User talk:Midnightblueowl/Archive 5

Death of Leelah Alcorn

Thank you for your substantial contribution to the article. <3 <3 <3 Cognissonance (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Thank you for the thank you, Cognissonance! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coldrum Long Barrow

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Coldrum Long Barrow you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Squeamish Ossifrage -- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Tagged the review on hold. This is a very well-researched bit of work, and I'll be happy to pass its GA candidacy with only some relatively easy changes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coldrum Long Barrow

The article Coldrum Long Barrow you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Coldrum Long Barrow for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Squeamish Ossifrage -- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:Today's_featured_article/requests/Tintin_in_the_Congo

Hi, I'm co-writing the TFA text with article nominators these days, and I made more tweaks than usual to this one; please have a look. Were any of my changes mysterious? Is anything left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Prhartcom. I'd prefer to keep discussion in one place, so I'll stop watching here. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Daily Mail/Mirror

• No one with their head screwed on straight would consider those to be reliable sources. Not only that, but they're often redundant to other sources in the article. Do not readd them again. Ever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Luke. Sorry that we've got off to the wrong foot. Don't get me wrong, I'm not championing these tabloids as high quality sources, but I think that they may be necessary in this instance. I'll open up a talk page discussion over at Talk:Death of Leelah Alcorn where we can discuss the situation in a civil manner with others. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• I take an extremely dim view of anyone readding these sources. I'm happy to have a talkpage discussion about it, but I'm not going to ever change my view on these sources. With regards to your readership comment, a large amount of people read TMZ, but that would never be a reliable source for anything at all bar perhaps themselves. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Although I do apologize that you're on the end of it; it's kind of my standard response to anyone re-adding anything to do with the Daily Mail. Excessive, yes, but probably justified. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've put together three paragraphs of waffle, so do give it a read. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your concern regarding said tabloids, I just think that there are a few instances where their inclusion is indeed appropriate. And yes, I agree that these tabloids shouldn't normally be read; they simply don't reach the intellectual heights of The Sun and the Daily Sport! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Death of Leelah Alcorn

Please be mindful of the 3 revert rule so that you do not exceed it today. 1, 2, 3 Best, Mike V • Talk 19:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Mike V, thanks for bringing this issue to my attention. To be fair to myself, at least one of these cases was an instance in which I was dealing with another user, who has themselves been called out for edit warring and disruptive behaviour at the administrators' noticeboard. So I do believe that it is unfair to hold me responsible for edit warring on that particular issue. But thank you nonetheless. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's best not to fight edit warring with edit warring. Also note that the 3RR has very strict criteria as to what is considered exempt. Mike V • Talk 19:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ted Hollamby

Just dropping by to say "yes" to Ted Hollamby as English architect, and agree with "good" article. Qexigator (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Qexigator, and thank you for your message. I'll open a conversation over at Talk:Helena Blavatsky at some point so we can discuss how to proceed with the lede. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Iron man book.jpg

Hi Midnightblueowl, I delved into this mystery for you (File:Iron man book.jpg) and found that, according to History, you did upload it October 2006, which was probably a few months after you started editing! It has been illustrating this wonderful book all this time until yesterday, when someone, rather than upload a new version of the same filename, uploaded a new version with a different filename, causing this one to orphan and the message appear as if you had recently uploaded it. I spoke to the new uploader yesterday and suggested that next time they can upload a new version of the same filename to avoid this. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks @Prhartcom: I've no recollection of uploading it to be honest, but as you say it was a long time ago. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

FLC request

How are you doing mate?, long time. Requesting you to comment on this one when you find time. —Vensatry _(ping) 08:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My bad, I thought this to be ChrisTheDude's talk page. Apologies for cross posting. However, feel free to comment on the nomination if you find the topic to be interesting. —Vensatry _(ping) 10:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries, @Vensatry:! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mortimer Wheeler

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mortimer Wheeler you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Blavatsky

Thanks for your good work on this article. It is coming along quite nicely! HGilbert (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Hgilbert: I'm always glad to see people appreciating my work! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hgilbert: I'd like to also say thank you to yourself for the edits that you have been making. It's good to work alongside another editor who is helping to improve this contentious article. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes...the more I explore sources, the more it seems a quagmire of unreliable and contradictory assertions. HGilbert (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mortimer Wheeler

The article Mortimer Wheeler you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mortimer Wheeler for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mortimer Wheeler

The article Mortimer Wheeler you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mortimer Wheeler for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The Castafiore Emerald

I would very much like to take this article to GA status. Since you have expanded so many Tintin books, I figured I might as well ask your help for the article's expansion. I already have the Michael Farr book (The complete companion one). If you could send me photos of the books by Thompson, Assouline, Apostolides and Peeters (if you have them), which are related to the article, it would be greatful. Thanks. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 17:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ssven2, In my opinion, it is inappropriate in the extreme to ask another editor to provide "photos" (I assume you mean of each page) of the sources they use to research their articles, and it isn't appropriate to expose your email address in that way (editors occasionally allow other editors to contact them via email using the link Wikipedia provides in the menu to the left, but many editors, especially such as editors with the community respect and reputation as Midnightblueowl, do not normally accept email in this way and solely prefer communication via Talk page). In my case, I went to the trouble and expense to acquire all of the books you mention for my own library, just as I feel certain Midnightblueowl went to the trouble to do. May I suggest you doing the same, as well as checking your local university or public library for these books? Cheers and good luck to you. Prhartcom (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Ssven2 and thanks for your message. It is good to hear that you are interested in helping improve Wikipedia's coverage of The Adventures of Tintin. However, I can't help but share Prhartcom's view that it is inappropriate to ask another editor (in this case myself) to take photographs for you and thus do a significant part of your research for you. I am more than happy to use the resources that I have access to to improve The Castafiore Emerald (as I have done with many other related articles), but asking me to engage in criminal activity (in this case copyright infringement) is something that I do not feel comfortable doing. Further, I would express caution about posting your private email address online, for you open yourself up to threats from spammers and the like. I hope that you understand. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. I have removed the phrase containing my email-id as a precaution. As of now, I will expand the article using the Farr book. Thanks again. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 05:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Midnightbluewowl, do you think The Castafiore Emerald is ready for GA? — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 00:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ssven2; yes I do think that it is. I've yet to put in anything from Apostolides or McCarthy into it but those certainly aren't necessary for it to undergo GAN. Go ahead and nominate it if you like. :) Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The Castafiore Emerald turns a GA! Yay! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That's great Ssven2, thank you for taking it through the GAN process! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you too for shaping up the article. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 01:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Le monde de Tintin

Hi Midnightblueowl, hope all is well, and congrats on starting your edits on what I am assuming is your next project, The Secret of the Unicorn‎. I remember probably five years ago now, when I was a wee editor, I rewrote the Synopsis of this article and you promptly rewrote my rewrite (as mine was too long and nothing but OR). You then went on to greatly improve the whole article, completely intimidating me. We had a discussion about it then (our first); I learned from you then to always keep my synopsis short. I don't believe you were into GAs back then so I applaud you if you are heading in that direction now. Having said that, I will give you a tip I picked up about Mr. Jackson's and Mr. Spielberg's next project which is supposed to be out late 2015: I distinctly remember them telling an interviewer that they couldn't disclose the title of the next Tintin film, but did say, "We know which books we’re making, we can’t share that now, but we’re combining two books which were always intended to be combined by Hergé." (only one example of this quote) I think that means that we almost certainly know which two books are about to be adapted, and which two books are bound to need improvements by then. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, yes I'm going to go for GA over at The Secret of the Unicorn. I've been away from the Tintin articles for far too long (mostly focusing on archaeology and esotericism-themed articles), so hopefully I can make up for lost time over the coming months. Yes, I never used to see the point of GA or FA, but then again, when I was a novice editor I didn't even see the point of having referencing (I've learned an awful lot over the last decade). The longer that we spend as Wikipedia editors, the more we learn, or at least that is how I feel. Only earlier this month I ended up learning a lot about WP:BLP regulations through my work at Death of Leelah Alcorn, which I had previously known next-to-nothing about.

My guess would be that Seven Crystal Balls-Prisoners will be the basis for the new film (and I hope so, because those are among my favourite stories in the series), although going just from those quotes then I suppose that it could also be the moon adventure (I hope not, I've never found that one very interesting) or the "Tintin in the Orient" arc (not sure how that would work as a single film). If that is the case then we should ensure that the Incan adventure is brought up to scratch (i.e. GA) before the year is out, which I am confident that we are more than capable of achieving. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. The Seven Crystal Balls-Prisoners of the Sun, with the title "Prisoners of the Sun", will almost certainly be the next Tintin movie. And what an exciting movie that will be, when the solar eclipse is halted by our hero Connecticut Yankee-style. Yes indeed, those two articles must be ready. I'm working on a couple of other projects now but really need to return to the Tintin (character) article, then of course I would eagerly help you tackle perhaps one of the two articles for those books. I'm afraid we don't have until the end of the year, as the title for the movie is bound to be announced any time now of course, and guess what people will start to do the moment that it does. I would even venture to say we should consider dropping everything and getting this settled. Prhartcom (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I shall endeavour to have both Secret of the Unicorn and Red Rackham's Treasure done by the end of this weekend, and then shall move on to the Peruvian adventure next week. How does that sound ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My gosh, you are prolific in the extreme (as I have always said about you). That would be wonderful. I think I may drop my current GAN and get busy on whichever of the two books you don't start on first, if you have no objection. Prhartcom (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I won't send anything (i.e. Secrets or Red Rackham) off for GAN until you give me the go ahead, either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've basically exhausted my source material when it comes to The Secret of the Unicorn, so if at some point you have the opportunity to give that one a read through, it would be useful, and then if we're both happy with it it can be sent off to GAN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have just finished giving it the once over. It was very good; there were long passages with no errors that I could see. The plot had plenty of problems but I believe I fixed them all, and the Adaptation section had been copied in from The Shooting Star without making a single change; that was also corrected. I believe I will give it another read-through tomorrow but right now I think it is ready to be nominiated. Which of the two books we were discussing above are you interested in taking on? Prhartcom (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I've just realised that I didn't respond to this one (I think that I was authoring it when my computer crashed earlier). I have sent Secret of the Unicorn to GAN, but who knows how long it'll have to wait there (not that there's any rush). I've found that most of the sources dealing with Seven/Prisoners discuss them together, and often provide information pertinent to them both, so I've just been adding information to both articles simultaneously rather than treating them separately. However, feel free to butt in and correct or improve my prose at any point, as I know that a lot of it isn't up to scratch yet. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, Midnightblueowl; I have just completed proofreading Red Rackham's Treasure, as you requested; thank-you. Just to point out a few things: We can't ever use the encyclopedic term "Tintinologist", a word used only in marketing materials and not by reliable sources. Please go easy on the clichéd "revolves around" phrase; once per article is quite enough. I changed a few of the critics "asserted" their points to a different euphemism since it was being used repeatedly. As primary references in a plot synopsis are not necessary, perhaps only these few references at the end of the paragraph are more appropriate. I improved the plot summary mostly by telling the last few pages of the story and to tie this story better into the previous story. Other than these and a few minor fixes, once again there were actually very few mistakes in this article. I believe you can submit it for GA. Prhartcom (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: I re-read both books in this two-part story and they still look good; well-done. I wanted to pass on some advice I took from Neelix when he was reviewing Tintin in Tibet: He suggested that the tense of the Critical analysis section be changed from past to present tense. I understood what he was explaining: Artists and their critics may have written their piece yesterday, but their work speaks today. This writing practice tends to avoid passive voice and lends to reading that feels more alive, while still keeping the required encyclopedic style. (An exception would be a direct quote in the section; the interview occurred in the past.) I have not made the tense corrections to these sections; I am interested in hearing what you think about this first. (Side note: Neelix gave me about thirty suggestions on that article and I believe I accepted all of them but one. In other words, I greatly respected and reality-checked each piece of his advice. This one that I am passing on to you was like almost all of his advice: excellent.) Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like an apt proposal; I am happy to see the prose in the "Critical Analysis" sections of the articles switched to present tense. On a related note, I've yet to send Red Rackham's Treasure to GAN as I am a little unsure about some of the references; we have two citations to a French-language book without any page numbers, and I don't think it can pass GAN (or at least, a thorough GAN) without that corrected. I don't have access to this particular tome, and even if I did, I cannot read French, so I am wondering as to whether it might be worth removing those references altogether, or seeing if we can find a decent replacement ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up. I went to the trouble of changing the referencing style of that source to the cite book style used consistently and only at the very end of that process realised that there was no page number. I must admit that at that point I just hoped no one would notice. I would be able to read the source if it were in front of me (barely) but that will never happen: the book is sold only in Belguim, probably only at the Musée Hergé. Since it is in low distribution I began heavily leaning heavily towards leaving it out. However, I considered one more possibility: asking the editor who added the information to find the page number for us. I used WikiBlame to determine the editor is a fellow named Marktreut who added it five years ago and has not been active on Wikipedia since. I notice everything else that editor added has been excised, therefore, I think you can guess where I am heading with this: Cut it.

I'd be glad to help you take a look at modifying the tense in the Critical analysis sections.Prhartcom (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I nearly forgot: The article had two missing references that you may have intended to get back to: the The Daily Telegraph 2011 and Ubisoft 2011. I added the missing references. I located an appropriate article in The Daily Telegraph written by reporter Michael Farr. The Ubisoft reference did not exist so I changed to a different source. Prhartcom (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This one is more fun conversational rather than strictly business: I wanted to acknowledge that I was impressed when you said you recently learned to write articles that have BLP concerns, and that I agree that sounds interesting and useful. I have even just finished writing an article that was just promoted to GA that has one area that could very well be infringing upon BLP and was wondering if I should ask you about it.

But first, pivoting from that, I too have been learning areas of Wikipedia that had not been crystal clear before and one of those I recently learned was writing articles that have primary source concerns. I spotted that the Ubisoft reference to the Tintin game in the Red Rackham article would have been published by the Ubisoft company, the game publisher, and therefore would have been reference to a primary source. That was one reason I looked instead for an industry magazine discussing the title in order to find reference to a secondary source. It's fun to learn any new knowledge about Wikipedia.

Pivoting again, I also learned something about editors who think Wikipedia is a battleground, but that is another story. Prhartcom (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have improved the Synopsis and Adaptation sections plus made other small improvements to The Seven Crystal Balls and Prisoners of the Sun. Would you please look to the top of the References section where I have left some temporary {{sfn}} templates there for you? These are of the authors you have not yet used in the article (but that I know you intend to). Please take inline refs from here then delete when done. Cheers, Prhartcom (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom:, that's great, thank you. Have send Red Rackham to GAN then will turn my attention to finishing off Seven Crystal Balls when I get the chance. Best for now! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Tintin in the Congo TFA tomorrow. Prhartcom (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh my. What a day monitoring this TFA. The worst was having to tell an editor WP:NOBLE. ;-) Prhartcom (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I've just seen what you mean... oh dear oh dear. I'll pop over and lend my support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ha, it's okay, my dear Midnightblueowl, (be sure not to rouse that guy, he's already calmed down)—You never asked for this one today and I have taken care of it; besides in only a few minutes the day will be over. ;-) Prhartcom (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a wonderful job as always for the two latest Tintin book articles. Saved the most fun (Apostolidès) for last of course. ;-) Prhartcom (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Prhartcom. Yes, I tend to leave both Apostolides and McCarthy to last. I don't know if that's because it's most convenient to put them in last or because I put off the chore of reading those two books to the very end ! Psychoanalysis and literary criticism are two disciplines that I'll never get my head around, I'm afraid. I want to make some more additions to the publication history of those two articles before sending them off to GAN; in the meantime, make any revisions that you see fit! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: I think it's about time to send Seven Crystal Balls to GAN, if you're happy with that course of action ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads up; I actually just started someone's GA review so my attention has been elsewhere; please give me the weekend to take a good look at it. Cheers to another success, Prhartcom (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ready now; quite a few corrections and improvements were made, not only to this one but I am happy to say also to a few others for consistency purposes (view the differences to see if you approve). Prhartcom (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested Move discussion

There is a Requested Move (article rename) discussion that you may be interested in at Talk:The Adventures of Tintin (film)/Archives/2021/December#Requested move 30 January 2015. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

DMY discussion

There is a DMY vs MDY discussion that you may be interested in at Talk:The Adventures of Tintin (film)#The article uses European date formats.. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Secret of the Unicorn

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Secret of the Unicorn you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The Secret of the Unicorn

I have another book besides Farr's one. It is called "The Adventures of Tintin at Sea" by Yves Horeau. It describes that Red Rackham was also based on the character, Lerouge, who apears in C. S. Forester's novel, The Captain from Connecticut, probably also explains why he is called Rackham le Rouge in the book's French version. Rackham's outfit is also inspired mainly by Daniel Montbars, better known as Montbars the Exterminator. Page number 39 of the book. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 16:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I wish I had that book. I mentioned it on the main article, The Adventures of Tintin. Prhartcom (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ssven2 - I'd forgotten about that book. I actually have a copy of it knocking about somewhere, which I purchased when I visited the original Greenwich exhibit. I'll look into it. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Secret of the Unicorn

The article The Secret of the Unicorn you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Secret of the Unicorn for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Tintin 21

Can you help me in further expanding The Castafiore Emerald? I have expanded the article using Farr's books. The Assouline and Thompson references are from the Google book previews. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 10:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sven; I'll try and get around to it after completing my work on The Seven Crystal Balls/Prisoners of the Sun - best for now! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It needs some work as I'm sure Ssven2 would agree (it's not always written in a neutral voice and it needs WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE) but it's a good start, it's a big improvement over what was previously there, and should be commended for that. I'm sure Midnightblueowl will get to it in the order she prefers. FYI, the Thompson pages that are online are of the newer paperback printing that has completely different page numbers; these will need to be changed to the page numbers of the hardback (I own both copies and perhaps can do this myself later). Prhartcom (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leo Martello, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patricia Crowther. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

Yes, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well: know a TinTin (and cartoon) scholar, shared it with him, will see if he has any thoughts :) Sadads (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ssven2, and also Sadads and Gerda Arendt. Your comments are much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from the scholar via Facebook: "In general, the Wikipedia entries on all of the Tintin volumes are remarkably good. I skimmed this one just now, and apart from the watering down of points that often takes place in consensus prose, this look good. I'd like to see more on the recent debates about whether the book should have a warning sticker on it, but there's stuff here that I didn't know, and the writers' knowledge of the French scholarship is more than surface." The article definitely holds up :) Keep up the great work! We definitely need more strong, and nuanced, coverage of humanities topics. Sadads (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's great Sadads, thank you. If there were more reliable sources discussing the issues surrounding warning stickers, then we'd definitely be able to include that here, so if the scholar (or yourself) did come across any such sources then please do let myself or User:Prhartcom know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Red Rackham's Treasure

Would you like me to review Red Rackham's Treasure? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 16:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ssven2, and thanks for your offer. According to the instructions for undertaking a GAN, a nomination may be "reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article". I see that you have made a number of edits to the Red Rackham's Treasure article recently, but I'm not sure what constitutes "significantly" in this context. However, if you feel a desire to undertake the review then I certainly won't complain. All the best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what I thought and decided to ask you before taking up the GAR. Well, can I do the GAR for The Seven Crystal Balls as I haven't made any contributions to that article? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 06:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, if you want, you can ask User:Jaguar to review Red Rackham's Treasure. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no rush on my behalf, but if they would be interested in reviewing it then that would be fine with me, @Ssven2:. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

For your work on the Talbot Mundy article

		The Literary Barnstar
		For your work on the Talbot Mundy article Ian.thomson (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Ian, I hope to expand and improve the article with other reliable sources over the coming weeks, with the intent of getting it to GA status in the near future. All the best! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Uncle David FAC

Do you plan to respond to my remaining comments at your Uncle David FAC? More than a week has passed since I made them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just logged on and seen this message User:Cwmhiraeth, so I'll get to this immediately! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Flag Fen tools.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Flag Fen tools.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 17:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Flag Fen weaponry.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Flag Fen weaponry.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 17:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Flag Fen Centre.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Flag Fen Centre.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 17:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Bromley H.G. Wells mural.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bromley H.G. Wells mural.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 16:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Map of Avebury.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Map of Avebury.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Flag Fen centre and sheep.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Flag Fen centre and sheep.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Spong Hill.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Spong Hill.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Flag Fen trackway part (2).jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Flag Fen trackway part (2).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Flag Fen roundhouse door (2).jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Flag Fen roundhouse door (2).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Antony's Meltdown at the Southbank.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Antony's Meltdown at the Southbank.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kelly ^hi! 21:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Agatha Christie books.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Agatha Christie books.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Seven Crystal Balls

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Seven Crystal Balls you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Seven Crystal Balls

The article The Seven Crystal Balls you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Seven Crystal Balls for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	In recognition of your work for The Seven Crystal Balls. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for undertaking the review and for the award, Ssven2! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Prisoners of the Sun

So, are you ready with it? — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel that I am broadly finished with it for the present, although will let Prhartcom take a look before sending it off to GAN. I wonder if it should perhaps contain information on the foundation and development of Tintin magazine, or whether that would be superfluous in this instance ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Midnightblueowl, I will take a look at it this weekend (you're the fifth editor I have promised some of my weekend to but this this will be a pleasure). I expect it to be in good shape as always. The Tintin magazine article certainly needs expansion from the reliable sources we have; I will let you know later how the weight re: the magazine looks for Sun, but I believe the treatment you gave for The Seven Crystal Balls for this was the right amount. I see the article has a sentence on Charles Wiener who Ssven2 said Farr mentioned; that's good. BTW, I suppose we are encroaching on you a bit, sorry, but I am working on an article for the Carreidas 160 to be followed by an improvement of Flight 714 and I know Ssven2 has finished The Castafiore Emerald which I plan to add the other sources to and he is also working on The Calculus Affair. Cheers for now; I will let you know in two days when I am finished with Sun, and congrats again on another accomplishment. Prhartcom (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no rush at all on my behalf, so don't feel that you must get it done at the weekend if you have other commitments; it really can wait. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That's true, this is your statement always. Thank-you. I may take you up on that or I may look anyway. Prhartcom (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: any thought on sending Prisoners to GAN ? As always, no rush! Hope you had a good weekend, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, Midnightblueowl; you should be my first choice, but I have been doing some work for others (including an editor whom the two of us are submitting a FAC together as well as editor Ssven2 who has an enormous article up for FAC). I will finish up with those and try to look at it later this evening. I see the other prolific work you are doing but haven't read them yet (I assume Black Gold will mention the false start it had). I also had prepared some text for Emerald offline that I had been planning to insert but got delayed. And I have my eye on Flight 714. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Honestly no rush; good luck with the other projects! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I am finished with my editing for now. However, the article features hardly any research from Phillipe Goddin who, being a fellow countryman, has always been the premiere expert on the subject of Tintin. This is a problem. Could you please consider going back and reading Goddin 2009 pages 157–183 and adding some references from there. Prhartcom (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Good idea - thanks for the feedback Prhartcom! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Every time one of the reference books mentions a fact mentioned by another reference book, both/all three/etc. should be there in the citation. We also need mention of his work exhaustion/playing hooky: probably one sentence, probably right before "To lessen his workload". There are many other tidbits I came across in the sources that are not in the article but I believe your sense of balance on what to add and what to omit has been fairly good (most days). ;-) Prhartcom (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Pretty please, can we not give Apostolidès' psychoanalysis undue weight by giving it an image caption? Please let's just keep it in the text. You know I will defend his statements in the article to the end of the earth. Prhartcom (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not personally convinced by Apostolidès' claims by any means, but truthfully, I'm not sure that it is Wikipedia:Undue weight by including this image. After all, it is just an image; it is not as if Apostolidès' suggestion is being propagated in the lede, or repeated again and again, or anything like that. Further, it is an aesthetically nice image, working well in the article itself, and also conveys visual information regarding Hergé's own visual style, for instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh the image is beautiful, wonderful job adding that. I asked for a different caption. Of course we're not convinced by his claims, neither is he; it was all just an exercise for him. I'm convinced that the creator of the image did not have such motivations. I may change it myself then if you don't get around to it. I owe you the honor of running it by you first. Prhartcom (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the caption being changed; do you have any suggestions for alternatives ? Perhaps something along the lines of "The dream sequence has attracted critical attention" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Done; quite a few corrections and improvements were made. Prhartcom (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Museum of Witchcraft and Magic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castletown. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Red Rackham's Treasure

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Red Rackham's Treasure you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

All the best for Red Rackham's Treasure's GA. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ssven2; I hope to be able to help you with The Castafiore Emerald in the coming days. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Red Rackham's Treasure

The article Red Rackham's Treasure you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Red Rackham's Treasure for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Land of Black Gold

added a link pointing to Chatterbox

Talbot Mundy

added a link pointing to Western Front

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prisoners of the Sun

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Prisoners of the Sun you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prisoners of the Sun

The article Prisoners of the Sun you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Prisoners of the Sun for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

It's about time! After all that burning the midnight oil, you may need to avoid this... but it tastes so good.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Crisco 1492! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for You!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Prisoners of the Sun to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work!  — ₳aron 21:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ₳aron! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Land of Black Gold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Methuen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Addington Long Barrow

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Addington Long Barrow you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/George Pickingill/archive1

In case you haven't seen it. No hurry, of course! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Josh; as it was I was completely unaware that anyone had posted on the peer review yet, so I appreciate you letting me know. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fidel Castro

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fidel Castro you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Addington Long Barrow

The article Addington Long Barrow you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Addington Long Barrow for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I did indeed find it interesting, it's a lovely article and a good read. I hope that the next time I'm accused of being a misogynist you might consider coming to my aid? ;-) Eric Corbett 20:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

N Griffin

I removed your edit to N Griffin with this comment

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=652226445&oldid=652219874

open to discussion

Govindaharihari (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Govindaharihari; looking over the edit, I understand why you made the reversion. Although I have quite a bit of experience with articles about politicians (i.e. Ken Livingstone, Nelson Mandela, Evo Morales), I'm not a specialist on the British far-right and thus don't have ready access to academic studies on the subject, in which I am confident one would find an analysis of Griffin's personal ideological position. I think it is important that we do describe Griffin's ideological position in the lede, but I agree that without a firm reference then it probably would not be appropriate. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Good for you, I did a search and Griffin's primary ideology wasn't described as what is contained in wikipedia's white nationalist article. Good luck to you Govindaharihari (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Flight 714

Hi Midnightblueowl. Can you please leave Flight 714 to me? I see you are tinkering with it, however, I have been working on it in my sandbox here (although external issues have prevented me from finishing it in a timely manner). If you didn't hear, I completed this article while constructing the sandbox Flight 714 article, but then learned that it cannot exist and must be merged with my sandbox article. I will have it up eventually, I just need some time. Thanks for understanding. And good work on the latest Tintin articles; I have seen you working on them but haven't read them yet; I will edit them for you if you wish; feel free to let me know when you believe they are ready. As always, best wishes and cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Prhartcom; yes I am just tinkering and pottering with various Tintin articles at present, hoping to get as much done as possible before my time constraints get a lot tighter in a month or so. I wasn't aware that you had a Flight 714 sandbox going (I vaguely mentioning you saying that you wanted to work on that article though), so I'll avoid putting much into that article right now. Do you have copies of McCarthy and Apostolides ? I wasn't sure if you did, but I could add information from those to the Flight 714 article in the meantime. Anyway, good luck! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have them. Yes, as those two are the hardest to do, you are welcome to do them. When I finally get the article up I will have to incorporate that. When I finish the article, of course I will need you to edit my work before I submit it. Glad to hear you have some free time; that is what I don't have at the moment, but naturally I take time where necessary. Wish me luck, and Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick update from me: I am still busy and still have almost no time for Wikipedia so I must put off this task even further, but I see you are doing well on all the other articles; I haven't had time to read them but will soon. Best wishes and talk to you later. Prhartcom (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Prisoners of the Sun

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Mortimer Wheeler

Midnightblueowl, you can also add a few references to him being mentioned in film or television. Here is a book on Shah Rukh Khan which states that in of his films, Hey Ram, his character was an employee of Wheeler. Page 111 of the book. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 15:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ssven2; thank you very much for that, it's very interesting and I had no idea about it. Unfortunately the book isn't accessible where I am (perhaps access to it on Google Books differs depending on where in the world one is), so do you know the page number on which this information is included ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It is on Page 111 of the book. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you; I'll look into integrating it into the Wheeler article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've looked into the situation and found that unfortunately, this information cannot be used with the supplied reference. The book itself consists of a collection of Wikipedia articles on the same subject bunched together, and it is against Wikipedia policy to cite itself as a reference. It just wouldn't count as a reliable source. But thanks for the suggestion anyway, Ssven2. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That's alright. I have found this book instead. Page number 271. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 15:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ssven2; I was adding the information and then realised that you had already done so! (And your wording was better than mine). Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Intro to Pagan Studies.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Intro to Pagan Studies.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tintin and Alph-Art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transcript. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Greek religion

Template:Greek religion has been nominated for merging with Template:Ancient Greek religion navbox. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Boris Johnson

added a link pointing to Party line

Tintin and the Picaros

added a link pointing to Methuen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Charles Lethbridge

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas Charles Lethbridge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The Shooting Star

Here is a reference that might interest you. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ssven2! I hadn't seen this. Maybe information from it could be incorporated into The Shooting Star article ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Added using this source as The Hindu states it was happening. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Boris Johnson

added a link pointing to John Bryant

Victor Henry Anderson

added a link pointing to Aura

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Midnightblueowl. You have new messages at Talk:Taunton by-election, 1754/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Harrias ^talk 12:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for You!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Fidel Castro to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work!  — ₳aron 19:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review this article ₳aron; it is appreciated - as is the barnstar! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fidel Castro

The article Fidel Castro you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fidel Castro for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dorset Ooser page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For bringing the Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro to GA. Well done! — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Charles Lethbridge

The article Thomas Charles Lethbridge you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Thomas Charles Lethbridge for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've listed Lethbridge in the Archaeology and archaeologists section, but if you think he'd fit better elsewhere then feel free to move him. Eric Corbett 17:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Enthiran promoted to FA

Happy to inform you that Enthiran is promoted. My first FA success! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations Ssven2; well done! Regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Fidel Castro

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Charles Lethbridge

The article Thomas Charles Lethbridge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas Charles Lethbridge for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:German Reich

Template:German Reich has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GermanJoe (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dorset Ooser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brut. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Pickingill

If you don't get anywhere with deadfamilies.com, I think you should consider cutting that information and resubmitting to FAC. It would still be a very high quality article, and I for one would expect to support it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a difficult one, Mike - I feel that the article would lose a lot of quite important detail (all of the biographical detail, really), were that source to be removed. I think that I'll probably leave it a year or so and then maybe see what happens. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to do anything about it myself, but ... you know, if it's not an RS, we really should go ahead and remove it. If you try it again in a year, you know people will just look at the old FAC and ask the same question again. I think you should grit your teeth, accept that it's not an RS, and go ahead with removing it, and get yourself another bronze star. I know it hurts to cut out material you spent a lot of time on, but I think it's the right thing to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rafael Correa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page We're Not Gonna Take It. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Margaret Murray may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the [[The Blitz|Blitz]] of London by moving to Cambridge, where she volunteered for a group (probably either the [[Army Bureau of Current Affairs]] or [[Royal Army Educational Corps|The
• : {{cite book| title=Imagining the Pagan Past: Gods and Goddesses in Literature and History Since the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dorset Ooser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marlborough. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Margaret Murray

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Margaret Murray you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Margaret Murray

The article Margaret Murray you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Margaret Murray for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dorset Ooser

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dorset Ooser you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Huge shakeup in the world of Tintin

Hi Midnightblueowl, hope you are well. Interesting news about the Hergé Foundation (Moulinsart) came out yesterday. Read the section "Rights issue" in that article. This is bad news for Nick and Fanny Rodwell (whom the Tintin community has never much liked). I will keep watching for further developments. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on the UKIP page

With all due respect. The fact is, you should be following the references already existing on the page. The edits and attitudes you have suggested go in direct conflict with already existing references such as the following:

"Aylott, Nicholas; Magnus Blomgren; Torbjorn Bergman (18 February 2013). Political Parties in Multi-Level Polities: The Nordic Countries Compared. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 2009. ISBN 978-0230243736."

Sumarising UKIP as being a "moderate Right Wing party".

You have provided no impartial or reasoned reference to label UKIP as being a "radical right populist" party. As for your claim about "a very clear consensus among political scientists that that is exactly what ("radical right") they are. I await a reference or example of such. Even the BBC, staunch haters of UKIP refer to them as a "right wing party", so I feel your own opinion is influencing what you are posting with regards to the party.

You go on to reference UKIP as being of "civil nationalism". Do you mean 'Civic Nationalism'?

You make note of a "anti-immigration rhetoric". UKIP aren't "anti-immigrant". They are anti-unlimited open door immigration. So please don't conflate the two. Steven Woolfe, UKIP's immigration spokesperson has on multiple occasions highlighted UKIP's stance on immigration, however you don't seem to be aware of this and so I shall provide you with a link to enlighten you... [[1]]

I'm not sure I understand the "social conservative policies" line as more and more UKIP policies have been announced as being a mixture of social conservatism, social progressivism and even some policies such as stances toward the NHS and state owned businesses have a flavour of socialism. This attempted thrusting of politically misleading rhetoric upon UKIP such as "radical" or "extreme" is getting tiresome and does not match reality so I will edit it wherever I see it and continue to do so.

It's ironic that you accuse me of pushing my own opinions and interpretations of the party, when you haven't provided any references to justify your own opinions which I must say, outside the EU and USA press doesn't have any relevance in reality.

I have removed unreferenced, unverified or inaccurate data. You seem quite comfortable with negative unreferenced information being added, but when it is removed you take issue and claim people are adding their own opinions? Baffling. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2015 (GMT)

Dear RoverTheBendInSussex. I'm sorry that you feel that my edits to the UKIP article have in some way been disruptive. However, you make accusations against me such as "You seem quite comfortable with negative unreferenced information being added" which are utterly, entirely untrue and derogatory, so in some respects I am unsure how precisely I should respond. As you note on your own user page, you are a self-professed supporter of UKIP, and that's fine – I welcome the perspective and input of UKIP members and supporters at the UKIP page, and you yourself have certainly made some constructive edits there. However, UKIP sources (and the WP:Original research of UKIP supporters themselves) are not necessarily WP:Reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, whereas the publications of academics in peer-reviewed outlets are. That is why in almost all of my edits I have emphasised the inclusion of information taken from such sources. In doing so, I am trying to improve the quality of the article, and note that most editors have been supportive, and indeed protective of most of my inclusions. I don't have the time to go through and respond to each and every one of the points that you raise, but hope that you will accept my declaration that I am honestly not motivated by a malicious anti-UKIP bias but simply wish to improve this article with reference to all academic sources. 11:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, thank you for the reference to the Aylott, Blomgren, and Bergman book, but having searched through the volume on Google Books I can find no reference to UKIP at all within it; your statement that this mention can be found on p. 2009 is erroneous, given that the book is not even that long. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dorset Ooser

The article Dorset Ooser you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dorset Ooser for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Esotericism merger

Hey, I see the point of a merger, but non-Western esoteric traditions do exist (Tantra and other Buddhist traditions, for example), so if a merger takes place, it should be to the wider-scoped article. Also: this concerns two well-established articles. Not a good candidate for the quick-merge scenario described in WP:Merge, which gives the example of two stubs on the same theme. Let's discuss possible alternatives, however! HGilbert (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi HGilbert; thanks for your message. I can see why you reverted the change, although I do take a different perspective and will probably follow it up with a proposed merger in the next few days. As for the main argument against the merger, I respectively disagree: the use of the term "esotericism" in reference to Asian religious traditions like Tantra, Vajrayana, and Sufism is not particularly common in academic discourse, and in each case is not precise either. (In fact it's more common within some esoteric traditions themselves, which seek to project a universalist view about 'universal spiritual truths' and the like). Furthermore, academics like Antoine Faivre and Wouter Hanegraaff have been very clear in stating that there is no esotericism other than Western esotericism; that it is a purely Western phenomenon and that it cannot exist in other cultural contexts unless it has been imported into them from the West. Anyway, we can discuss this further when I propose the merger, hopefully. Have a good weekend! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow; I didn't realize how strongly Faivre and Hanegraaf have positioned themselves on this. Do you know where they have written this, by any chance?

Have a good weekend, yourself! HGilbert (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hgilbert: For Faivre, see pages 6 and 17 of Access to Western Esotericism (I can be so precise because I added that to the Western esotericism article only yesterday) and for Hanegraaff... well I'll have to get back to you on that as I can't find my copies of his work at this moment in time. They're probably somewhere at the bottom of one of my various piles of books. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, but Faivre hems this assertion in with so many conditions, and mentions explicitly enough possible exceptions or borderline situations, that this is a very weak linchpin. Indeed, in his "Introduction" to Modern Esoteric Spirituality Faivre gives way and starts referring to "Western esotericism", indicating that he needs to specify this as a type.

Anyway, there are a host of reliable sources on Buddhist esotericism,books, e.g. Indian Esoteric Buddhism and I'm afraid that this plethora must far outweigh Faivre, who is not an expert on Buddhism (nor is Hanegraaf). HGilbert (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hgilbert: I don't deny that "esotericism" is sometimes used in other contexts (including to refer to certain forms of Buddhism) but I would maintain that in these contexts it is a distinct phenomena from Western esotericism. These are different things that just have the same (Western) word applied to them. Thus, while I can appreciate your reasoning for opposing a merger between "Esotericism" and "Western esotericism" I do still believe that we have to do something radical with the "Esotericism" page; for instance, perhaps it would work better as a disambiguation page ? As it stands it appears to be claiming that there is a universal esotericism that is identifiable in different cultural and historical contexts while (from a scholarly perspective) this simply isn't the case. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mick Aston

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mick Aston you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Evo Morales

You had to wait seven months for someone to tick off this fabulous article at GA? Oh my goodness. Patience of a saint. Anyway, it was great and I'm sorry I don't have more feedback except to say congratulations. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess that seven months is my punishment for writing long articles about politicians in small, obscure Latin American countries to start with, :p ! But on a more serious note, thank you very much for your review hamiltonstone; I hope that you enjoyed reading the article and learned some interesting things in the process. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mick Aston

The article Mick Aston you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mick Aston for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Tintin article

Hi there. It's been quite a while. Do let me know if there's any Tintin article ready for GAN. I'll be happy to review it. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 10:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ssven2; hope that everything's good with you! I'll make a few extra additions to Land of Black Gold later today and then nominate it for GA tonight; does that sound acceptable? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good. My exams went well. They have finished just day before yesterday. I am having my semester break now. Land of Black Gold looks good at first glance. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 10:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi to both of you; just checking to see if you noticed the Tintin news I added above a few weeks ago. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: Ah yes, the "Rights issue" with the Tintin fan clubs and Fanny Rodwell (formerly Vlamynck). That's indeed big news. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

So rarely does any actual news occur in l'monde de Tintin. We're basically history buffs. Prhartcom (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Land of Black Gold

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Land of Black Gold you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Land of Black Gold

The article Land of Black Gold you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Land of Black Gold for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hoodening, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Dwayne's murder

I didn't know exactly how to put my comments into your other two reviews and so I hope it is not confusing. If it is, just ignore them. I do not write articles or edit if I am too close to the parties involved so I would rather just supply sources. I supplied a bunch for Maurice's article which needs work, and I told him not to edit it anymore. But I do not feel as if I can edit it as am too close to the source. Your article is well written and I wish you well with FA status. SusunW (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, SusunW, they are much appreciated. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. If nothing else, the gully queen pieces will give you background and context. SusunW (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think maybe you misunderstood my first comment in the review. I truly think you have done a masterful job in keeping it neutral and trying to respect where Dwayne may have been in the journey of life. I only gave you those articles because someone had asked if there were articles that specifically stated sex and gender. More important than those two in my mind were the one about Dwayne's House and the two about Gully Queens. Everyone (okay, well most people anyway) in Jamaica knows what that means, but since neither you nor the reviewer did, I thought you might want to add a bit of background to the article to clarify for other readers. SusunW (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes I did misunderstand that first comment; thanks for clearing things up. Again; thanks for your comments. If you felt able to offer support for the article receiving FA status then that would be appreciated but there is certainly no pressure on you to do so. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Waiting for the protection to come off UKIP and then immediately instituted changes which not only do not have consensus but have been disputed is disruptive. Please use the talk page to get agreement BEFORE you make any more changes. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Snowded. Truthfully, I am a little upset and off-put by the characterisation of my recent contributions to the UK Independence Party page as "disruptive edits". While I can admit that one of my edits might be construed as being a tad controversial given that I had not secured consensus on said additions, the majority were clearly in no way disruptive. I mean, look in more depth at what these edits actually were: correcting a punctuation error, removing the totally unsourced claim that UKIP were "British nationalists" (which has already been discussed on the talk page), and adding additional information from reliable academic sources discussing UKIP. On the whole, this was constructive stuff, and I maintain that that I was being bold, not disruptive. Given that this is the case, I feel that your mass revert of all of my 11 July edits was a really rather disproportionate and extreme response, particularly taking in mind the many constructive contributions that I have made to the article in the past (for instance, by incorporating all of the Ford and Goodwin references). If you had reverted say, one or two of my edits, that would have been understandable, but I really don’t think that a mass revert of the sort that you undertook added anything at all. Anyway, I hope that this particular disagreement can be put behind us and we can both get on with improving the quality of the article in question. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the page was protected to force consensus before editing. You made changes which you knew full well were contested and for which there was no consensus as soon as the page was released. Black Kite, who is an experienced admin concurred if you read the comments. I know a few admins who would not just have commented but would have given you a warning block. If you had just made uncontroversial edits and ones for which there was consensus, not just a vote, then a mass revert would not have been necessary. You set that up by the actions you tool. It is also problematic when you suggest that there is a majority for an edit as you did subsequently. Wikipedia is not a democracy and as a relatively experienced editor you should not be encouraging a group of SPA and/or UKIP focused editors in arguing a case from primary sources. You also lost some good will be that mass series of edits. If I had time I'd hunt around to see if there is any evidence of meat puppetry. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to investigate me for sockpuppetry if you feel the need. I can assure you that you will not find any, however. I don't go in for that sort of shady business. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mention sock puppetry, I think there is some meat puppetry and I would expect you as an experienced editor to be aware of that possibility and not encourage new editors from a UKIP background to engage in voting. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought meat puppetry to be a synonym for sockpuppetry, when (as I now know) they are clearly not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit requests

Hello, I have a couple of requests for you regarding your frequent edit requests:

• Please do not use {{edit protected}} until there is consensus for a change. Apart from extremely trivial changes, please consider waiting a day or two for other editors to comment first.
• Could you use a unique heading for each section? This ensures that the section anchors work as intended.

Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing Martin. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hoodening

I've had a play with the image pages- {{Non-free use rationale}} should only be used for non-free images, while {{Information}} should be used for free images. I've also switched the licensing info. While they're definitely PD in the US, there is quite a high bar for claiming that there's no known author; have you checked the original book, for example? In any case, they're definitely free for the English Wikipedia's purposes, but may not be for Commons's. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That's great Josh - thank you ! I will take a closer look at the original book and see if any authors are specified. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I have updated the information on those three images. It seems that they were all produced by the same photographer, or at least all by the same photography shop (H. B. Collis). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If we want to determine whether they're PD in the UK, we would need to find out when Collis died. This page has some details about him, but not a death date (though the page's author may be interested to hear about these photos). If he died before (but not in) 1945, his work would be PD- given that the latest records on that (incomplete!) page show him active before 1920, and given that he would have been in his eighties in 1944, it seems plausible though not certain that this is PD in the UK. We can either make further efforts to seek out a death date or just stick with the "PD in the US, maybe not abroad" claim. I've updated the image pages a bit further. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hoodening

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hoodening you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hoodening

The article Hoodening you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hoodening for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Crowley

In case you missed it: I left you some comments on the Crowley PR. No rush- I just know people miss these things sometimes. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Josh; I actually began working through them about an hour or so ago ! I've had a busy week with very little Wiki time but I hope to make my way through the rest of your comments by the end of the week. All the best! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry; so you did. That was badly-timed... Josh Milburn (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Michell (writer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Newbury, Naturalism and Ian Cameron. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fenrir journal.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fenrir journal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Gay/lesbian/Transgender Issues

I respect your personal lifestyle, but please do not think sexual orientation issues must be featured in a small article on Germanic neopaganism. Pagan opinions on masturbation, heterosexual sexual positions, cross-dressing, bestiality, and necrophilia also do not belong in the article. --ThorLives (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the article talk page,

PROPER PLACE FOR MATERIAL ON SEX AND RELIGION

For editors wishing to discuss sexual issues and religion, please post here:

Religion and sexuality Wikipedia is massive. There is room for everyone.

--ThorLives (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've initiated an RFC. Let's get other editors' opinions in on this, lest we just end up messaging each other back and forth without progressing anywhere. I don't want to see pertinent and important issues swept under the rug simply because one editor doesn't think them particularly relevant, but that being said, I'm certainly open to compromise. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Destination Moon (comics)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Destination Moon (comics) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Awarded for your work and patience on Heathenry-related articles. Keep up the good work! :bloodofox: (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That is very much appreciated :bloodofox:, thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Order of Nine Angles page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Guido von List

added links pointing to Michael Moynihan, Sigil and David Lane

Alexander Rud Mills

added a link pointing to Frigga

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Destination Moon (comics)

The article Destination Moon (comics) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Destination Moon (comics) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

For your work on the Order of Nine Angles article

		The Editor's Barnstar
		A vastly improved article

Coolmoon (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Coolmoon; the barnstar is appreciated. Thank you also for supplementing my approach (rooted in the use of academic sources) with your knowledge of the primary source material produced by the Order, which I think has certainly benefited the article as I have expanded it. Kind regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bhlegkorbh

Hello, Bhlegkorbh. When you change your name, you must also change your mode of operation. Anyway, I must admire your tenacity on this issue. --ThorLives (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not, nor was I ever, Bhlegkorbh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you click the history of the Germanic neopaganism page, or whatever it is called now, you will see that all Bhlegkorbh edits now appear under the name Midnightblueowl. Check back in 2014 and before.

But, as I said before, I admire the cunning. Like you, I study warrior religions, and warrior religions admire such tricks.

You are a British male, correct? Again, I admire the disinformation trick. I think in a different context, we could be friends. --ThorLives (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not Bhlegkorbh, and don't know how on Earth you are coming to this conclusion... Look, you really should stop making these accusations, it's against policy, as I explained on the Talk Page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Temple of Set and Church of Satan articles

May I suggest - given your excellent recent work on the ONA Wikipedia article - that you take a look at the ToS and CoS articles with a view to improving them? The ToS article is particularly sparse given how much has been written about it in recent years by academics. Coolmoon (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Coolmoon: Thank you for your kind words. Both are in my mental 'to do' list and I would like to get around to them at some point. As you can see from my user page, my interests are eclectic, and it may be that I focus my attentions on something non-Satanic in the next few months. I do think that there is a little more that I can do on the ONA article first, and think that when that is done it will make a good GA candidate. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Destination Moon

A small thing which I overlooked during the GAR is the publication dates in the infobox (30 March 1950 – 7 September 1950 / 9 April 1952 – 22 October 1952). I don't see the 1952 serialisation being mentioned in the "Publication" section. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 01:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Thanks for your message, I will look into it - maybe Lofficier and Lofficier have something that we can use. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ssven2: I can't find anything on the 1952 serialisation, so I will remove the claims from the article. If a source comes up in the future then we can always add it back in. Best for now! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Good. BTW, is Explorers on the Moon ready for GA? — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 23:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ssven2 (sorry, I only just saw your message above). I think so, and have nominated the article accordingly. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Its alright. Thanks for notifying me about the article's nomination. I have taken up the GAR.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Versluis

Hi Midnightblueowl. It's time for a page on Arthur Versluis, isn't it? His latest book, American Guru, seems to be very interesting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Joshua, yes I think that that would be a good idea, but we do need reliable sources (which shouldn't be too difficult to find). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I just found that there already is a draft, which was moved from mainspave to userspace. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Guido von List

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Guido von List you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The tag will go back/article is flawed

If you would stop deleting my edits, I could easily fix the Germanic neopagan article. Please consider. No matter how long you "protect" the article with your deletions, think in terms of months and years. It will ultimately be changed by others.--ThorLives (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "protect" the page indefinitely; I – like a number of others – are simply protecting it from recent damage. Now, I've encouraged you to make suggestions for improvement at the Talk Page, ThorLives. Repeatedly. Your opinions are welcome. But I (and quite a few others now) have been challenging your additions because they show a complete disregard for the very underpinning policies of Wikipedia. Basically, what you see as an improvement is clearly being interpreted as damage by many others, myself included, because of the manner in which it violates policies and pushes the article in a potentially NPOV direction. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you should thoroughly familiarise yourself with its policies and its associated jargon, and abide by the restrictions that they place upon you. Furthermore, if you are an academic then I would encourage you to actually publish on the subject of this NRM in a peer-reviewed journal, perhaps on the subject of Heathen afterlife beliefs, and we could then cite that material in the article. That way, real improvements could be made. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have published on the subject. Indeed, the fact that you cannot identify me indicates that you have not mastered the subject. There are not many of us writing in the field.

Although you ignore all advice, your obsession with academics is peculiar. When doing research, an academic is more interested in a statement from Stephen McNallen than a statement from a professor's book. (Snook uses him, even though he expelled her from the Asatru Folk Assembly) Many of Snook's "sources" are anonymous or mot identified, and that makes them questionable. Of course, as I mentioned on the talk page, she is simply interested in politics, so that works for her research. When studying a religion, however, an academic would rather talk to a pope than someone sitting in a pew in Philadelphia.

Your new edits continue the obsession with non-religious issues. Well, the Chinese say, if you want to weaken something, first make it stronger. Eventually, someone else will notice the damage you are doing and I can concentrate on my current book project and my lectures. --ThorLives (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Guido von List

The article Guido von List you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Guido von List for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't let me put you off FAC if that was your plan; others may disagree with me about the German source issue, especially if there's not anything recent. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Explorers on the Moon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Explorers on the Moon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Explorers on the Moon

The article Explorers on the Moon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Explorers on the Moon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Age, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Channeling. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Calculus Affair

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Calculus Affair you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

GAN for the ONA article

As I mentioned in reply to your question on my talk page I'm most happy for you to submit the ONA article - as it is. Coolmoon (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Lansbury

Your work on Angela Lansbury got me thinking that we can collaborate on other actors who are gay icons/gays themselves. Examples would be

• Rock Hudson
• Farley Granger (best known for his work on Alfred Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train and Rope)
• Cary Grant (for his alleged affair with actor Randolph Scott)
• Ian Mckellen

FYI, these are purely suggestions.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ssven2, and thank you for your message. To be honest, while I am more than happy to offer my support for you if you wish to pull these articles up to scratch, I really wouldn't be capable of taking an active role in that process. I find that I've really been devoting too much time to Wikipedia over the past few months (and even years), and accordingly I'm trying to make a concerted effort to cut down on my input. Rather than just abandon the whole thing however I decided to spend the next few weeks and months bringing up all of those articles that I have been working on to GA (and in some cases FA) quality; that means that I want to finish off those Adventures of Tintin articles, as well as a number of articles on political figures, archaeology and Western esotericism that I have already been working on for many months. Thus, I'm really not in a position to take on any new Wikipedia articles at this juncture, but don't let that put you off embarking on said projects yourself! All the best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you said so about finishing your current projects at hand on my talk page. But it would be pretty interesting though (especially Grant). I'm working on Grant myself right here.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It's good to see you using a biography of Grant, Ssven2. Far too often, editors try and built up a page using web articles and similar free sources which, while easy to access, are far from being the best sources available. If one wants to write a Wikipedia biography of an individual, then (I believe) it is very important to gain access to any biographies of them which have been published first. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed very important to get biographies of actors for article expansion (particularly those of Classic Hollywood era actors). It's actually an ebook version which I use on iBooks. The page numbers might be wrong though. But, that can be sorted.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 15:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Calculus Affair

The article The Calculus Affair you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Calculus Affair for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Naughty Morty

Congratulations on getting Sir Mortimer to FA. A job well done. Tim riley talk 06:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Tim; it never would have reached this stage without your help, so thank you! Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

Thank you Ssven2! Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Destination Moon (comics)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ralph Merrifield

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ralph Merrifield you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Glen or Glenda screenshot.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Glen or Glenda screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 20, 2015

Hi Midnightblueowl. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dank: - looks good! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for more on a woman we do not know much about, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Arnold Bax

Hello, Midnight! Following the recent peer review, to which, I am glad to say, you contributed, I have Bax up to FAC. If you have time and inclination to look in, your comments will be most welcome. – Tim riley talk 12:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Howard (Witch), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages West London and Robert Cochrane. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you join this discussion :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi#Deposed ? Thanks D4iNa4 (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Death of Leelah Alcorn

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Death of Leelah Alcorn you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Johanna -- Johanna (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Dwayne Jones

Hi, I just supported your FAC because I supported last time. In order to attract more commenters, I've found that commenting on GANs or FACs and asking for QPQ is a good way. You can also put a message on the LGBT WikiProject talk page, something which has been recommended to me before but I've never done. Best, Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Johanna! I have a feeling that I posted at the LGBT WikiProject talk page last time, but it certainly won't hurt to try. Thanks for the advice, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Red Sea Sharks

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Red Sea Sharks you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Government of Vladimir Lenin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Class war. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sylvester (singer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyde Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Red Sea Sharks

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Red Sea Sharks

The article The Red Sea Sharks you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Red Sea Sharks for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You did it!

Back on after a two-year wikibreak and I'm happy to see you fulfilled your goal of getting Fidel Castro to GA. That must have been quite the job--well done. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Khazar2: what good news to have you back here! And thank you for the 'thank you'; I am currently focusing on trying to get Vladimir Lenin up to GA quality (while expanding related pages like Government of Vladimir Lenin at the same time), and then next year hope to do the same with Mao Zedong, which I had started work on but have neglected for quite some time. Once that is done, I think that I shall probably avoid taking on such 'big articles' as it were, and focus on the smaller projects which are a little more easy to improve. Anyway - it's very good to have you back on board, so welcome! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That's terrific--it'll be a mighty contribution if you can get both of those in. Please feel free to ping me if you need a GA reviewer for either; I'd love to take a look. Good to see you! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, Khazar. Actually, if you had the time and inclination (and there is of course no pressure or expectation), I have Murder of Dwayne Jones over at FAC right now. Given your interest in Human Rights-themed subjects, this one might be of interest to you, and any advice or recommendations on it would of course be appreciated (I wouldn't normally ask fellow editors for input on an FAC, but I'm getting a tad desperate as it is the third time that I have nominated it, and it just keeps failing due to a lack of interest). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

How frustrating. Unfortunately, I'm much too out of practice to give useful feedback on an FAC right now... even in my previous work I rarely ventured there. Otherwise I'd be glad to. Kudos to you for taking this one this far. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Murray

Hi MBO- a nice little article about Murray was published on the Vice website yesterday; if you haven't seen it, it's here. I doubt there will be much in the article to add to the WP article, but perhaps it portrays a slightly different story (the fading into obscurity) than you do in the WP article. If nothing else, though, you might be interested in seeing how she's portrayed in contemporary popular press. Also, I'm pretty certain that the mummy photos will be PD in the US- all you'd have to do is prove a pre-1923 publication (and "publication" can be pretty minor- postcards, leaflets, etc.) While I'm here- the article has a citation error which should be fixed. Note the big red text in the reference list. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Josh Milburn - I'll take a look! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Government of Vladimir Lenin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samara. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wales Green Party

There is a discussion at Talk:Green Party of England and Wales#Should Wales Green Party become a standalone article? to establish if Wales Green Party (which currently redirects to a section inside Green Party of England and Wales) is notable enough to be restored as a standalone article. As you either took part in the AfD, or are a significant contributor to either Wales Green Party or Green Party of England and Wales, you are being contacted to see if you have input to the discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Genesis P-Orridge

added a link pointing to Chaos magick

Government of Vladimir Lenin

added a link pointing to Gramophone

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Heathenry (new religious movement)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Heathenry (new religious movement) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ThorLives -- ThorLives (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

In fact, the rule states that the nomination may be "reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article and is not the nominator." Since you have reversed every edit that I have ever made on the Germanic Neopaganism article, that means I have not "contributed" to it.

After some thought, however, I will desist.

You seem to be someone who travels around wikipedia--completely rewrites articles--and then "nominates" the same articles. I have been objecting to the damage you are doing (you should not rewrite an article unless you have mastered the subject first), but perhaps you are someone who genuinely needs to collect anonymous "awards." --ThorLives (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that you are now undermining other articles. Please master the subject before spreading further mischief. --ThorLives (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That attempt to usurp the GA process to pursue your own views on the subject is almost sufficient to take you to ANI for a topic ban. I suggest you master wikipedia before making any more foolish interventions of that type. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@ThorLives: It would be helpful for people who are not familiar with the article or its talk page discussions (and, to be clear, the GA reviewer will be someone who is unfamiliar with these things- indeed, likely someone who is more or less unfamiliar with the subject matter, given its relative obscurity) if you could summarise, with reference to reliable sources, what your concern with the article is. At this time, based on your comments here and in the GA reviews, your objection seems to be to the authors cited or MBO herself rather than the content of the article or the reliability of the sources. If there is a neutrality problem, this needs to be sorted, but your comments have not been fully illuminating as to what the putative problems are. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Josh; this is actually just the tip of the iceberg in a longstanding disruptive editing problem. I've opened it up to a community discussion here if you were interested in offering any input. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Wheeler and Bluffer's

The metadata are:

The Bluffer's Guide to Archaeology

Bluff Your Way in Archaeology

Author: Bahn, Paul

ISBN-13: 978-1-902825-47-2 (paperback)

Publisher: Oval Books

Publication Date: Apr 1999

978-1-903096-36-9 for revised 2004 edition, 978-1-903096-97-0 for 2007, 978-1-85304-102-0 for 1989 but the latter's only 99% certain the same bookSpiny Norman (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks better now with that at least the allegation has a citation. Of course ideally the book would have in turn named a source. Anyway, that's done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiny Norman (talk • contribs) 12:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Animism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thing. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The noticeboards

You may have guessed that I'm generally not too keen on the use of the administrator noticeboards but, if I could offer two quick pieces of advice: I would strongly advise against publicly trying to read the consensus of a discussion in which you are involved (for example, your closure request seems to do this) and I would certainly advise against describing someone as banned before the discussion has been closed. I appreciate that the processes can be frustratingly slow, but we have to toe the line until they are properly concluded. On a somewhat related note, I'd keep a wary eye open for possible socks. If someone arrives and picks up where the other user has left off, it may be worth a checkuser request, though I admit that that is another process with which I have little experience. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Josh; you are probably right that I was premature in declaring the topic ban already in force. In my eyes, the consensus (eight to one) was pretty clear, and I didn't want to have to wait for weeks for an administrator to take action. I certainly appreciate that they are volunteers like the rest of us, but in my experience administrators can be frustratingly slow to deal with issues, and much of the time avoid taking action that doesn't interest them or which will potentially cause them a lot of trouble from unruly editors. Hence, I took the bull by the horns a little with that one. Regarding socks, I think that I might already have spotted one, but we'll see how that unfolds before I make any public accusations. I've had some recent experience with a sock puppet investigation (although I was not its instigator), and as I understand it, anyone making such an accusation has to have pretty convincing evidence, and quite a lot of it, before an administrator will actually agree to conduct a check user investigation. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please be nice

If possible, could you edit pages rather than attack editors?

If you knew anything about Odinism, you would know Osred is the leader of the Odinic Rite in Australia (Osred Jameson is mentioned in the Odinism article.)

He is also dying of cancer. --Holtj (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can claim to be "Osred" on Wikipedia. It doesn't mean that it's the same person, and even if it is, that wouldn't have given them any right to edit Wikipedia in a manner which contravenes our policies. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Death of Leelah Alcorn

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ásatrú and Heathenry

Hi. I'm getting increasingly annoyed at the edit-warring about these titles. I see that you initiated a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard, accusing another editor of disruptive editing. It seems to me that you are guilty of that yourself. I don't care to get involved in the details of the content of the articles themselves; my concern is that we have consistent disambiguation and navigation.

Heathenry is currently a disambiguation. Is there a broad consensus that Paganism and Heathenry (new religious movement) are two distinct topics, and that neither is the primary topic for "Heathenry"?

It seems your position is that Ásatrú is a synonym for Heathenry, and not a special type or faction of Heathenry. Then perhaps Ásatrú (disambiguation) should be merged into Heathenry (disambiguation)?

Right now the disambiguation of these topics is a mess. How should it be cleaned up? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Midnightblueowl moved page Ásatrú in the United States to Heathenry in the United States: As per RFC concensus decision, at Wikipedia we use "Heathenry" as the name for this religion.

Please link to the RfC that decided this. I would have preferred to see something as obviously contentious as this decided by a WP:requested move. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that it is at all fair of you to accuse me of disruptive editing, Wbm1058. Not fair at all. At times I appreciate that some of my actions probably constituted a minor form of edit warring, granted, and I am wrong for doing that. But please, cut me some slack; I am having to deal with an editor who is not just repeatedly edit warring but who is making personal attacks, going against consensus, using sock puppets to avoid sanctions, and throwing non-reliable information by the bucket load into articles and then doing anything in their power to prevent its removal. This has been going on for months, if not years. They are a participant in this religion and are totally devoted to presenting it in just the way that they want to, and don't care what academics studying the phenomenon have written or what Wikipedia's policies are. I have had to take fairly stern actions to deal with that. So please, if you're going to make an accusation against me, at least provide me with some evidence as to why you think that that is the case. Otherwise such an accusation is just baseless and isn't going to win you much sympathy from me.

As for the question at hand, neither "Asatru" nor "Odinism" are precise synonyms for Heathenry. They are terms used by many Heathens, but they are not exactly precise terms; both are very fuzzy, particularly around the edges. "Asatru" tends to be favoured by Heathens in the U.S., particularly those who venerate deities taken from Old Norse sources, but there are probably exceptions. "Odinism" tends to be used to those Heathens who adopt a racialist approach to the religion, but (as the Heathenry article states) there are also self-described "Odinists" who are not racialists. So while it is only partially true to say that "Asatru" and "Odinism" are synonyms for "Heathenry", it is also only partially true that Asatru and Odinism are distinct groups within the Heathen movement. Having worked with all of the academic sources on this subject matter over the past few months (you can see them all used at the Heathenry article), I think that the obvious option is to have "Odinism" and "Asatru" redirect straight to "Heathenry (new religious movement)". No disambiguation pages are needed. Certain editors (particularly the ThorLives/Holtj sock) will keep trying to change that, because (as other editors have pointed out), they are basically trying to use the Odinism article as a Wp:Coatrack for Heathenry. However, despite their own personal beliefs, the vast majority of users who type in "Asatru" will want to read about Heathenry, not get a disambiguation page.

Oh, and as for the RfC, see here. Granted, it wasn't about the "Asatru in the United States" article specifically, but clearly it set a precedent which should be standardised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"a minor form of edit warring, granted, and I am wrong for doing that". Fair enough, thanks for that.

Take a look at the Ngram. What happened in the early 1990s to make the name Asatru take off? That phenomenon should be explained in an article somewhere. The Google chart seems to put into doubt the idea that Heathenry is the dominant name. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty interesting, thanks for the link. However, it is important that we rely on what the reliable sources say (and that means using the academic studies) rather than conduct original research. Those reliable sources almost all emphasize the use of "Heathenry" as the best catch-all name for the movement. If those sources begin to change their terminology then I'd be more than happy to change the Wikipedia articles accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Although note that if you narrow the time span and add "Heathenism", you get this... Interesting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Though if you change the drop-down to American English (2009), you get drastically different results: American English (2009) I don't understand why the big difference between that and the dropdown for just "American English", but it seems to support the idea that "Asatru" may be the dominant contemporary name in the U.S. I'm guessing that someone started promoting that name in the U.S. around 1993, and if you searched your reliable sources you might find out who. British English (2009) doesn't even find the term "Heathenry". The behavior of Ngrams is sometimes rather curious. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It is possible that the majority of Heathens in the U.S. do favour the term "Asatru"; in fact, from what I have read it wouldn't surprise me. However, "Asatru" is not a term used for the entire Heathen movement. Thus "Asatru in the United States" would have a far smaller coverage than "Heathenry in the United States" would. In the latter, we could talk about all Heathens, whether they describe themselves as "Heathen", "Odinist", "Wotanist", "Asatruer" etc, whereas in the former we could not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's a source that discusses the term in detail (starting at the bottom of p. 196). They mention a Mike Murray of the Ásatrú Alliance – hah! Wikipedia has an article on the topic. Redirect Ásatrú to Ásatrú Alliance? We can't bury that so that someone getting redirected to Heathenry (new religious movement) can't find it. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's Jeffrey Kaplan's chapter. That was actually one of the first sources I used when I was expanding and improving the Heathenry (new religious movement) article. You'll find mention of Murray and the AA in the "Modern development" section of that article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly advise against redirecting Asatru to Ásatrú Alliance; after all, there are various Heathen groups which use "Asatru" in their names. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you are making good arguments above, but in spite of that I reversed your move of Ásatrú in the United States. I also noted here that, unless they !voted while not logged in, ThorLives did not participate in that move discussion. If they had, then the consensus would have been even thinner, 3–2, arguably not a consensus at all. Maybe you can write about the Heathenists in the United States who do not consider themselves to be members of "Asatru", to help clarify the distinctions. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. If and when the ThorLives/Holtj sock puppet is topic banned, I will take the subject of that particular article's name to an RfC. If I do it before then, then it will just be repeatedly disrupted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anton LaVey

added links pointing to James R. Lewis and Rosemary's Baby

LaVeyan Satanism

added a link pointing to Rosemary's Baby

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For persevering through all the socking crap. NeilN talk to me 20:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, thank you NeilN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm really happy to see that this has been resolved; I hope this is the end of it all. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Josh - as do I! I think vigilance will be required however, as I fear that the sock may reappear in future. Moreover, I hope that I never have to deal with an editor in the same way again; it's not been an enjoyable experience. Thankfully however, I hope that this means that the Heathenry themed articles can be really cleaned up and improved to the point of GA/FA quality. That's all I ever wanted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Fancified closes

I noticed your first close, grin. Tip: {{archive top|result=blah blah blah}} puts your closing text in a nice box. The "blah blah blah" can be multiple paragraphs, with wikicode if you like. There's no need for (non-admin close) unless it's a deletion or move discussion, those are special because they often need admin tools to carry out the result. (Non-administrator comment)Alsee (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Alsee! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

I have been making a lot of minor edits to Noam Chomsky lately, and noticed that the sections Work on the media (1976-1989) and Increased political activism (1990-present) are marked as needing expansion. I have actually only recently become a Chomskyan and don't feel like I can do these sections justice--you, on the other hand, appear to be very familiar with him. Would you be able to flesh out these two sections, and then nominate the article to be a featured article? Vrrajkum (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, thanks for all the great work you've done on Wikipedia.

		The Original Barnstar
		For services rendered. Vrrajkum (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, Vrrajkum! I'm happy to help out with any improvements, however it is problematic that we have only one biography devoted to Chomsky that has currently been published. Ideally, we would have at least two biographies from which to draw upon in expanding this article. With regard to the possibility of getting the article to FA status, I would be extremely hesitant at this point. It is really rather difficult to get a complex article such as this to FA and as it stands this article is absolutely nowhere near the quality needed. Indeed, right now it wouldn't even pass a nomination to reach Good Article status, and normally any article that is taken to FAC will already have attained GA status and gone through a Peer Review. Sorry if that's a little disheartening at this stage although it's good to see you taking an interest in improving the Chomsky page! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: What specifically needs to be improved? Does it help that it was a featured article in the past (2004-2006)? Vrrajkum (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vrrajkum: The fact that it had once before been an FA doesn't really have any impact on whether it can become an FA again. In the early years of Wikipedia, it was fairly easy to get an article to FA status. Since that point, our standards have risen extensively, thus making it far harder to get an article to FA. With Chomsky, we have a significant problem in that he has achieved significance both as a political activist and in the field of linguistics. I have added contributions to the article with regard to his former position, but have no expertise in the latter. For the article to reach FA status, it really has to be scrutinised by individuals with a good, academic understanding of linguistics and access to the scholarly publications in that field. At present, the article contains un-referenced information, information referenced to potentially non-reliable sources, and generally lacks a good, well-cited discussion of Chomsky's politics and linguistic work. What I would suggest that we do is simply focus on bringing the discussion of his political thought up to scratch using reliable secondary sources; that way the article will certainly be improved, even if not to the point of GA or FA status. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: But most of his linguistic tenets have their own dedicated articles, so doesn't that absolve us of having to get too technical on the main Chomsky article? Regardless, I have a real-life acquaintance who is a graduate student in linguistics; she may be able to help with some of the more technical concepts, and/or get other formally trained individuals to do so.

The political campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn have led to a sharp increase in websearches for socialism and related topics, and I want to make sure that the article on the socialist of our time is up to snuff. Sanders is furthermore directly acquainted with Chomsky, and I have a feeling that Chomsky's name may come up in one of the upcoming U.S. presidential debates and/or elsewhere on the campaign trail. If it does, I want the Chomsky article to be in good shape for the inevitable surge in websearches for Chomsky that such a mention will bring. Vrrajkum (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vrrajkum: Oh I absolutely agree on the importance of improving coverage of Chomsky's political views, particularly given the potential increased interest in him. (I pulled the Nelson Mandela article up to GA several years ago under the knowledge that interest in him would dramatically increase following his passing, for instance). I shall attempt to obtain a few extra books on the subject of Chomsky's politics and improve the article accordingly over the coming few weeks. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Chomsky is trending on Facebook. There's already been a huge spike in Google searches and traffic to his Wikipedia entry; we'll be able to tell how large in the coming days. Vrrajkum (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This was the U.S. homepage of Facebook for a few hours: http://s3.postimg.org/a828dev75/facebook.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrrajkum (talk • contribs) 02:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, there is another biography of Chomsky on the market, apart from Barsky's: http://www.amazon.com/Noam-Chomsky-Critical-Wolfgang-Sperlich/dp/1861892691

It's already cited in the article, in fact. Vrrajkum (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And if I'm interpreting this correctly, Chomsky's theory of universal grammar appears to have just been proven true: [1] [2] [3]

@Vrrajkum: I'd hesitate to say that it has been proven true; rather what we see is additional evidence in favour of the theory. I obtained a few additional books on Chomsky from the library today and will begin to incorporate their contents into the Chomsky article itself. Best for now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right, and thanks for all the contributions you just made. In this edit you say that "[the information you removed] purely relies on a first-hand source; we need to rely on secondary and tertiary sources in order to get the article to GA and FA status"--is this correct? Neither Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria nor Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria mention this. Vrrajkum (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vrrajkum: I was going by this policy coupled with my previous (fairly extensive) experience at GAN and FAC. Nevertheless, perhaps I was a little hasty in removing the sentence that I did eliminate, and would be happy to discuss its re-introduction if you felt that it was of particular importance. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: I don't think the sentence was particularly important, I was more interested in the claim about primary sources. But I also wanted to add that you framed some of your contributions as if Chomsky is dead--e.g. "He acknowledged that his income and the financial security that it accorded him meant that he lived a privileged life in comparison to the majority of the world's population." I fixed this where I saw it, but it's worth noting that, considering his age, Chomsky doesn't appear to have any serious health problems, and there's reason to believe that he'll be with us for a few more years yet. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, do the Influences and Influenced sections in the right-hand infobox require citations? Vrrajkum (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vrrajkum: With regards to citations in the infobox, I prefer to avoid them, just as I prefer to avoid any citations in the lede itself. While citations to secondary (and ideally academic) sources in the main body of the article are absolutely vital, the lede and infobox are there to simply summarise what can be found in the main body, and thus don't require citations. Moreover, I think that the use of citations in the lede and infobox can end up look pretty messy rather quickly. (If you're interested, you can get a good idea of how I like to craft biographical articles from looking at my work over at the FA-rated Mortimer Wheeler and GA-rated V. Gordon Childe articles). With regards to the issue about past and present tense, you are quite right. I am of course more than happy with you tinkering about with my prose, improving it as you see fit, although wouldn't want to see any of my additions removed without a discussion first. Best for now! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: In this edit, you commented that "We lack the secondary sources to support the claim that mathematics was a particular influence [at Penn]." One of the sources that I used for Chomsky's list of honorary degrees includes a direct interview with Chomsky, where he does say that he got involved in mathematics while at Penn: https://books.google.com/books?id=fldOCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA5&dq=lent+%22philosophy+and+mathematics%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip2rvI5dTJAhUq4IMKHf1_BzkQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=lent%20%22philosophy%20and%20mathematics%22&f=false

Unrelated, but if you keep reading the same page, Chomsky seems to suggest that he almost resents his political activism in a way, because it takes time away from what he really wants to work on. A very interesting insight into a very interesting man. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't fully understand how citing a secondary source that directly quotes Chomsky is different from citing a primary source? For example, the sentence "Chomsky expresses the view that libertarian socialism should "properly be regarded as the inheritor of the liberal ideas of the Enlightenment",[200] and says that his ideological position revolves around "nourishing the libertarian and creative character of the human being."[201]"--why is this okay, but the Authority section you removed, which cited Understanding Power, is not okay? Vrrajkum (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vrrajkum:; the issue of primary versus secondary sources is one that will likely crop up at GAN and/or FAC. For instance, a reviewer might express the view that a quote has been cited selectively from Chomsky's primary writings and that it does not necessarily warrant having been cited over other quotes. Conversely, if it is cited to a secondary source, they will see that the quote in question has already been selected as being of particular significance by the author of a reliable source. I hope that that clears things up a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I see. Does this also apply to quote boxes? For example, the quote box "If you care about other people, that's now a very dangerous idea..." is cited to a primary source. Vrrajkum (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably. I would err on the side of caution and avoid primary sources at every juncture. It's not a policy that we must do so, but it is something that I would advise based on my experience. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about labeling Chomsky as a "historian" in the opening sentence? It was in the article in the past, but was challenged. However, I think that it has some merit, and somebody else has suggested it on the talk page. Many of his talks and writings are historical, really, and he does ton of historical research for them. Vrrajkum (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. Isn't the quote "What motivated his [political] interests?..." a primary cite to Barsky? Vrrajkum (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Government of Vladimir Lenin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Warsaw. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tintin and Alph-Art

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tintin and Alph-Art you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Brigade Piron -- Brigade Piron (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Radical Right

re: this edit. You should probably note this, and this. best. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to also field some discussion from users who don't have an overwhelming number of edits and an apparent interest in left-wing articles. No disrespect meant in saying this, by the way, Midnightblueowl has some extensive knowledge clearly, but for the sake of balance perhaps. Phatwa (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Phatwa and Semitransgenic: I think that getting a wide range of editors' opinions would be a good idea. Thus, this might be a good situation to take to RfC? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Phatwa: - oh, and no offense taken. I know what you mean; I have made significant contributions to articles on prominent left-wingers, but I've done a lot of work on articles about various sectors of the right too (Boris Johnson, UK Independence Party, Order of Nine Angles, Aleister Crowley etc). I'm interested in political radicalism of various kinds, not just that of the left. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Now that there is a disputed tag on the relevant text personally would prefer to wait for users to give their own input naturally. There appear to be enough people showing an interest on the Talk Page for it, over the past few weeks & months, that I think it'll sort itself. It's up to you. Phatwa (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any further discussion on the Talk page so I think it would be best to offer the Front National article right/far-right descriptor up for further consensus. Unfortunately I don't know how to nominate it myself, can you please do so when you have time? I would really like it to be resolved. Thanks Phatwa (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Maitreyi

Thanks for the review. Your valuable GA review comments have been addressed and recorded on the review page. Some how my reply is getting transcluded int talk page. Please for further review. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 02:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Folk religion

added a link pointing to Charles Leslie

Noam Chomsky

added a link pointing to Lexington

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

ONA dispute

May I respectfully request that, in view of your excellent work regarding the Wikipedia Order of Nine Angles article, you in some way intercede in a recent dispute regarding that ONA article and a user who (as witness the ONA talk page) seems to have something of a prejudiced view of the ONA article. Coolmoon (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Coolmoon: I shall be over to take a look! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Awarded for your recent work on the ONA article. Coolmoon (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)}}

@Coolomoon:; thank you! I hope that the disruption to the ONA article shall discontinue soon. It's a shame that we've had to wait so long for an editor to inaugurate a GAN, but these things can take time - I've had to wait over six months in the past. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tintin and the Picaros

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tintin and the Picaros you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"Odalism"

It's mentioned in Gregorius 2006 as used by the Heathen Front- there's an interesting discussion of etymology and the reasons for using the term. I suspect that's enough for a passing mention and a redirect. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

COUM Transmissions

added a link pointing to A3

Genesis P-Orridge

added a link pointing to A3

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

London Borough templates: tube and rail stations discussion open

Hello and a Happy Christmas. Thanks for your recent contributions, improving London's coverage. I would like to invite you to: Category talk:London borough templates.- Adam37 Talk 15:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dwayne Jones, Jamaican murder victim.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dwayne Jones, Jamaican murder victim.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Brian Williamson

added links pointing to Green Party, Let My People Go and Big Up

Government of Vladimir Lenin

added a link pointing to Orel

Victor Henry Anderson

added a link pointing to Kala

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The GA star
	Excellent work on Tintin and the Picaros and Tintin and Alph-Art. Take a bow, Midnightblueowl!  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 16:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to say hello when I noticed the two were now GAs. Congrats again.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 16:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Ssven2! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Well, for all the help in bringing seventy articles to GA status till date (correct me if i'm wrong). I doff my hat to you for this legendary feat and thank you for all your valuable contributions to this site. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry. I may be a stranger but am not harmful. I'm just one of the friends of Ssven2 and i came to know about you on a random wandering here. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Pavanjandhyala - here's to the next seventy! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Tintin and the Picaros

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)