This editor is a Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix and Errata Sheet.

Template:GA nomineeEdit

Since you have provided no rationale for the reversion, and started no discussion at Template talk:GA nominee or anywhere else, I have restored the changes I made to the template. These changes save considerable vertical space in the banner space of talk pages, at zero detriment. They also put the information in a more logical place, grouping information about the nominator with the information about the nomination, rather than get separated by random tidbits about technical stuff, or reviewers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, fine. Although I thought that the onus was on you per WP:BRD, I will start the discussion and then revert you again. My view has always been that the nomination listing at the bottom is like a sig, and did not like that I had to go looking for it when you hid it up top. Expect the reversion shortly. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Had you provided a rationale for it, yes, since there would be something to address. But you didn't, instead objecting on a procedural basis (e.g. WP:BURO taking precedence over WP:BOLD), so I had nothing of substance to even discuss. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Headbomb, the discussion is open at WP:GAN. See you there. We're back to status quo ante until there's consensus one way or the other. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the typo, Headbomb; it's on the GAN talk page, WT:GAN. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

GA feedbackEdit

I was very surprised to see that this article was passed in 40 minutes, and more so when I looked at the article and immediately saw that it violated MOS:LEAD, one of the GA criteria: four paragraphs for such a short article is simply not allowed. (Please see MOS:LEADLENGTH.) Then I read I see a few minor things, but nothing that precludes passing of the article as it stands right now., and realized that you truly don't understand the criteria. If you see "minor things", you point them out and get them fixed, and only then, when all the criteria are fully met, do you approve it on Seminal vesicles

Hello BlueMoonset. Can I clarify, is this some sort of random drive-by feedback or are you in a mentoring situation with Berchanhimez? You are abrupt and unnecessarily bureaucratic (see WP:NOTBURO), and I don't think your tone is particularly collegiate. The point of good article reviews, which Berchanhimez has correctly identified, is to assess against the good article criteria. What's more it was clear that she/he was going to provide more feedback. Lastly, if you have identified "minor things" these should not be things that block promotion unless they are more than minor. That is your own personal criteria Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#Imposing_your_personal_criteria. I hope you are not pursuing this approach in other reviews. It is likely to prove frustrating to all involved and deter both reviewers and nominees. I have a large exposure to both giving and being reviewed and thought I better point this out to you in case this is a more widespread issue you are unaware of.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

September 2020 GOCE drive blingEdit

  The Minor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Network synthesis/GA1Edit

Hi, thanks for your advice. I will avoid giving similar advice in the future. Most of what I said was valid, it was just I should have said review it like usual and that was it. Note: this was the only page I did that for, because I was looking for pages to review and I have seen the nominator around, as we edit similar articles, so I was nosey and realized it was super stale from a new user who wasn't coming back. Footlessmouse (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)