User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 4

Article history at Talk:Cactus
It seems that neither the GA reviewer nor I understood that as there was an article history template, the result of the latest GA review should have been added to that and not as a separate template. I think it's now right; you might like to check. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Large-scale constructs
You are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Plot length
I've noticed on several of the Glee episode articles where I wrote most of the plot summary, you have added the tag. While I don't necessarily take issue with the tags, I gather from your edit summaries that you believe there is some target length that a plot summary should be. What is that length, and what policy is that length based on? &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The guideline I was told by other members of the Glee task force when I started writing articles was ten words per minute of screen time, but I can't just now find where that came from. Episodes this season have been 44 minutes (excluding commercials), which comes to 440 words. I see that WP:TVPLOT gives a range of 200 to 500 words. We tend to hover at the high end of that. So I usually add the template to most new plots—I did it to my own for "Nationals"—until it's down to a more reasonable length.


 * I also find that when the plot template is added, people are less likely to add ultimately unimportant details or a little extra character bit that isn't integral to the plot, which means less cutting later. These additions can be especially frequent the first several days after the episode airs. Also, first drafts—mine definitely included—tend to include some of those moments that resonated, but that, on later reflection, can be omitted from the summary. Sometimes, these moments are what reviewers comment on, so the information is presented under Reception. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I think I now understand where you're coming from. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

St Athan
Replied at Template:Did you know nominations/St Athan♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied at Template:Did you know nominations/Church of Saint Oswald, King and Martyr, Oswaldkirk-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 16:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Problematic GA Reviews
Hi, I read through the chat on the Oakley77 case and wondered if you could possibly comment on another case which has certain similarities. It concerns the rather erratic approach taken by in his reviews. I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and I'd be very glad to hear your thoughts on his approach. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Your help is needed here!
What can be done to undo the withdraw? Talk:Outer space/GA1 press  paste Closing GA nom and start reading from there. thanks! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  08:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure anything can be done, or should be done. I don't know of any rule that says a nominator can't withdraw a nomination, though it would be bad form to do so during a period of activity. You started the review on May 10, and then seem to have disappeared. Almost two weeks later, there was a request if anything else was needed. The standard Wikipedia wait time for a response is one week, and you didn't respond in that time period. I think the nominator was quite patient. The fact that you didn't see that May 23 entry is almost irrelevant; what is germane is that by the time the nomination was withdrawn, it had been 20 days since you started the review, and there were no signs that you'd been back to do any further work. My advice is to let this one go.


 * You seem to have been biting off more than you can chew regarding GA reviews. You are quite active—over 250 edits in the last half of May—yet very little of that activity has gone to active GAs. Talk:Bad Girls Club/GA1 has been an ongoing review for 68 days, the longest by far of any review, and been entirely waiting on you to finish for over three weeks; Talk:Islam/GA1 is at 58 days and counting. That's just too long. If the article is undergoing major edits (as seems to have been the case early on with Islam), then it isn't stable and needs to be resubmitted once it is. By contrast, Outer space was only at 20 days, but nothing at all was happening. Nominators have a reasonable expectation of a prompt review, or at least significant signs of progress (or notification of delay) within a week; similarly, they are expected to address issues raised by the reviewer (or make good progress at it) within a week, which is what the Hold is designed for. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Tb
I appreciated the opportunity to revisit and make the hook even better. Can ALT 3 be the one promoted now?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I imagine it can; I've just put in a formal approval. I removed the tick that you added, though, since as you're the nominator you shouldn't insert an approval mark even if the reviewer forgets. Ping him (or someone else like me), sure... but nothing more.


 * Given the small number of approved hooks compared to the number of spaces waiting to be filled, I imagine this will be hitting the front page on June 4 (UTC). BlueMoonset (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Best regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing review status
Thank you for returning "Beauty and the Beast" to GA. I hope it did not effect the GA numbering. Could you tell me what you did and how this is properly done so the next time my work load bogs me down and away from other obligations I make on Wikipedia I can do the work of returning the articles properly and not so hacked up like the last time I attempted it.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Wizardman originally told me how. It actually does affect the GA numbering, and I gather that it's supposed to, so the original incomplete review survives in the record. All you need to do is go to the article's talk page, remove "onreview" from the status parameter, and increment the "page" parameter by one. So, if you had been working on a GA1, you'd change "|page=1|status=onreview|note=" to "|page=2|status=|note=". I also comment out the GA1 transclusion on the talk page, so it doesn't appear that there's a still-active review. The GA bot automatically takes care of updating the listing on the WP:GAN page, usually within ten minutes. Beyond that, you'd want to add a note to the review page saying that it could not be completed at the present time, so it was being returned to the pool for a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Prep ready
Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops
Sorry about this. Not even sure how it happened, I must have misclicked on my laptop. AIR corn (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I figured, like Imzadi said, that it must have been something like that. Any chance of the original proposal getting closed soon? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN
I don't know why Template:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners must be active, despite lengthy hook that is over 250 characters. I'm not sure why my split noms must be blanked and salted. --George Ho (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The rule of thumb for multi-article hooks is that only one of the articles counts toward the 200 maximum. See WP:DYKSG, rule C3, for the details. Removing three of the four titles (but not spaces or commas) takes it down from 251 to 155, well within bounds. (I arbitrarily count the first hook and remove the rest; it would be 162 if you count the longest hook regardless of position.) I'm guessing you didn't know this rule. Since no rule was broken, it's certainly reasonable under the circumstances, though I imagine disappointing, for your actions to be reversed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have received messages that my nom procedures were "incomplete". In fact, you hid them, and the bot mistakens it. I have unveiled these separate nominations, so the bot misunderstandings may not happen again. Also, I have contacted two DYK administrators: Casliber and Daniel Case. I would hope that you leave the separate noms alone for the sake of my not receiving these bot messages again. --George Ho (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I commented the four out while the discussion was under way so there was no risk of parallel reviews occurring; it was confusing to have two versions of each article. You might want to arrange for your extra templates to be deleted since the review is going to occur on the original template. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The two DYK administrators, Daniel Case and Casliber, I have contacted. Casliber has no preference on either, and Daniel thinks the awards are very dull and prefers separate hook for each article. Moreover, the multi-hook discussion is getting too big, so I don't think deleting separate nom is a good idea at this time, especially when you are not a DYK administrator yet, even with a good record of DYK. --George Ho (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * George, I think the initial problem with having duplicates has been solved by Tony's comments on your four, so we don't have the article hooks being actively discussed in two different places. I've seen longer discussions; I think we can handle it. Rather than writing a couple of administrators piecemeal, it might be better to start a new section on WT:DYK and get some discussion going there, so the DYK community as a whole is aware of the matter and can weigh in. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And, having just looked at the nomination discussion, I see that Mifter has since weighed in and pointed out that as Tony created the four articles and submitted the nomination as a multihook, Tony's wishes deserves a certain amount of deference. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He said that he prefers to respect nom's wishes, yet he doesn't mind, as he said. --George Ho (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What about the post at WP:AN? How are duplicates been solved by Tony's comments? He said that he doesn't want to watch my noms. Look, I just let my four commented in, and I hope you do not hide them again. Daniel and Casliber don't mind, yet Mifter gave me that advice that I don't want to do. You saw the way Tony posted on my talk page (if it's not a "threat", how do you call it?), and you're advising me to respect his wishes? When was the last time the multi-hook article split up in the same discussion? It ain't a deletion discussion, so 2-1 "do not mind" leads. --George Ho (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I created four separate noms, so someone can focus on awards in one discussion, while another deals with another. I thought it's awkward to discuss multi-article hook and separate-article hook of the same article in one discussion. How awkward is having five separate nominations? --George Ho (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * George, the fact remains that you pre-emptively set Tony's nomination to be deleted for reasons that, although you believed them, were simply wrong: you said he violated the hook length rules. He did not. And you then went further and renominated the four articles yourself, which compounded the problem. Frankly, as soon as you were informed that you had a bad understanding of the rules, that was the time to reverse your actions and work within the original nomination. I've just urged you to merge them on the talk page: I'd suggest adding your four separate hooks at the bottom of the original nomination, and delete your four individual nomination templates.


 * As for the five separate nominations, it's extremely awkward. Between them, they cover the same four articles. If someone approves one of your four, it means that Tony's nomination has its legs cut out from underneath it because one of the articles will have run on DYK, and no article is allowed to be on the front page twice. It's why I originally hid them: to prevent someone from starting to review them without being aware of the controversy. With Tony's comment now in each, the reviewer at least knows that there are issues involved; there's no need to hide them again. Besides, I'm hoping you'll delete them and make the whole matter moot. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have merged all hooks into one discussion, and I have cut-and-pasted many discussions into its talk page (with the green notice). Nevertheless, I don't know how to withdraw all my nominations, unless I put "No", right? --George Ho (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Glee Chart History
I am impressed with the research and the editing time you have taken to add the Chart History for all the songs from Glee. Great work.

One big niggle - I would not use the words "ALTHOUGH" and "ONLY" in the wording ("Although all "#" songs were released as singles, available for download, only "X" and "Y" charted on the Billboard Hot 100"). By comparison, the thousands of Wiki articles for various albums by various bands/performers do not generally say "Although there were 12 track on the album, only 3 were hits". The value judgment implied by "Although" and "only" are not normally applied in an encyclopedic article.

I know that Glee has had an amazing number of the songs reach the top 100 (current record holder?), but that shouldn't result in the implication that there is some sort of shortcoming when they fail to put EVERY song into the top 100. Again, no other performer is expected to chart with every song on their once-a-year album releases of 12 songs, so let's not pick on Glee if some of the 100+ songs that they release EACH YEAR happen to miss the charts.

I've written a fair bit here NOT as a rant or an attack to protect "my kids on Glee" (I do not feel ownership - actually, I'm a Beatles fan - I just like watching Glee and just like helping to clean up articles in general). In fact, the reason for length of this entry is just to make sure I explain why I believe this is a small, but important, edit to be addressed rather than have you think I'm a defensive Glee nut who thinks the show is real and feels that you have personally insulted "my poor sweet little Rachel who already had her heart broken by Finn, etc., etc."

Perhaps the start of the sentence could just say "All # songs were released" or, if less than 100% of the songs were released, "There were # of the # songs released". The word "only" in the middle of the sentence could be replaced by "with", so that it says "with X and Y charting on the Billboard Hot 100."

I realize that there are 66 episodes worth of Wiki articles to address on this - but I'm hoping you might have some bot or some edit tool to make the adjustment easy to execute. Failing that, I could raise this item on the general 'talk' page for Glee and see if the masses might be willing to parse this work out?

Jmg38 (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a fair point: words like "only" or "though" aren't really appropriate in this situation. I can't remember how it started: if this was my own insertion when the proportion of songs that charted dropped, or if I was following the lead of earlier article writers. Regardless, the affected sentences will be rephrased as soon as I get the chance.


 * Unfortunately, this isn't something susceptible to a bot, so it will have to be done by hand. There aren't a lot of people working on the Glee task force at the moment, but another day or two should see things straightened out. I imagine that I'll need to touch far fewer than 66 episodes by the time I've finished.


 * Incidentally, Glee is by far the record holder in terms of songs placed on the Billboard Top 100 at over 200 so far. They don't stay long: the vast majority only chart for a single week, and it's almost entirely on the basis of sales, since they rarely get radio airplay. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Eleonore Baur DYK issues
Hi there. I'm currently off on work with far less internet access than I thought I would have. I'm hoping to be able to grab the holy grail combination of spare time and access to finish the Eleonore Baur issues soonish but this could prove more difficult than I originally thought. Cheers, --Roisterer (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/John Tiffany
I don't know if you are watching Template:Did you know nominations/John Tiffany.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am. In fact, I just responded there. (Should probably have noted the edit conflict; I had to revise to directly respond to your H4 assertion.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * O.K. If you are following, you should be able to approve now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. No ex post facto switches allowed. Mermaid has seen the front page; that one's used, even if the person did not close the template. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It has not been on the main page and the discussion is not closed. I have asked the person who put it in the queue if he will acknowledge the single article review. I have added a couple other reviews for your consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've accepted the second one offered, and the John Tiffany nomination is approved again with the second article in the hooks as well. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there someone who can move these to the queue?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anyone who you haven't hit on their talk pages. At the moment, it would also be helpful to move a couple of prep areas to the empty queues so we can build a few more sets, so I'm hoping one shows up soon. I've just noted that the ALT hook issues are settled on WT:DYK; with luck, we'll see an admin before two hours are up. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Common toad
My apologies! I had forgot about the GA, but now I have left comments on the GA page. I will have Keilana to help too, I expect. Thanks for reminding! :)-- Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 06:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ellen Rosenblum DYK
Hi there, I am the creator of the Ellen Rosenblum DYK, which I see you promoted to the prep area. I noted in the comments section that it should not be a DYK until June 29, as she will not be sworn in as Attorney General until that date and since that batch of DYKs will run before then, the text as currently written is wrong. If you want to tweak the wording so that it says "will be" instead of "is" and run it now, that's fine; I think pushing it to June 29 is preferable as anything could happen between now and then. Thanks! --Esprqii (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that entirely. I'll pull it back and put it in a June 29 special holding area. Thanks for pointing it out! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks for getting that set up. --Esprqii (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I just wish I'd seen it initially. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Lachmund
Thank for promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Lachmund! I had rather personal reasons for suggesting the alternative. The mentioned president is a FA, but has no chance to appear under the current TFA director. I would like to see the president on the Main page, if you can follow try the ALT ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Gerda, it's hard to read someone's mind as to which of the hooks they'll prefer. Generally, I assume that if they aren't equal, the original hook is the one that's preferred. If there is an explicit request, I'll try to honor it, but sometimes the requested hook is clearly inferior and not the right choice. In this case, absent a preference, I picked the original hook because I felt it was the better constructed and more interesting of the two, so I'm disappointed that you changed it on me overnight. I can see that you had your reasons, which I can understand now that you've explained them, and had I not been asleep I might have acceded to your wishes over my preference, but I frankly think it's questionable practice for anyone to change their own hook to a different one once it's in a prep area. The obvious exception is when the person promoting the article has carelessly picked a hook identified in the review as problematic, but that doesn't apply here. However, since the hook has already been promoted to one of the queues, let's leave it as it is. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining and understanding. I agree fully, I never did that before, - I confess that I reacted emotionally to a discussion, remembering another, made an exception. Thank you for doing the same, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Image issue
Do you have time to look at an image issue on Template:Did you know nominations/Church of All Saints, Helmsley. The origin of the image is Here. Just want to make sure it's ok to use on that DYK. Thanks. Maile66 (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Done! It's fine. PS: If you use the "New Section" selection up top, it creates a new section for you to edit and adds it at the bottom of the talk page with its own header, which helps keep things separate. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: First review
I'm sure the review will be fine; I'll keep an eye on your review, though I don't imagine I'll find any issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate it. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Common toad
Thanks again for reminding to do steps 1 and 2 for the GA! I was in a bit of hurry, so I forgot. Well, the thing is all done now. -- Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! I figured that was all there was to it, and when you got back you'd take care of it. I'm glad it's all set now. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know
I invite you to provide your views at this discussion, which I think is important in clarifying when quoting or close paraphrasing is appropriate, or at least is allowed. This should not be a matter of personal preference. If close paraphrasing is not allowed in any circumstances, we need policy or guideline changes. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you so much! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Barack Obama on Twitter‎
Can you state an opinion on which picture might be best at Template:Did you know nominations/Barack Obama on Twitter‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Presidnet user
It appears this President user is making shaky DYK reviews. I'll be wary of him from now on. Pumpkin Sky  talk  15:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Manfred von Richthofen (General)
BlueMoonset, I will have to let this one go for now. I will need some time to track down some more references to help improve the article. Hamish59 (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know. I'm sorry to hear that it won't be going appearing with DYK. I hope to see it as a Good Article before long! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your kind words and encouragement, BlueMoonset. This is the first biography I have attempted, so a steep learning curve.  I guess my first priority will be to track down a photo of the General - I know there is one on the Croatian wiki but I cannot seem to link to it.  Sigh.  I will get there.  Hamish59 (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The pic is not yet on the Commons, but I asked to have it moved. Let me know if I can be of more help, - I want to deserve my latest barnstar ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The general "got his due", and I was wrong about the Featured articles of certain editors having no chance to appear as TFA, happily so ;) - Did you know that you are an awesome Wikipedian (15 March 2012)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Care to explain this

 * why? and why when I'm right in the middle of working on a set? Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you promoted it right after I had found serious close paraphrasing issues. So you promoted—if you had taken the time to look at it again before you activated the template and typed in the yes—a no-longer-approved article. Under the circumstances, I reverted the inappropriate promotion immediately, and removed it from the prep area, since it shouldn't have been put there in the first place. If you'd taken the time to look at my summary, you might not have been so hasty. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ANd if you'd bothered to let me know instead of edit conflicting....and you got it backwards, you found paraphrase issues after I promoted, look at the timestamps. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * you want it, you got it Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to include your reversion of the three hooks in Did you know/Removed‎; any time a hook is removed from a prep area or queue it's supposed to be added to the list there. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

1976 Conference of Communist and Workers Parties of Europe
Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I'm afraid that I'm going to have to fail this particular GA review; most of the suggested improvements have not been acted on. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC))
 * You're welcome. Sometimes, the only thing to be done is to fail the review; they can always come back once they've improved the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ready again for your eyes
It seems the Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies article has attracted the attention of a few others, which is generally good. I don't own it, and so tried to incorporate their changes best as possible while addressing your concerns from the DYK nom.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll be there in a little while. The article and nomination are both on my watchlist, so no need to put Talkbacks on this page going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * K  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Aecidium mori
I noticed (too late, unfortunately) that you promoted this article for DYK. Either you didn't see my explanation of why it was unsuitable for the main page, or you disagreed, or you didn't care. What do I have to do in the future to prevent this from happening? Sasata (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry: this is completely my error. In this case, I didn't notice your explanation; I'd noted the article as a likely one for the next set late on July 2, after it had been passed by Ultracolbalt. I then failed to notice your new addition finding problems with the review when I finally went to add it the next morning. The odd thing is that I have recently caught this happening a few times in other promotions (including one where I was the one who found the problem), and it turns out I've now done it myself. Believe me, I do care.


 * What I need to do is always take an additional, final look at the promotion preview before hitting the Save button, as a double-check. I thought I was doing that, but clearly I slipped up. Again, I apologize; this was not intentional at all, and should never have happened. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, I'm glad you care too :) Sasata (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I Agree
I am not used to reviewing and only do it when I genuinely feel that an article is good or bad. As such, I probably come across as a lazy jerk who doesn't bother to actually back up my opinion. I'm hoping that others who actually know what they're doing will be able to correctly judge, and I'll see if my opinion was correct or not. User:Haon 2.0 (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Question on DYK Rules
Question about the DYK rules, since you seem knowledgeable, in a case like Template:Did you know nominations/Ole Hannibal Sommerfelt, Ole Hannibal Sommerfelt, does the nominator need to complete a QPQ if they are not the primary writer and are simply nominating someone else's work? Tomsimlee (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, a nominator does not have to do a QPQ if they are nominating someone else's work; similarly, the creator/expander does not have to do a QPQ if someone else nominates their article. It's the big DYK QPQ loophole, and attempts to close it have not succeeded. QPQ reviews are welcome from either party, but not required. (The other big loophole is for multi-article hooks: if a QPQ is required, it can be on an article for article basis or a hook for hook basis.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Doing a QPQ when not required is always a nice way to build good will though. :D (And ill will if you frequently nominate others but never review.) :D --LauraHale (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

hey
Thank you so much for getting someone else to review Contagion. It was a bit frustrating given all the work I put into the article, and I really appreciate it. :) —DAP388 (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm glad TRLIJC19 decided to take it on, especially in light of the already-written second opinion. If that hadn't worked, I was planning to get the nom back into the reviewing pool while there was still over a week to go in the current drive, in the hopes that someone else would snap it up. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK review followups
If there is anything I need to follow up on that I haven't, feel free to give me a poke. I think I reviewed around 30 yesterday so there are probably a few I might not see needing additional comments. --LauraHale (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If I see any hooks that have been responded to after many hours, I'll drop you a line. The Sangeet Sharada hook did get a comment from the originator; that's one Nikkimaria responded to and I did a follow-up on, but it's still my ALT under consideration, so I think it's up to you at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

My Olympic DYKs
If they can run during the Olympics, awesome. Given the sheer volume that I'm trying to produce them in, I don't have a problem with them going early. (My goal was to take every 2012 female Australian Olympian without an article to DYK. I have another 20 to go.)  Whatever ends up easier. :) --LauraHale (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you were the one coming up with the schedule in WT:DYK. I thought you'd have a much better handle on what there would be room for, what was likely to overflow (or overbalance) the prep areas, etc. You do have the majority of the articles there already. Maybe save some for each sport, and let others go, so there's a good mix over the next couple of weeks and then during the games? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest doing a few Australian Olympians before the Games because there are over 30 floating around. I think we'll probably end up with around 70 DYKs to run during the Olympics.  I can work on the schedule some more but I've been waiting for them to move to the Olympic area before updating.  *babbles*  If you've moved all the passed DYKs to the Olympic area, I'll go work on the schedule again. :) --LauraHale (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't move Basement12's three (July 8 (1) and 9 (2)) or your eight (July 5 (2), 8 (1), and 9 (5)). And for all I know there may be more that have passed in the last half hour or so. That's eleven unmoved. But Miyagawa's two are there now, at the bottom of the section. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For the sake of my sanity in trying to organise, can you move all passed Olympic ones? That way we can get an idea of what we're actually dealing with.  We can start moving things to the prep area around the 15th if it looks like we'll be totally swamped.  (I was thinking two DYKs per prep area at the extreme, filling in some prep areas with non-date specific ones as required.) --LauraHale (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll do that now, and then sign off for the night. It's looking to me, based on your preliminary schedule, that with six a day (two per set), there will be plenty left over. Pre-Olympics, I don't think we can get away with more than one per set... BlueMoonset (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Preliminary schedule can be changed. :) But yeah, before Olympics is probably no more than one or two a day. We'll see how the totals shake out.  I'm hoping to be done with my own Olympic DYK nominations by the end of the week. :)  (The major major dump was why I was doing major major DYK reviewing.) Will go play with schedule in a few minutes. :) --LauraHale (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. I moved eleven hooks (actually twelve if you count both Oatley hooks, but it looks like only the one is showing up, possibly because they've been otherwise combined). I'll take another look in the morning. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Take credit!
Hi, Template:Did you know nominations/Talking Heads (Body of Proof) has just been approved, and I am adding your name to the hook, you did a lot of work and it paid off! Thanks! Also, do you have any expertise in image deletions? Im in a predicament at the moment, and need someones help. — M.Mario  (T/C) 18:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I appreciate the thought, and was happy to help with the hook, but I think that DYKmake credits should be reserved to people who worked on the article itself: the ones who created and/or significantly expanded it. Since all I did was hook-based, I don't feel I should be on that list, so I've removed my name: you really deserve full credit.


 * Alas, I have no experience at all with image deletions from Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. I've uploaded fewer than a dozen, and challenged a couple of Commons images that were clearly copyrighted, but that's it. Sorry. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For your hard work following up on DYK. :)

LauraHale (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC) 

A kitten for you!
Good catch on Template:Did you know nominations/Capture of Mazatlán. Will admit I was at the point of frustration as I didn't feel like I could make it more clear the problems with the hook and might not have been as thorough as I should have been at the last minute trying to fix it. (Will be more careful in the future.)

LauraHale (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)  Wow, thanks! You're gifting me a regular menagerie here. ;-) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Erk. :P Not on purpose. Anyway, who doesn't (besides cat ladies) need a gaggle of kittens? :D  I'll probably forget I kittened you in a day or two and give you another. :D --LauraHale (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympic hook
Can you go through the nomination page and put all the passed Olympic DYKs at the bottom of the special staging area? There are a number of them that have subsequently passed and would like to take another stab at organising them later today. --LauraHale (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In a couple of hours, probably. I'm in the middle of working on a just-passed Good Article with significant prose issues, and I don't want to be distracted just now. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. No worries.   When you do get the time, can you also take a look at any DYK reviews done by User:User:Calvin999 (Aaron • You Da One)?  Bit concerned the contributor does NOT understand DYK rules.  Questioned length on an article obviously eligible.  Submitted two that were not long enough.  Does not know that they should be checking for images in hook that they should be in the article.  Not sure they understand the criteria. : /  --LauraHale (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jasmyn Banks
Can you revisit Template:Did you know nominations/Jasmyn Banks so we can move the review along? :) Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Goodwin Heart Pine
Hi. Can you comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Goodwin Heart Pine to provide information on the current status and whether or not it is now good to go? this would help in speeding the review along. :) Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on DYK prep area issue
Hi. As an active participant in DYK discussion, if you have a minute, can you drop by Wikipedia talk:Did you know and offer an opinion on how to address this? I'd rather get it dealt with sooner rather than later as I feel like the sheer volume will require a discussion as all people involved in building prep areas will need to be aware of whatever decision is reached. --LauraHale (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I won't be around much this week, but I will next week as the day approaches. You'll note that my numbers are somewhat different: I'm basing mine on 18 days (six in July, twelve in August) rather than 14 or other numbers. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review approval check
You're right; I went a little fast on that one, ended up forgetting to check the history which I had been doing on the others. That was a borderline one to begin with, so seeing the extra copyedits puts it over to the n column easily. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

3 bios in a row
With all these Olympics hooks (most of which are biographical), it's going to be extremely difficult to avoid having queues that don't include clusters of bios. I kind of liked having the vienna opera hook in the midst of the other hooks that were mostly sports related -- and the queue you moved it to will go up when Europe is sleeping... --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was also trying to avoid Gerda having two hooks, one a triple, in the same set. I miscalculated about Europe sleeping, though... maybe we can push Hilde back one more when the next prep area becomes available? (I hope you like the non-sports non-bio substitute I did find.) I didn't put her into prep 1 because Dr. Blofeld already had a hook there, and I wanted to avoid duplication there, too. I realize that it's going to be hard to avoid duplicating authors in sets for the Olympics, but I wanted to try for as much balance as possible before the deluge hits. Speaking of which, we need to determine prep frequency and hook numbers soon; I'll try to do a summary writeup later today. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never worried about one contributor having two (or more) hooks in a set, if the hook topics are different. Most readers don't know or care that the same person produced two hooks, but they do care if there's a concentration of hooks about the same topic. --Orlady (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wondering
Hi, BlueMoonset. Telling from her talk page, it seems you were wikifriends with Melissa (Frickative). Do you happen to know if she has any intentions on returning to Wikipedia? She was always a great help to WP:Grey's Anatomy, and it would be nice to have her come back to collaborate on some articles again. Thanks,  TRLIJC19   (  talk  ) 03:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I saw your concern with my review at Wizardman's talk page, and I just wanted to express my apologies. When you asked me, I was having a stressful week, and I raced through the review, which I completely regret now. I should have just not reviewed, and I am sincerely sorry for the inconvenience I have caused. Hope it doesn't affect your view on my editing too much ;)  TRLIJC19   (  talk  ) 03:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I probably should have offered to take it myself, once I started to get involved, or at least offer a joint effort since I was the one who urged you to take it, but I've only ever done one GA Review, and that was in June, which was why I was reluctant to do more. I've worked with DAP388 on Glee articles in the past, and have done significant copyedits on them to get them up to GA standard; some word choices are just odd and inappropriate, and I'd seen them throughout Contagion once I looked at it. Barring major copyediting, I didn't see how the prose could pass muster, which was why I was surprised to see the nomination go through. (I did give it a major copyedit, only excepting the Themes section and one other; it was that or GAR, and it seemed easier and more useful, if at least as time consuming, to fix the article.) One thing I've learned watching GA reviews come and go is that there's always more time to finish a review. If they didn't take me so incredibly long to do properly, I might try again, but my time is taken up by DYK these days.


 * I haven't seen Frickative around at all, but I know that CycloneGU had run into her on the web as recently as June 1, well after her move, so I'm assuming she's fine, but has lost interest in Wikipedia for the time being. Cyclone's probably your best source for info. We were wikifriends here only—I consider her my primary Wikipedia mentor—so unless she returns, I'm as cut off as you are. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, and sorry again about the inadequate review. That sucks about Frickative :/  TRLIJC19   (  talk  ) 04:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Lost Hero changes
Hi There. I recently made a few changes to The Lost Hero. These included adding a few more reviews and editing the plot. I was wondering if you could look these over and see if there's enough reviews right now to determine how good the book is. Thanks, -- Kangaroo  powah  22:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK reviews
Addressed the one. If there are any ones I reviewed that I need to follow up on, let me know. Ditto for ones I nominated. I have a number of DYKs I am trying to crank through in advance of the Paralympics and once I get those done, I will do another big pile of reviews. (I have tried to do a few a night after getting my writing goal done for the day but not at the same rate I've been submitting, which works as I have a huge pile of QPQs.) --LauraHale (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, can you take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Jessica Trengove‎? --LauraHale (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at it, there's definitely a fair amount of meat to the article, but I can see some sentences that add little: they seem to be random facts without any "why" or "how it works" behind it. That the family will be watching her at the Olympics isn't about her, or even really them, and doesn't belong; it's not notable. That she comes from an athletic family is useful information, but the simple statement that her brother was "influential" leaves me cold; if he'd started her running, or kept her from quitting, that would be relevant. The training details go on longer than necessary: weekly distances are reasonable, but not that some of her runs were for 60 to 120 minutes (far too great a difference to be a meaningful datum, especially with the vague "some"). I don't get the sense that you're letting your critical editorial eye come out to play. Take the lede's "Australian athletics competitor competing": why not "Australian athlete competing"? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My personal preference is against lists, which is why I was actually happier with the earlier version. I can add more to it as the sources exist for her.  I don't know that I'm trying to be overly editorial in that I'm not actually attempting to take this any further than DYK. I put in the details that the sources suggested were important.  (There was a whole article mostly about her family going to London to watch her compete.  This topic is actually one that gets a lot of coverage in local media.)  Her training schedule and what she does gets a fair amount of attention in various articles. --LauraHale (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly fond of lists in many circumstances, but I find it quite difficult to read sentence after sentence of times, so I felt that putting her "bests" in a list was an improvement because it makes them easier to see and compare.


 * Just because something is covered in the media, that doesn't mean it needs to be in a Wikipedia article. We're working on an encyclopedia, which means a lot of information the media finds interesting isn't appropriate for inclusion. This includes her family coming to London—human-interest stories are a staple of the media, and not useful here—and many of the details of her training regimen. Facts and figures need to be relevant and important. I think you do need to be more editorial than you have been here: it's up to you to synthesize what's in the sources into a coherent narrative, even for DYK, and that means leaving out the many extraneous details. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rum Ration
I was seeking input from another person on the "new content" issue and never got any. What do you think? Cbl62 (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You might want to ask Orlady; she's the person I go to when there's something knotty that I don't know what to deal with. I did run Duplication Detector on the Rum Ration article and the three that had existed before it, and didn't see any copying from those earlier three, but there may be other issues involved. I've never dealt with overlapping content areas before. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Vermont Ski and Snowboard Museum
Hello, there .Thanks for reviewing my DYK nomination.I have changed U.S.A. to US and added the Stowe link.If you could please tell me what the previous name of the building was, it would help.Also both the citations added just say the building was relocated and not that it was previously also called by the same name.The hook also explicitly says the building was moved and not that the museum was moved.Cheers!! Ayanosh (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As you can see at the template, I discovered severe problems with the article when I looked at the original sources and discovered the article had copied the museum's website far too much for comfort. I'm sorry to have to say this, but I don't see how it will be possible for the article ever to be eligible for DYK, assuming it survives. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rachel Bugg
Responded to Template:Did you know nominations/Rachel Bugg. --LauraHale (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What notability reasons? If I was determined to take it to GA, this information would be stuff that people wanted and it would be viewed as kind of fanboyism to only post her best results.  Whatever though.  If you can now give it the green tick to go, that would be appreciated as I addressed your concerns. --LauraHale (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because a 22nd place finish is not significant: it's also-ran status. If you want, you can certainly add a bit more information about the circuit (five or six competitions annually); the fact that she only placed in a couple of them each season tells the story without going into extreme detail. Or list prominent competitions where she did not place without the actual numbers. (I'd imagine that after a while one develops a sense of what a significant finish is internationally: top five, perhaps? Seven? Ten might be stretching too far, or maybe not.) A supplemental list or table might be in order for GA. Do you truly feel that your paragraph was better prose than mine? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Tsilla_Chelton
Hello. I can try to reach fivefold expansion, but that will be hard, most news articles about her are quite short. Curiously, the obituary from the guardian is one of the best articles I have seen. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Rachel_Lovell
I've addressed your concerns about the independence of your hook approval at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Rachel_Lovell and you can give the tick to go. The hook contains no new information and you didn't contribute to the article. Thus, you're an eligible reviewer. Please revisit and finish the review. --LauraHale (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I am not an eligible reviewer; the ALT was my construction, and the rules are clear. I see a conflict of interest, and there is one. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Augie Wolf
Is Template:Did you know nominations/Augie Wolf ready to be approved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK review
Hey, you recently reviewed one of my nominations. Do you mind taking another look? Thank you.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  21:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked Crisco 1492 to take a look at it, as he's more experienced with NPOV issues and the like, and I see he's just done so. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any NPOV issues in it, but fair enough :)  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  06:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it was one of the potential issues the reviewer there had mentioned in asking for another pair of eyes, so I figured the new person should be experienced in that area. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Hargreaves
Your concerns have been addressed at Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Hargreaves. I would appreciate it if you could re-visit and complete your review. --LauraHale (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Hargreaves again
Fixed Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Hargreaves again. I've been up late watching the Games and i just miss fired in where to put a few key articles. --LauraHale (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Hargreaves
Fourth time lucky. Your concerns have been addressed at Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Hargreaves to get it ticked to go. --LauraHale (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Architecture of Póvoa de Varzim hook
Hi, we narrowly missed edit conflicting. I had been thinking of promoting this to Prep 3 myself as you did, but I checked the article and source and found that "borrows" was indeed a mistranslation. It should be "burrows" (I've changed the article too.) I also changed "fishermen" to "fishermen's". But you had already copied the old version of the hook. Dropping you a note here rather than edit conflicting with you at the Prep. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really wondered about that, but couldn't check the sources; I'm glad you cleared that up. I'm also glad you left it to me to edit, as I'm in the middle of adding still more hooks. Have just made both changes on my version; should have another edit up in a few. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI: I also had some concerns that some of the hook wording was "lost in translation." After seeing Ygnvadottir's comment on the same theme, I made further changes to the hook. :-) --Orlady (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's the sort of article we want in DYK, especially as a lead hook, but I'm glad the hook itself is being improved. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Upper Krishna Project
Hi, I have expanded the article, can you just have a look at it once? --sarvajna (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hook wording for Tarren Otte
Since you are actively working on the prep, I won't interfere there. Here's a suggested revision to the Tarren Otte hook wording:
 * ... that Tarren Otte, the oldest member of Australia's 2012 Olympic synchronized swimming contingent, has struggled to stay involved in the sport because of the financial costs of competing?

That varies the hook structure, it removes the repetition of "involved in", and it adds a factoid that makes it slightly more interesting. (I checked the article and the sources to verify the "oldest" part and the finances thing.) --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. It's a great improvement. I've just swapped Tarren and Rachel because Tarren's more interesting, and because I'd just selected a final hook that began "that Brigitte", and it lets me avoid that pattern repeating in the final two hooks. I've just saved it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out!

 * You're welcome. Happy it worked out. If that GA1 delete comes through before a new review begins, then just change |page= back to 1. If something complicated happens instead, you can get assistance at WT:GAN, the good article nomination talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do! Ob tund Talk 02:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Elementary algebra GA review
I was reviewing Elementary algebra and then I found that the editors used "Let's" which constitutes "Let us" that means let me teach you. Article sounds a lot like a Wikiversity page. I would appreciate a second opinion. Ob tund Talk 18:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, contractions generally do not survive a review: they're not considered encyclopedic language outside of quoted text, which is sacrosanct. So "Let us" rather than "Let's". As for the appropriateness of textbook-like language in a textbook-like article, you might want to check at WT:GAN to see what people think. Since I'm not going to be on very much over the next little while, there's not much else I can offer at present. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

C. Ferris White
I'm confused about the DYK nomination for the C. Ferris White. Cbl62 was both a creator and the nominator. How is QPQ not required? In addition, the nomination specifically stated that QPQ was pending. (Also, as an aside, I took the time out to contact Find a Grave for the two creators and was able to substantiate that the date of death for the subject's wife was unreliable, which made me question the reliability of the date of death for C. Ferris White.) Thank you. Anne (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your review of Gibraltar North Mole Lighthouse. Anne (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/High Roller (Stratosphere)
Please see my reply to your comment on the DYK nomination of High Roller (Stratosphere). Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I hadn't noticed that the old "hat note" had been counted, and new one hadn't been. (Hat notes shouldn't be counted; it was due to improper formatting that the first one was.) I've restored the approval; it should be queued up tonight. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for cognitive vulnerability
Greetings I added a template of nomination for cognitive vulnerability. I saw your posting on it. Did you hear anything back from the ping you sent off as stated in your typed message? Thanks Khyati Gupta (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I'm hoping for a response within 24 hours, but that may be optimistic. Reviews usually don't happen for a few days to a couple of weeks, so you're still well ahead of the curve. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

quirky hook in prep1
Hi there. After finishing prep4 earlier today, I wondered if the hook about Pyramid of Neferefre should be used as a last hook (that 130 bulls were sacrificed in the Sanctuary of the Knife of the Pyramid of Neferefre during a ten-day feast?), and now that I noticed that you didn't find any quirky hook for the next prep I wondered if that hook was quirky enough for a last hook? Mentoz86 (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit gory for a quirky hook, myself, and unlikely to leave people in an "up" mood after reading it, which is the idea behind the preference for quirky in the final slot. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's true. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK reviews
I finished off a review on Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Hawking: Master of the Universe, and only afterwards noticed you were trying to get someone else to do that. However, in regards to that, I think you might be up against something that would have held that Stephen Hawking template up indefinitely. You know how some things go around in circles without end? There is a communications pattern that has shown up before. Maile66 (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK alert
Hey BlueMoonset, please check out the entry for Paul van Ass on the DYK nominations page--the Dutch hockey team plays for the gold tomorrow, so this would be nice to have on the front page when that game is being played (I don't have the times here). Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry; as the header on the page indicates, I'm not around much at the moment, and by the time I am around more, it'll be too late. Hope you're able to find someone who can help out. It will have to be an admin, though, since those queues look to be set. Try Orlady; she's been handling the Olympic hook placement for much of the past week. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

M&M Boys DYK
Hi! My DYK nomination which you approved was promoted by Mehrajmir13. However, he did not copy the hook to one of the prep areas after he promoted it (which should have been done under DYK rules). I tried to ask him, but still no action has been taken. I'm afraid my DYK hook will be completely forgotten and fall into oblivion, as it is presently neither in the nomination talk page or the prep area. Is there any way you could help? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Forget it. It just got place into prep area 2 a few minutes ago. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

re: Talk:Andranik Ozanian/GA1
I went ahead and deleted the review as abandoned. As for the paraphrase issue, I took a look at the source and it does seem paraphrased from there, but not hugely so. As an example, we have "During the winter of 1918-1919 Zangezur was isolated from Karabakh and Yerevan by snow." (article) vs "During the winter of 1918-1919 Zangazur was isolated from the Armenian centers of Karabagh and Erevan by snowbound roads and intervening Muslin-populated strongholds." (source), and "The refugees intensified the famine and epidemic conditions and gave way to inflation." (article) vs "The burden of approximately 30,000 refugees intensified the famine and epidemic conditions and gave wings to boundless inflation" (source) In both sentences things are paraphrased a bit too closely. It's not unsalvageable, but it certainly needs to be fixed, and more importantly the whole article may need that look over now, since if one paragraph's an issue many others might be. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Job Attitude
Greetings I have a DYK approved and needed it stamped from an administer. Please see the nomination here. Thank you in advance. Khyati Gupta (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that the nomination will now stay idle again?Khyati Gupta (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * At some point in the next couple of days, now that it's approved, it will be promoted and put into a set of hooks that, a few days later, are posted on the Wikipedia main page. Assembling those sets is both somewhat random and requires a balance of types of hooks, so there's no predicted how soon this might happen. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)