User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 4

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)

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)

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)

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)

For your hard work following up on DYK. :)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi. As an active participant in DYK discussion, if you have a minute, can you drop by Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Number of Olympic hooks per day? 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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, --Kangaroopowah 22:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Is

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi, I have expanded the article, can you just have a look at it once? --

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)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for helping me out with the IP good article reviewing issue. ObtundTalk 02:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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! Obtund^Talk 02:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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. Obtund^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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Hi there. After finishing prep4 earlier today, I wondered if the hook about

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.

talk

) 22:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks so much for all you hard work dealing with the GA Bot and fixing issues people cause! ObtundTalk 00:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hi!

Forget it. It just got place into prep area 2 a few minutes ago. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)