User talk:Yoninah/Archive 24

5964:

my new articles - but on the otherhand is not mentioned anywhere in the rules or supplementary rules. This on it's own is nothing - like I said fair enough. But it seems that each time I go through new issues are found, whether it's a new article or GA origin without basis in anything except the broad "we have discretion" lines. I appreciate the work that you do at DYK - I know that not too many sysops operate in the area for apparent reasons. I was just hoping it could be a process for me like GA is where I work to actively review and create. The fact that there are so many hidden steps that I clearly don't get just means I guess it won't be. That too is fair enough. Best,

604: 2948: 9468:

which (interesting) opera, and never mind readers who don't find role and opera interesting, - they probably will not profit from reading about the singer. My pov. No rule change needed, just understanding "interesting". - I just commented a nom where a hook mentioning a university wasn't considered interesting because people don't know that university. There's a link!! No need to already know. Instead, it was suggested to mention a famous relative. Poor subject when nothing more can be said than being in the same family as someone notable (who may not be known either). --

2955: 4128: 4634: 512: 11075: 10150: 6818: 5599: 5564: 11442: 31: 323: 3260: 2835: 11018: 10651: 3688: 3588: 3496: 3406: 3104: 119: 2917: 1872: 10880: 8480: 7293: 6056: 1896: 10060: 8604: 8246: 8114: 7782: 7673: 6471: 6397: 5732: 5635: 5350: 5236: 4525: 4377: 4030: 3297: 2941: 2732: 2639: 2430: 2342: 2053: 1646: 1546: 1316: 1225: 1137: 1048: 965: 11261: 694: 112: 11217: 5990:

in which case we accept one or two refs), 5) no close paraphrasing, 6) hook cited, 7) at least one citation per paragraph, 8) I check "What Links Here" to make sure it's linked in at least one other article, 9) I check the talk page to see it has some ratings, and isn't a stub, 10) QPQ done, 11) a hooky hook. (Many times I'll do extra editing or sourcing or linking not to bother the nominator, but in the case of

10992: 11031: 11005: 490:, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Knowledge, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? -- 2159: 9281:

hook interest. I realize I'm doing an okay job because very few of my promoted hooks are called out or pulled, but when they are, there is also a sense of futility about it: why did I just blow an hour if things went wrong? (Fortunately, most editors do not call out the promoter, but the mistake.) Right now I'm in a grumbly mood about editors trying to

6252:

typically so short that it isn't a problem building 9 or 10 to a set if necessary; at the moment, there are 16 approved, 1 on its way, 1 looking like it will ultimately run as a regular hook, and probably a few as yet undiscovered or unsubmitted. There is one special occasion hook for April 2, so it can go into that set you'd started building as well.

10472: 10700:

Please do not ping me, especially when you do it in a location that you are 100% fully aware that I cannot respond. In fact, I'd prefer you not to comment on me at all as it's hardly reasonable to go around commenting on me when I can't even explain. Fix the failed process rather than commenting on

10520:

You're welcome! I've been just staying out of your way through that, so give me a heads up when you're satisfied with it. I almost lost a hook yesterday because I deleted what I thought was a left-behind hook that had been moved, then thank goodness realized I'd removed it mid-someone-else's editing,

9613:

OK, I did my expansion. I'm not sure that it should be classified as a hymn psalm—do you have a source for that? Psalms 146–150 are psalms of praise. Please note bald URL for footnote 17 and no cite under the Christianity section. You could get this to a 5x expansion with another 80 characters or so.

9280:

the answer in one word: time. It's not the worst job, but it's the most time-consuming. In my experience, it takes an hour (or more) to build a prep set. The main problem is that reviews are often inadequate. I find myself re-reviewing and interacting with nominators to fix basic problems and improve

9156:

God this almost killed me. The two final hooks needed to be neither short, Chinese, British, female, musical, science, similar to a hook in a recent set (like the burials hooks, one of which will have appeared just two days earlier), had an image that would be a shame to not include, nom'd by someone

8927:

I agree with most of what Yoninah says, but my attitude to choosing image hooks might be different. Some hooks need their images to work at all, and they get priority. Others images are peripheral to the hook subject or would not look good at thumbnail size, and I avoid using images of unknown people

550:

I've spent a lot of time at Commons trying to come up with an image, without success. I thought to show an image of a horn, or an overflowing cup, but can't come up with anything. Perhaps after you add some musical settings, we'll be able to draw something from that. Otherwise, there's always the old

9693:

My DYK check says 5* per 7 July. I'm travelling (sat in the plane for two hours before departure because of thunderstorm and airport closed at the destination. Tired). I added the cite already (in the body), and another one to be used more. Please nominate, and I'll fix the music section by the time

9426:

that's great! I often see hundreds of pageviews pop up out of nowhere on pages; I wonder if it's because someone assigned reading for a class that day? If you feel "interesting" should play less of a part in hook construction, you'll need to call for a change in the DYK rules. As long as that caveat

8870:

Yoninah, sorry, I hadn't realized we had a requirement to include half bios and alternate them within sets! Or that we had a rotation for bio images -- is is that every other set gets a bio image? And of course I'm happy to do a full set! Issue there is that I clearly have some things to learn about

5989:

Here is my checklist before I promote an article, which corresponds to the things a page creator should check: 1) Newness/expansion within 7 days, 2) length over 1500 char (and doesn't look like less than start-class), 3) neutrally written, 4) adequately referenced (unless it's some obscure subject,

5963:

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Yeah I read both those things before applying for the Florida Shuffle and you dinged me for it being an orphan tag. Which on the one hand fair enough - I do tend to go through and try and find instances to link when I write about a book,which is the majority of

5915:

Hi. I work hard to follow rules. However this has meant I find DYK an exasperating process as it seems there are unwritten rules that I am unable to follow and which inevitably cause issues with my nominations. This means that I end up skipping DYK for new articles I write, and in fact have more GAs

2849:

To Yoninah, for cleaning out all of DYK's October and November 2018 approved nominations, building prep sets, making sure the recent switch from daily to twice daily promotions went smoothly, and generally helping to keep DYK running smoothly. Thank you for making DYK a better place in so many ways!

261:

so when you're ready to move any article from your sandbox to mainspace, you click on the "move" tab at the top of the page, check off "Article" under "New title", make sure it's the right title in the box to the left of "Article" (i.e. just the article title, no username or sandbox or slashes), add

10010:

are you talking about the second paragraph under "Molniya constellations"? That seems to be routine information about the Earth and a directive to the image. You could drop a note on the page creator's talk page to add some kind of cite before it appears on the main page, but frankly, I don't think

5436:

I'm wondering whether the skylight in EWI's Kaleidoscope house was really 100 ft high, or maybe just 100 ft long. The Denver Post article you reference just refers to it as "a 100-foot skylight" and I couldn't find any other references or images. What do you think about changing this to reflect the

4938:

Back to Psalm 147: I am not sure but it has potential for DYK. Only: last day to nominate, and I am busy with celebrations in the family which will run to tomorrow. Could you make a nom, just in case we manage to expand enough? Just the split in the Vulgate + more lead should make a difference, and

10317:

A gracious answer, and I will, though not at all sure its possible to do. Actually I noticed at first that it got 710 hits, which is obviously disappointing. Turned out that it already had 22,789 hits, a disconnect on the scoring reportage was caused by an Editor changing the title late in the day

9301:

Everything you just said. I'm in a period where I'm not creating a ton just now, which is why this was a good time for me to figure this out, so I don't mind the time. And I enjoy the puzzle aspect. The opportunity to make or let slip through a much-seen-and-commented-on error is a bit terrifying,

9020:

I'm busy building a different prep set. It's going to take some time to look this one over, so I'd rather pass on it for now. Did you notice that there's a special occasion request for June 4, which coincides with Prep 4? I put a hidden note on the template to reserve the slot for this nomination,

8901:

Your idea to switch the quirky hooks is good. The truth is we try to alternate image hooks much more—like a rotation of person, nature, building, artwork, graphic, etc.—but we have a lot of person images on the Approved page now so we're running them more often. And yes, the hooks should alternate

7264:

Yoninah, I wasn't sure whether you'd seen that the nominator had recently responded to your concerns on promoting this nomination. (I took a look back when the you raised the question, and it appears from the sources that the age 49 retirement was from ice hockey and the age 51 retirement was from

6302:

Please forgive me if you've explained this before elsewhere, but have you ever considered running for adminship? If nothing else, you have a clear need for the tools as it would presumably make your work on DYK easier, and I'm sure you would sail through any RFA process. I'd be happy to nominate

2577:

name of a station, for example. It's an easy mistake to make, but what's important is that someone in your position should stop claiming that we make some kind of generalised stylistic approach based on English variation when it's clear you're not commensurate with how to implement that variant.

1757:

doesn't work when you put the title as second parameter without proper parameter in the source, you need an 'author' or 'editor' for it to connect with the harv ref in Sources. With journals, some folks use the name of the publication or 'Staff - Name of publication'. There are a few other ways to

6904:

Not sure it works without the picture (which is pretty good). If we don't use the picture, "that Palmer Street was the location of a secret British spy base that intercepted the communications of London's embassies?" or "that London's Palmer Street was the location of a secret "Dictionary" run by

2576:

Please stop applying your perceived version of British English to Knowledge. While I appreciate you're making such edits in good faith, it's clear that you may not have the competence to do so, particularly in light of your recent claims that in British English we would put "the" in front of the

11362:

source. They apply a formula to various degrees of kidney failure and then produce a guideline. The secondary sources support "worked out how to avoid toxic doses of penicillin in people with kidney failure" because it is the table used rather than the formulas they calculated. Safer to keep the

9467:

as "tirelessly ingenious"? I didn't object, but wasn't surprised that it received record low clicks in a while. I - as a reader - would already loose interest with all this critic from where, - and am I interested in one critic's view? - Keep simple: say which (interesting) role she performed in

8878:

Again thank you for your patience. I've been seeing for many months that there's extra help needed here, but knew there'd be a learning curve, and I hate it that my learning curve causes other editors extra work. It's always what makes me wonder whether I should try to help or not! :) I will get

6251:

That's great. We will want to move the set you were building that I've temporarily put into Prep 1 into Prep 3 (for April 2) when it becomes free, to leave Preps 1 and 2 free to April Fools' Day hooks. (Which, I imagine, was your plan before the March 28 hook needed to be placed.) AFD hooks are

7466:

I added the photo to commons, but I have no idea how to add the additional image to the nomination. The one I see when I go to the nomination is the 1880 photo I put there originally with the caption "Jacobs circa 1880". The new photo caption should be "Jacobs, 1895-1905 by Max Büttinghausen".

7153:

I have filled Prep 6 this morning but, because we are expecting a string of visitors and I will have little access to my PC, I will not be doing any more prep set building for five or six days. I like to work from the top of the approved nominations page, promoting the oldest nominations when

6367:

thanks for the vote of confidence. I wonder if you're asking because I've sounded a bit panicked in my requests for administrative action at WT:DYK? The fact is that everyone relies on everyone else to get the work done at DYK—the nominators rely on reviewers, the prep promoters rely on queue

895: 828: 2246:.) Each article is identified in the hook by a bolded link. The character count of the hook can be over 200 characters for a double hook, but shorter is preferable. Each article has to meet the start-class requirements for a DYK nomination. Let me know if you need further assistance. Best, 2140:

Yoninah, this had been in limbo when the template wasn't retranscluded after being pulled from prep, and there's a specific request for your opinion on the latest proposed ALT hook. Can you please stop by and get this moving again? (Last comment was on January 4.) Thank you very much.

9194:

Yeah, I was wondering about at min, unlinking China. I'll make another sweep through to see if I find anything long enough (as it is, the set is just barely long enough, so we probably don't want anything shorter.) If you see something that fits better in the meantime, by all means!

2599:

thank you for the warning. I have been watching your edits to DYK hooks for many years and thought I understood what you were doing. Apparently not. From now on I will refrain from making any tweaks to British hooks and await your postings of corrections at ERRORS2. Best to you too,

11359: 204:(am working to improve it; I know a lot more about crossing the Channel in a small boat than I do about fashion,) it could have a hook like DYK... that smugglers in France charge £3,000 a person to carry illegal immigrants across the English Channel in small, stolen boats? 7418:' DYK. I have quite a long lead in her appearance, as I want it to run on the 100th anniversary of Dutch women's suffrage in September. But, to do the nomination, I needed to choose a photo. I have been searching for a better image for a year and finally found one, but 6552:

With regards to the James and Harding hook, I would just promote it and let Mobushgu supply the QPQs later (likewise, the nomination can be closed after the QPQs have been supplied). This obviously should have been done by now but apparently the reviewer overlooked it.

3209:. The ambiguity you cut out was, I think, what made it a humorous and good hook—and I thought that's why you favored it. It is intended to sound like Forsyth's wife went on a drinking binge, which invites further reading, while she was actually the model of temperance. 5985:

true, it doesn't say anything about orphan tags in the rules. But there's so much nitpicking by so many editors at DYK that I try to cover all the bases I can. I can just see someone complaining at ERRORS that an article in the queue has an orphan tag, and pulling

8902:

bio/non-bio, and there also shouldn't be more than 4 U.S.-based hooks in a set. Also try not to run too many women hooks in a set. And I also watch the language of the hooks—avoid too many "firsts" in the hooks. I'm fine with your learning curve. Until now only

10677:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

1481:"Claims" is the word we usually use in DYK hooks. "States" would be something she did in court. I read the article and got the sense that she was criticizing the police as well as "stating" what she thought happened, so that's why I substituted "claimed". 8945:

I'm finding that I come across what seems a good choice, but it's got a photo that doesn't seem particularly compelling. So you're saying in the case a choice is good and the photo doesn't really add much or isn't good at that size, use the hook anyway?

7004:

as a stub as the election results began coming in. Then I realized that it would make an interesting DKY. If you are interested, I'll try to make time to build it out this week. If your're not intrigued, or are too busy this week, no worries. Best,

9966:

back to approved noms, it doesn't have a citation for every paragraph. (I'm not sure it's a huge problem, and for many articles I'd fix it myself, but I know zero about this topic.) Do I just do the opposite of what I did to move it into the prep?

8698:. In the nomination, I had asked for June 7, not July 7, to coincide with the start of this year's tournament, and your edit summary implies that you meant to place it under the June date. Was there a reason you ultimately chose to put it in July? 5997:

As I said, you'll always find someone nitpicking. But if you cover the above bases, I think you can handle making a few extra tweaks to the article or hook to make it pass. In my experience, a GA review is a far more grueling experience! Best,

11329:

Yes, the article needed that change, but the hook certainly was encyclopaedic and accurate and I have a medical opinion to back it up. Working out how to avoid toxic doses of penicillin in people with kidney failure was exactly what they did.

7649:

it is a good picture, but like you said in the nomination, it was taken a year later and therefore has nothing to do with the subject other than showing gold being unloaded. I did think about it before deciding not to run the image.

8967:

the image proposals are just that, suggestions. If you don't think the image works, or it isn't visible at thumbnail size, just use the hook. Nominators know that with 8 hooks per set, not everyone's image hook suggestion will run.

9632:

Thank you! I thought of bringing it to GA some day, but 5-times-expansion is certainly easier ;) - Please explain hymn psalm, - for me, the typical hymn is a song of praise, but there's obviosly more to it. - This is a psalm where

8874:

How about I switch Calma glaucoides with Lloyd M. Trefethen? That would maintain the intraset alternation for set 3 and give it only one nature hook, and it would allow for a bio image in set 4? Then I can start to fill set 4?

9441:

I may have a language problem there. For me, "interesting" is only an opposite to boring and trivial, while most who oppose my hooks want "appealing" rather than what I think is interesting, = making curious to click. Remember

4707:

Enjoy the feast, - also Bach's birthday ;) - no rush, I noticed it's the only of the six psalms in Kiel's motets without expansion (the others 23, 133, 84, 130, 126). It will take a while until the DYK gets approved and shown.

7154:

possible, but many of these were reviewed by me, so I can't promote them. If you do some set building, can you please deal with as many of these as possible? There is a nice 5-legged elephant hook available for an image slot!

4835:

Should we do Psalm 40 next. I'll give "my" numbers a rest until after Easter, - too much sacred music already. Will do 113 and 122, because they are too long to be expanded 5*, but leave 147 for later which may work for DYK.

10399:. I've reported it as a bug, though arguably it may not be one as such. It turns out that the score does not move with a title change, or at least it didn't in this case, when the change was made late in the day of the DYK. 10396: 10186:

set has two hooks with credits to Philafrenzy, I think you'd recommended moving one to a later set when that happened, is that correct? Both noms are credited to two editors, I wasn't sure if that would make any difference.

6236:

thank you. Everything looks good. I need to wait for the nominator of the March 28 hook to get back to me before I can complete Prep 3, so I probably won't be able to finish Prep 3 until tomorrow, but we're not in a rush.

3817:

Thanks for promoting the DYK hook. Would it be possible to push it back to run on the evening of March 2nd (Eastern U.S. Time) to coincide with the start of the MLS season? Also, I had to revert your edits to the page, as

4156:

I did today Psalm 127, lead, ibox, KJV text, and formatting of the Musical setting which are particularly rich for that one. That section will grow, but otherwise I'm done for the moment, so don't fear edit conflicts ;)

5475: 9446:? I proposed a hook mentoning her appearing as the Nurse. That was considered not interesting (why, - a nurse is not the regular character?), and after longish discussions we had a hook which said ... that a critic at 6639:

One of your hooks was selected for a lead and another got the quirky slot. Don't be greedy. Prep 1 already has enough bizarre hooks and I don't think it could tolerate another one, it's better in the second set IMO.

6883:

since Knowledge is timeless, each article fact only relates to that point in time. That's why I removed the "foretelling" that he would be convicted. The other IP's contribution is fine; glad you're happy with it.

6323:

I've searched your talk page archives and spotted you were last asked about this almost a year ago - forgive me. Even so, I don't think it's essential that you have to get stuck into all the various things admins

10681:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

8998:

I was going to choose SOLRAD 2 (April 28) for the third-from-bottom on prep 4, but it's a newish editor and a newish reviewer. Would one of you want to take a look and make sure I'm not missing something obvious?

796:, "Wolf spiders are members of the family Lycosidae, from the Ancient Greek word "λύκος" meaning "wolf". They are robust and agile hunters with excellent eyesight. They live mostly in solitude and hunt alone, and 11188:

the red deleted text is what happens when you close a nomination. You closed it, opened it, then closed it again. It's closed. There's no stray text under the "Please do not write beneath this line". All's well.

8828:, it's Bavaria. Some Länder have moe than one that they support, - Hesse has at least three, Darmstadt, Kassel and Wiesbaden. Perhaps we should have an article explaining, not just an awfully incomplete dab page 6368:

promoters, the readers rely on ERRORS to fix things, etc. Having administrator privileges would allow me to promote prep sets to queues, but take me out of the loop of promoting hooks to prep sets, and right now

10244:

not sure what you're asking. It's standard procedure to have only one hook by an editor in a queue, except for major special occasions like April Fools Day, major sporting events, or the upcoming Moon landing.

6015:

Thanks for the tips - it helps. I will just say that the GA experience might be more work but has been far more pleasant than what I've had at DYK. I will keep your tips in mind should I go to DYK again. Best,

9529:

I'll add to it now, and ping you when mostly done, to avoid edit conflicts. It's linked from a DYK nom, so will hopefully go to the Main page even without 5* expansion. It's also one of the well-known psalms.

9179:

I'm laughing. But you did a great job! The only thing I might do is swap out the second hook that mentions China. With three filled queues and three filled hooks, you can take a break for a few days! Best,

6856:

I was trying to balance accuracy and fairness to the subject by correcting the outdated "alleged" qualifier while leaving the original wording as well so as to let the reader know that Berland was only an

4141:

Thank you so much for what you did for this psalm, others, and the spirit of DYK! - This one is the theme song of my life, so to speak, pictured, music which Bach also used for his final Dona nobis pacem.

10271:

that the Air Lock Diving-Bell Plant (pictured), made in Wivenhoe, worked in the Gibraltar harbour for more than 60 years?" which seems to me very wet, and must have killed off a fair percentage of views.

7082:

No. I threw up a stub as I was reading the election returns. Then I though , oh, gosh, that woulda beena good DYK. It's a very short stub, and It may be possible to expand later by enough to qualify.

1430:

yes, I'll be happy to move it to the Black History Month section. I've been combing the nominations for appropriate hooks to file there. If you know of any other good hooks, please let me know! Best,

1794:. The problem here was that I had only a small page preview to work with, and couldn't find the name or author of the article. I hope I did it ok using the name of the publication in the citation. 5543:

At any rate, I was thinking that you'd probably want to promote this hook into an appropriate spot before 3 and 4 are filled and copied into queue. I'll leave this to you to take care of. Thanks!

11412:...I have been reading the original paper in detail and you are not incorrrect...so leave the article as it is. Thank you...both hooks would have been fine...thnak you for re-instating original. 7205: 6721:

It looks fine to me now, what don't you like about it? To be honest, I didn't much like the zombies hook in the first set anyway, because there were too many hooks with the letter "z" in them.

4286:

coming up (as I type, I am afraid I have missed your sundown, so you may not be able to read this for a day) but I have another missing-person DYK with an anniversary date coming up next week:

7589:

The hook looks good, may review when less tired. The problem I see is that will may have to ignore the rule to not hold for longer than 6 weeks, but we do so for the space jubilee. - Yoninah,

5540:

also has a person, which could further complicate using it in the lead slot). However, I don't think there would be an issue with delaying the current Prep 4 lead hook by three or four preps.

11251: 7939:. I am used to calling such a tree a "hollow tree", but perhaps that is just British usage. (I was annoyed at first that you had posted about this at Errors, but really it is no big deal.) 6613:

hook in the 1st set please? I ask as it is Australian focused and I feel it would get the best impact if it runs from 1pm AFD Aussie time rather than 1am where less are likely to see it.

5818:? I want to review it, and see it on the main page, but the nominator is a student, and hasn't edited in almost a month. Would you be willing to suggest another hook or help out? Thanks. 9056:

all you have to do is copy the image section into the prep set. You don't have to worry about page-protecting the image; that's done by administrators after moving the set to the queue.

8812:

Good answer. (I wonder how many people think it's a National Opera.) The state in the Berlin case is the city of Berlin, and during the GDR times that was East Berlin. The state for the

10949: 5493: 4287: 9404:

yesterday? Linked from a German title? I conclude that the "interesting" factor of our Main page audience is unpredictable, and should perhaps play less of a role in nom discusions. --

8879:

there, and if this is a bad time for you to be dealing with my learning curve, I can hold off and start figuring this out at another time. Zero offense taken if it's the wrong time! --

5861:

I went through the article and tidied up the reference formatting a little. This is an excellent article; it doesn't need any further work from me. I will try to suggest better hooks.

2133: 1808:

The first thing I did was actually to see if I couldn't find the author's name somewhere, but like you, I could only find that small thumb. ;-) I did a tweak per the instructions on

9843:

Hi Yoninah! Thanks for your immense help, I've added citation where needed and you are free to remove the third point of "Bibliography" since that "book" or "bulletin" has no ISBN.

8299: 577:: LOTS of psalms. Most still lack links, and I never found them, being just numbers, without the word psalm attached. How about Psalm 93 next, short enough to be DYK, hopefully. -- 7753: 6196:

so it wouldn't get lost. Also, this gives you some place to move whichever hook gets displaced when you add a new hook to Prep 3, and, for that matter, the one from March 31 into

762: 715: 9223:

you can add the special occasion hook to this set, but without an image, since it's nominated for deletion and the alternate image is boring. Maybe put it in Irving Gray's slot.

1977: 11230: 9846:

ALT4: Did you know that during the Falklands War, then Argentine Permanent Representative to the UN expressed concerns of "internal subversive activity" regarding the conflict?

10610:

Would you have any objection to putting this into an image slot? The nom, who promoted it to GA, tracked the family down for that photo and really would like to see it used. --

6538:

For what it's worth, the abandoned pedestal image gave me a chuckle, so I think it works as a lead, but feel free to ignore this comment if you think you have a better option.

6495:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 6150: 4641: 3055: 2469: 2006: 1401: 9035:

No worries, there's no huge rush. I'll work on other hooks for the set. I do see the Pelosi note, will try to work on figuring out what I need to do to template the image. --

6590:

Yoninah, thanks for putting the sets together. I really like your choice of alts, and that includes the alts of other people that you selected in preference to mine. Cheers,

7257: 5815: 1501:

Don't talk about me and mis-represent me again, especially in areas that I cannot respond or defend myself. If you do it again I will be forced to ask Arbcom to intervene.

773:?), and seems to be waiting for a response from you. If you could post to the review in some fashion, perhaps we can get it moving again. Thank you for anything you can do. 6273:

OK, thanks. I'll reserve a slot for the April 2 hook in the current Prep 1. I wonder if they have prepared a mock-up of the April Fools sets to make prep building easier?

3336: 7627:

Seems a pity not to use the picture. It has good contrast and shows well in thumb. I think it will attract a lot of attention. Can it be held over for an available slot?

3848:

OK. But you need to give me a new hook that's verified by the source. The article does not say that it was the first championship rematch in Major League Soccer history.

9821:

Same for me, - I got to Psalm 19 only now, a day later than I wanted, and only minimal, in the external links, - will do a bit to the lead now. Thanks for the Hebrew! --

6797:

Today's hook reads "John W. Beschter, a Luxembourgish Jesuit". Luxembourgish cannot be used to describe people. It should read "John W. Beschter, a Luxembourg Jesuit".--

6215:

Looks like my Approved page wasn't refreshing; the March 31 special occasion is already in Prep 6. I've now removed the March 31 section, since the hook was promoted...

5393: 4607:

The current hook set looked really short on the main page. I added the OK Gesture and George Meade from that day of the too-short run. Thought you might be interested.

8928:

of only local interest. It's always useful to have extra people building sets, especially as Yoninah and I cannot promote anything we have ourself created or reviewed.

2150: 11286: 8209: 7760:

Yoninah, I was wondering whether you'd be able to return to this to review the new ALT5. If not, then perhaps call for a new reviewer? Thanks for whatever you can do.

2522: 2134: 1982: 11281: 7769: 782: 4560: 2243: 1972: 8764:

Nobody is going to know what a Staatsoper is, you said. Do they have to? It's adding a little German flavour to just "opera". What do you think a State Opera is? --

7279: 7238:

Oops. Thanks for the reminder. I was fiddling so much with the prep sets to reorganize them per an editor's request for Easter Monday that I forgot to relist it at

6861:

abuser at the time that Grossman extended him help, but I see another IP has come along and simplified it for us, and I think the current wording is growing on me.

5113:

unfortunately, it's his birthday. Also, it's not so terrible; Prep 4 is the one with the most daytime hours on March 8. Give me another minute to complete the set.

11367: 10603: 10101: 9114:

is not supported by the sources cited. Please advise me as to the venue where this should be discussed, preferably before the DYK item appears on the front page.--

7754: 7274: 6824: 6817: 5285: 4818: 763: 716: 11210: 8309: 6502: 4196: 2309:

In that case, I appreciate you volunteering to move this nomination forward. We're almost there with just the acronyms on the book's article to make consistent.

1093: 11302: 11167:

It's closed, but the history is showing a large deletion, which is a little alarming...I guess I'll leave it for now and see if it happens next time I close. --

7399: 6743:

I re-swapped the hooks. You were right: Prep 1 had too many bizarre hooks. Also, putting the zombies up high cues readers to the fact that it's an AFD set, per

3444: 1451: 734: 10743:(The ladder) is the most important opera house in the Italian-speaking world, - so may the most important, period. "Milan" may help their memory, no? - Next 7258: 7104: 6878: 5521: 4230: 4212: 2682: 2479: 1267: 6528: 10619: 10561: 9344:

to the relevant lists? If I read the graph correctly it had 16,374 page views when it was on the front page, but I might screw up the table, haha. Thanks!

5552: 4480: 3346: 2825: 2534: 2220: 684: 10120: