seems to have a pattern of adding incorrect or unsourced information, or blatantly violating instructions, in his/her edits to the Glee page, and ignoring feedback on the reverts. Even though it's an IP, the fact that all these edits are to the same small group of Glee character pages causes me to think it's the same person. I'm willing to use good faith on the "Dominican-American" edit, but removing the significant-others warning especially as someone who has run afoul of it before should receive a talk-page warning. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that previous advice and warnings on the talk page have brought about any change in behavior, and you'll notice I gave that user's edit today pretty short shrift, so being more clear that there are potential penalties wouldn't have been a bad idea. I can't imagine it's not the same person, since it's basically the same type of edit every time. I frankly wasn't willing to accept "Dominican-American" absent a citation under the circumstances. I'm guessing that if you were truly dubious about the advisability of making the warning, you'd have held off until you'd asked here and gotten a response. ;-) With any luck, the person will get tired of having inappropriate edits disappear in short order, and find something else to do. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't saying that we should accept the "Dominican-American" edit on the page, but rather than it seems like smaller beans than removing the warning. But this person also edited the Mike Chang and Brittany Pierce pages to say they were a couple, so s/he doesn't seem to have much regard for the facts. Anyway, the reason I started this was more along the lines of: Do you think we should take any bigger steps toward blocking that editor? At this point s/he is at the level 3 warning for "disruptive editing," there's just one more before a block would be in order (though I started at level-2 because I had already added an "incorrect information" warning for the Mike/Brittany stuff). I understand we can't do much about the Brittana vandals since they're tag-teaming and changing their IPs, but when we have one IP that is consistently making disruptive edits I don't see why we shouldn't try to stop him or her. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, it looks like their edits are getting reverted on non-Glee pages, too. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If the person was more active, I'd worry more. As it is, I think at this point we wait to see if more edits are made, and deal with them then. I'm perfectly happy for you to go to the next warning level at that point. I haven't checked the Blair Waldorf edit, which could be an innocent error; while I did effectively reverse the other one to the West Side Story film page while I was undoing a few edits that had ruined the page's formatting (not a page with anyone monitoring it, clearly), I don't know that the added information there was wrong—I just was unable to verify it online, much less find a reliable source. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't bring up the possibility of banning unless s/he reaches the next warning level; I just meant in terms of starting to think about whether or not that was necessary if the pattern continues. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)