User talk:Midnightblueowl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 (2006-2011)
  2. Archive 2 (2012)
  3. Archive 3 (2013)

Hello and welcome to my talk page!

Contents

Your GA nomination of The Black Island[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Black Island you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Prhartcom -- Prhartcom (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on another successful GA, Midnightblueowl! Prhartcom (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Tintin (character)[edit]

Hello Mignightblueowl! Well, I learned today that I need to change the tone of this article to be more encyclopedic. Lesson learned. I may have to resubmit for FA again someday but for now perhaps this current submission can be saved--if I make that correction immediately. I see that you have started your improvements already. Earlier I had asked you for some material from Peeters, and that would be great, but adding new material is no longer a high priority, getting the prose corrected is. Thanks for any thoughts you have. Prhartcom (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Prhartcom; yes, I've just seen that you started the FA process (I actually started making additions before I saw it). The tone will have to change – maybe part of the issue is that you have relied quite heavily on Farr, and his use of language is thoroughly un-encyclopedic, and regularly expresses his own subjective opinions as if they were objective fact. Truth be told, I think that Farr is perhaps the worst Tintinologist to use; he's prolific in writing, but the quality of what he rights is not brilliant (in my opinion). I'm not always the best person to rely on when it comes to changing prose; I will focus on adding information (not just Peeters, but Assouline, and multiple other sources) if I may. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank-you for that observation, and you are right. I must excise that tone of Farr's immediately. Thompson's too. Of course, Farr's Tintin & Co. is a major source of material as that book's focus is on the characters. Please, do continue editing the article yourself as you are making the kind of improvements it needs. I am anxiously awaiting my chance to edit the article for tone when you are done. Prhartcom (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to sound like a right old biddy here, but I will stress "patience... patience", Phartcom. :p Articles like The Adventures of Tintin and Tintin (character) are very complex to produce to a standard where they will be acceptable for GA or FA. They take a lot of time, and a lot of hard work. And when I say a lot, I mean a lot. I am not going to be able to rush the Tintin character article, because the information that needs to go into it is scattered across a huge range of literature, from papers in academic journals, to biographies of Hergé, to psychoanalytical studies, to the pop-lit of Farr and Thompson. Accessing and then reading through that all takes time, and I have other Wikipedia articles that I like to add to, alongside a huge array of real world stuff to do. Producing an article like Tintin in the Land of the Soviets or Popol Out West has been (comparatively) simple, because all of the information on that subject is usually contained within a select group of pages, often next to each other, within any given book. With a subject like the character of Tintin, that simply isn't the case, and important information is scattered widely, even within a single given publication. The Tintin that appears in Soviets is a very different character to that which appears in Secret of the Unicorn, and a fundamentally different one from that appearing in Alph-Art (part of the problem with Farr is that he has a tendency to ignore this temporal variation, instead constructing a normative view of Tintin); for this reason I have to read through all of Peeters, all of Assouline, or Apostolides, and of a variety of other sources in order to ensure that I have all the information required. So without wanting to sound like a hindrance or be disheartening, I really should stress that if we are going to do this the right way, then this is going to take time. Months, probably. But such is the nature of the Beast. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I like it when you're a right old biddy. :D Your advice is wise and sound, Midnightblueowl. As long as the article is improved, I am for it. I am happy to see you have made more improvements to the article (thank-you!) and, even better: I see why they are an improvement. So maybe there's hope for me, yet. :-) I love good grammar, correct sourcing, consistency, and crisp, interesting writing. But I see now that I have been weak at getting the right "encyclopedic tone". That's okay, I believe my lesson is truly learned. I will probably get better with practise. Besides, all of us are occasionally weak at something, right?  ;-) Please know that I will be forever appreciative of your library and your experience, and for that matter, the experience of every good person I recently met during this FAC. I feel compelled to mention: I know you have a lot of projects here at Wikipedia going on at once. You know I am proud of your accomplishments. But of course you know also that if you are busy I may not wait for you or take any cue from you. You say it may take awhile, that is fine; but let's not take the rest of our lives. This project belongs to all of us. Let's see if you and I and hopefully others can get a lot done on Tintin this year! I may be busy in real life, but not as busy in other article topics as you, so I feel like I will probably be the one to eventually bring this article to FA, the other nine character articles to GA, and the main article to FA in the end. I would be very happy to co-nominate any of those with you! That would be the ideal! In the meantime, feel free to edit as much Tintin (character) as you can and drop me a line about tasks or a quick status or request or anything at all. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Prhartcom; I wrote my last comment fairly late last night, and I may well have been a little too pessimistic. It probably won't take months. A months, perhaps. But I would stress patience, as I really think it important that we do it right. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your update, and I agree that we can complete this Tintin (character) article before the month is out, with the two of us working. It's almost there, I believe. Good to be working with you again--mutual respect. Prhartcom (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, quick questions please:

  • I have added Assouline and Peeters books to the bibliography, as they were cited but not yet referenced. Now all citations point to bibliography items without error except one: The sentence mentioning Joseph Kessel cites "Farr 2012 p.34". What is that, is it an error? Is that the source that mentions this new name Joseph Kessel?
  • I see some places where your new prose may need copy editing. Do you mind if I make the corrections myself? (I have been respectfully avoiding editing any prose until you say you have reached a point of completeness.)

Please feel free to continue editing until you feel that you have improved what is needed, and thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: Hello! I have just read the article in its current version and I must say it is looking good. I particularly like the new "Early history" section; it has the right amount of interesting detail. And of course, thanks again Midnightblueowl for your library and your extraordinary prolificacy and the honor to work with you. I am so glad the article's Bibliography now contains the works of Assouline, Goddin, and Peeters in addition to the Thompson, Lofficier, and websites. A wonderful completeness is coming together for our Tintin (character). Looking very good. Prhartcom (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: Please let me know the answers to my two bulleted questions above. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey there Prhartcom, sorry I hadn't seen this before for some reason. By all means edit my prose, I was mostly just trying to get referenced information down. As for the reference to "Farr 2012, p. 34", I can't find it in the article any more, but I suspect it was probably a mistake on my behalf and should be "Peeters". Sorry about that. I hope to look through Apostolides and a few other sources tonight. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank-you; there are no citation errors now; the error had been at "his younger brother Paul, who had a round face and a quiff hairstyle"; please verify that is sourced in Peeters 2012 p=20; correct article if necessary.
Thank-you Midnightblueowl, I will copy edit soon; please feel free to continue adding referenced information to Tintin (character) until you feel you have completed doing so. Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings![edit]

Apropos of nothing, I've just noticed that I'm a single edit behind you on the all time list! I'm not sure we've ever worked together, but the quality of your edits is quite impressive. Magnificent work. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Gareth E Kegg; it seems that we haven't crossed paths before, but maybe we will in the future! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

Since you and I seem to edit the same articles (or at least, the same topics), I would like you to comment at the peer review for the Communist Party of China article.. Since the article probably has many bugs, it would be nice to have another eye looking at it. Anyhow, thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing, TIAYN. Give me a few days, as I have quite a lot on my plate at the moment, but I shall endeavour to get around to it as soon as possible. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


Karl Marx[edit]

Hi. I reverted your recent reversion of Karl Marx. I did this for two reasons: first, the notion that "prose broken up in an odd way' is sufficient to change does not hold, and secondly, while the prose might be broken up in an 'odd way' it is still clearer and more concise than the previous version. This is not to say that the new revision cannot, or should not be edited. Indeed it should. This is to say that simply reverting is not editing. If you want to fix the newer version, please do so. But going back to the older, less clear and muddled version isn't improvement. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jack Parsons (rocket propulsion engineer)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jack Parsons (rocket propulsion engineer) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Black Island[edit]

The article The Black Island you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:The Black Island for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Prhartcom -- Prhartcom (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Congratulations to User:Midnightblueowl for extraordinary prolificacy! Prhartcom (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Prhartcom; the GAR was much appreciated. Will focus on the Tintin (character) article this weekend; am at work atm, so I should get off of Wikipedia! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My first barnstar to you, and my chance at last to return the honor you have bestowed upon me. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Tintin's birthday[edit]

~~ Happy 85th Tintin's birthday ~~ Prhartcom (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And to you Prhartcom! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: free use images of Jack Parsons[edit]

I am delighted with the progression of the article. I was reading Carter's biography the other evening and noticed in the appendix that he attributed a number of photographs featuring Parsons to JPL (which allows non-profit use of any of their material without permission). The one of Parsons standing above the prototype JATO canister would be a much preferable main image for the article than the current copyrighted one. Frustratingly, I cannot find this image in any of NASA/JPL's websites or archives, though there are reproductions of it on other websites. Perhaps I could get a note of permission from someone at NASA/JPL if I sent them a polite enough email? That said, the famous "Rocket Boys" image from 1936 is available: [1] which I will upload to the Commons when I have the time. (Or you can!) JJARichardson (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello there JJARichardson; you caught me just as I was about to sign off. Thank you so much for helping out over at the Jack Parsons article. I was thinking that maybe after it gains its GA status, we could put it through to FAC as a joint nomination ? I must admit to not being particularly well versed in all the issues surrounding the copyright statuses of images, but if you're confident that JPL images are indeed free to use, then I think that that would be an excellent idea. The trouble with sending an email to JPL is that it would be difficult to prove that you had genuine permission, and some Wikipedia editors might call you up on it at a later date. Is the image that you would like to use actually in the Carter biography; and there, does it explicitly say that the copyright is from JPL ? If that is the case then we could probably go ahead and upload it from a different source no problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be very happy to nominate the article for featuring with you if the GA nomination is successful. There are, however, some more details I feel need adding. I particularly refer to detail on Parsons' "Oath of the Antichrist" in which he identifies himself as the embodiment of the the entity "Belarion", and the prophecy that Thelema would overtake American society if he lived seven years after it. (Sorry for the delayed response, I've been busy with academic work). JJARichardson (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: the "Rocket Boys" photo was already on the Commons, and automatic metadata shows that the JATO photo of Parsons is free use. Hurrah! I have also added the details on his "Oath of the Antichrist", which you are welcome to improve the wording of if needed. JJARichardson (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jack Parsons (rocket propulsion engineer)[edit]

The article Jack Parsons (rocket propulsion engineer) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Jack Parsons (rocket propulsion engineer) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I am adequately satisfied with the article for us to make an FA nomination. JJARichardson (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey JJARichardson; sounds good to me. Want me to initiate the nomination, and then stick both of our names on it ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be appreciated! I will be happy to contribute to improving the article if any suggestions are made, though. JJARichardson (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Good articles listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Good articles. Since you had some involvement with the Good articles redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley[edit]

I have been bold and nominated Aleister Crowley's article for featuring. Unfortunately, there are some reference formatting errors that are preventing it from being passed which I didn't notice at first. You have done a lot of work on the article so I figure you'd appreciate it if I informed you, but I may withdraw my nomination if needs be. JJARichardson (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: Jack Parsons[edit]

Hello User:Midnightblueowl. I assume you will have noticed my further expansions of Parsons' article, and hope you approve of them. I have also expanded the article's intro slightly; my rationale for this is to follow the example of L. Ron Hubbard and Kenneth Anger's articles, which have leads with comprehensive detail but are not excessive (not requiring the reader to scroll to finish reading them). I hope the FA nomination will advance more soon? JJARichardson (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi JJARichardson; I've seen the added images – fantastic! I haven't noticed any prose changes, but I'll look at them. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Adventures of Totor[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Adventures of Totor you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Gabriel Yuji -- Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

A friendly word[edit]

Hi, Midnightblueowl (or may I call you MBO?). I like what you're doing on WP, I like the credo on your userpage. I've been around the encyclopedia about the same amount of time as you, though I work in different areas so our paths won't normally cross. However, if from time to time you need a detached eye on any of your projects, do call me, I'll always help if I can . Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Brian; yes, of course you may use "MBO" – it's a lot quicker! Thanks for your offer, and if I can ever aid you, please let me know. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Help for Heroes bars.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Help for Heroes bars.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. Stefan2 (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:RCG Cuba badge.JPG[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RCG Cuba badge.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. Stefan2 (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Viva badge.JPG[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Viva badge.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. Stefan2 (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Adventures of Totor[edit]

The article The Adventures of Totor you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:The Adventures of Totor for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gabriel Yuji -- Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!![edit]

I'm the one who should be greeting you. You did a excellent work on Totor, I just did the review. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Louis Fischer.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Louis Fischer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Golden Lollipop Award[edit]

Fifth disease cropped.jpg Golden Lollipop Award
Merry moons! I, MaoMaoBowman, present you with the Golden Lollipop Award in recognition of your continued contributions to the science of phrenology. Excelsior! MaoMaoBowman (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Erm.... thanks MaoMao. I'm guessing that this isn't a particularly serious award. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The quality of your reviewing[edit]

This: Talk:Libertarianism/GA1 is not an acceptable form of review. You should be indicating at least which criteria are obvious at the largest level. For instance, 5 & 1. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's probably a fair criticism of my review, Fifelfoo, and in hindsight perhaps I should have expanded on my reasoning there. As you can see from my other GAR and Peer Reviews, I am usually a lot more thorough. The reason why I offered such a quick review was that it seemed like a clear open-and-shut case. Not only was the GA nomination placed in the wrong category, but the nominator had ceased to be a Wikipedia editor shortly after nominating the page. Even a cursory scroll through the article shows that it fails to fit GAC on almost every point. But, once again, I do think that you are right, and I should have explained myself better on this particular issue. I applaud your diligence! Kind regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
No worries at all! Even for the worst article if often helps to direct editors to improve one thing in particular. Given my background I always prefer verifiability and lack of OR as a foundational criticism of an article. Remember, you're not just reviewing for the editor who nominated and ran, but for a community of editors who now might have a new aspiration to improve to GA status. I agree, though, that with an article with significant and thorough-going problems it may be easy to note that, and then suggest, "While there are many problems, this article would be most improved by focusing on Writing Quality." I read your review of Wicca, which was a decline, and I wouldn't expect you to even put that level of work into an article like Libertarianism. Many thanks for your work supporting Good Articles! Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ken Livingstone[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ken Livingstone you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eddie Buczynski[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eddie Buczynski you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Bog People[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Bog People you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ken Livingstone[edit]

The article Ken Livingstone you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Ken Livingstone for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Bog People[edit]

The article The Bog People you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:The Bog People for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin[edit]

The article Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eddie Buczynski[edit]

The article Eddie Buczynski you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. 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:Eddie Buczynski for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eddie Buczynski[edit]

The article Eddie Buczynski you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Eddie Buczynski for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please Avoid Wholesale Edits[edit]

Regarding Germanic neopaganism, your help is welcome, but must you make wholesale changes unilaterally? If you examine the talk page, for example, we discussed the "heathen" pagan issue at length, so why did you insert the "heathen" word dozens of times in the article? Many British people use "heathen" for the movement, but in American English the word is used as an insult for the "non-religious" or profane.

Also, using Dr. Harvey's work repeatedly is not good style. Diversify!

--ThorLives (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, ThorLives. Regarding the issue of "Heathen", I was in the wrong, and I've begun to correct my mistake on the issue (so, sorry about that one!). Regarding the use of Graham Harvey (who is, to be fair, a major academic in the field of religious studies, being current President of the British Association for the Study of Religion), I was simply adding information from his work prior to moving on to adding information from other academics (i.e. Jenny Blain, Michael Strmiska, Egil Asprem etc). So I apologise if I gave the impression that I was only intending on using Harvey, because my real intention is to go through and fill this article with academically-referenced material from the widest possible range of scholars on this issue. Your input, however, is much appreciated. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I see your point about Harvey, but to my knowledge he has only one published chapter on Germanic Religions. I met him some years ago, and I had the distinct impression that has main focus was "nature religions."

Thanks for being agreeable on the heathen point. With that generous concession on your part, I think we can work together to strengthen the article.

--ThorLives (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Dr. Harvey's emphasis is certainly on Nature Spirituality, ThorLives; he made that abundantly clear in a recent interview. But, as an academic source, I still think that we should use his work as a reference in this article, so long as we accompany that with other academic sources, and of course, some of the better practitioner volumes. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/A Quiet Night In/archive1[edit]

Hi- I hope you're well. If you get a chance, I'd appreciate some feedback at PR; if the topic (an episode from League of Gentlemen creators' new series) is not of interest to you, or you haven't any time, don't worry about! Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Germanic Heathenism[edit]

Hello Midnightblueowl! You have done a great work in reconstructing the article! Just a few advices for further improvement:

  1. As I see, your latest revision has been already modified, leaving an inconsistent terminology throughout the article: "Germanic neopagan" or "Heathen". As I have exhaustively written in the talk page, "Heathen"(-ism/-ry) is the best choice, since it's used both in the academia and by practitioners (both European and American), while "Germanic neopaganism" isn't used.
  2. The lede should be made clearer in accordance to the point above: at the moment it shows an unorganised list of terms, of which the only comprehensive one is "Heathenism", the other ones being localised varieties. I think this or this versions were clearer.
  3. I think Theodism should be mentioned in the "denominations" chapter. It's not covered in academic material but it has been mentioned by various "important media" due to the political activity of Dan Halloran.
  4. The "in the media" chapter should be moved to the external links, or removed.

Good work, --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Bhlegkorbh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Jack Parsons[edit]

Greetings User:Midnightblueowl. I hope you approve of the work I have done to Parsons' article thus far. I would say that I have addressed most of the issues cited in the FA review. However, User:Victoriaearle's concern that more sources should be referenced needs to be dealt with. I have incorporated some of those she kindly provided, but will admit that my skills are not the best in terms of formatting book citations for automatic referencing, as in the referencing structure for the whole of the article you built up. I wonder, when you have the time, if you could look into incorporating the additional book/article citations Victoria provides in the appropriate way? Regards. JJARichardson (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that, I've incorporated the references myself. Thanks for providing the structure. JJARichardson (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey JJARichardson; sorry I haven't got back to you sooner - it's been a hectic week, and I haven't really had time to do anything on Wikipedia. Well done on the additions! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Uncle David[edit]

Hi Midnight, just letting you know there seems to be some sort of problem with the FAC page, that means that some comments do not appear when one opens it at WP:FAC, but are only visible when one opens Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uncle David/archive3 itself. Very odd. Anyway, I've left a couple of queries there, in the context of an overall support, and hope you will take a look. hamiltonstone (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated, hamiltonstone! Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I commented there too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, much apprceiated Cas Liber! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Dammit! Archived? *sigh* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeh, it's frustrating, Crisco 1492. Really puts me off going through FAR really... Guess I'll be sticking largely to getting articles into GAR in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's partly a matter of getting to know reviewers, and (once you know one or two really good ones) asking them to help at peer review. It's usually tit for tat (a review for a review, essentially, though don't expect them to always support if you go straight to FAC!) but it's certainly worth the effort. When I'm finished expanding D. Djajakusuma, I will probably end up pinging some of the reviewers who regularly help me to help polish the prose before FAC. This will mean reviewing some of their articles too, of course, but that's not a big problem (and it helps me learn about the world). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyedit Talk:Jack_Parsons_(rocket_engineer)#Copyedit_April_2014[edit]

Hi

Just started with the lead, have left it at that while people take a look and, if no-one has any objections, I will carry one tomorrow, or later tonight if I get a quick reply :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Castro Image[edit]

Despite the quality of the image, the subjects face can be seen much more clearly on the alternative image. Feel free to take this point to the consensus board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanosky (talkcontribs) 11:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I won't be engaging in the discussion - I'm just a grumpy old man who doesn't like editors making unilateral changes without explanation and/or without attempts at gaining consensus. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
That's alright Pdfpdf, thanks for letting me know - all the best! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Tintin in Tibet[edit]

Hello, well-respected Midnightblueowl! FYI, this article is in GA review. The nominating editor is working to remove text where needed, and I am helping them by adding text where needed, but am running into issues when I do not have access to all the necessary source material. Could you please help? We need to reference Apostolidès, Goddin (2011), McCarthy, and Peeters (2012). I am about to add text from Thompson, Assouline, and Peeters (1989). Regards, and hope you are well. Prhartcom (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: I do have access to Apostolidès, Assouline, and Peeters (2012) after all, but still not McCarthy. Anticipating the additional references, I have added "placeholders" for them under the article's References. I have replaced the article's Bibliography and I have nearly finished verifying the article's current references. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Prhartcom (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Prhartcom; sorry that I haven't been active over on any Tintin-related articles lately, but I've been on Wikipedia fairly rarely this year, due to "real life" commitments. Will try and take a look over at Tintin in Tibet over the next few days. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I can certainly understand that, it has been worse for me this year more so than in the past; I have not even had time to go back to the Tintin (character) article yet. But the nominator forced our hand to action for this Tintin article at least. Prhartcom (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Negative 'addition'...[edit]

Not quite sure why the removal of the following cited text was necessary, but if it was, it was odd to call it an addition in the edit summary; the new text that you did add was much shorter, and did not cover most of this material. Perhaps you are just reworking it, and it will reappear shortly in shining new form? Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

" Morris's only surviving painting in oils is of Jane Burden as La Belle Iseult. William and Jane had two daughters, Jane Alice (Jenny), born January 1861, who developed epilepsy in her teens, and Mary (May) (March 1862 – 1938), who became the editor of her father's works, a prominent socialist, and an accomplished designer and craftswoman.[1] Although of humble origins and unschooled in her youth,[2] Jane Morris underwent a remarkable self-education after her marriage. A striking beauty, she mixed freely with the Pre-Raphaelites and posed many times for Dante Gabriel Rossetti, with whom Jane had a long affair. The Morrises' initial happiness together did not survive the first ten years of their marriage, but divorce was unthinkable, and they remained together until Morris's death.[1]"

Hello there Chiswick Chap, and thanks for staying vigilent! Yes, I have simply removed the information here because I am reworking the text with the aid of more specialist sources (i.e. more recent biographies of Morris, starting with MacCarthy). So never fear, that information will be re-inserted at the correct chronological juncture in the page before too long. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Super. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

RE: Jack Parsons (rocket engineer)[edit]

Hello again User:Midnightblueowl. As you can see I've been working quite frequently on Parsons' article, which I have enjoyed expanding and am hopeful about our goal for it to be featured on October 2. There are, however, some edits which I would like to happen but I do not possess the references to support them. I have read Parsons' Freedom is a Two-Edged Sword online, but it is out of print and is otherwise priced extortionately. I gather that you do own a copy, and if so I'd appreciate it if you could expand the political views section of the article, when you have the time, regarding Parsons' opposition to censorship of the arts/media, gun control, and re-distributive taxation. The latter views definitely reflect a right-wing libertarianism breaking from his former Marxism. Thanks! JJARichardson (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey JJARichardson; sure thing - I will look into that! I'm all for a second attempt at FAC and will get back to you! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey JJARichardson - I'm a tad concerned about the second paragraph in the sub-section "Aerojet, invention of storable solid rocket fuel, and leading the Agape Lodge: 1942–1944"; it's very lengthy and doesn't have many references in it. I think it might be worth doing something with it. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Tintin in Tibet (discussion 2)[edit]

Hello, well-respected Midnightblueowl! I have been thinking about you a lot lately, as I have been striving to recreate your diligence and skill over at Tintin in Tibet, which I and another editor just brought to GA. (I have also been striving to recreate your Tintin library!) I would be honoured if you would read it and offer your comments or edits. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Prhartcom; I'm just reading through it now. It's good, although I probably wouldn't have passed it without a few more corrections. It'll be quicker for me to just go through and make them myself; I hope that you don't mind ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely; go crazy. The more input from you, the better. I'll have to tell you about that review sometime, although it would be impolite to do so; let's say it reinforced an appreciation of editors like you who know their stuff. Feel free to ping me when you are done, and thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I just looked in history from January 2011 and saw that you wrote much of the Lead and History sections of this article that I have been improving recently. Good to know! I'm glad I did not discard what was there. I remember I liked what was already written; I wanted to build upon it. (FYI, during the recent review, I allowed nearly all of my creative work to be submitted by the other editor, who mostly did not contribute.) Prhartcom (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Something I know you'll like; look what I updated: Wikipedia:Good articles/Language and literature (scroll down to "Comics"). Prhartcom (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
No further comments or edits? Prhartcom (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Arghhhh! Sorrysorrysorry Prhartcom; I'd forgotten about this. Will get on to it! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh good, that's all it was! I wasn't sure how to interpret your silence at first! Prhartcom (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Prhartcom; on the whole I think it's very good, but I would perhaps recommend some restructuing of the "Critical analysis" section, as it currently comprises of some fairly big paragraphs and some short sentences. That could be evened out a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks, although this advice is a little mysterious to me. I am looking at some Critical analysis sections of yours and and I see they are usually three paragraphs with nice-sized sentences so perhaps this is what I should strive for. Please let me know if you have any more detailed advice for me. I will have a close look at it, and thanks again. By the way, would you be interested in taking this article to FA together? Prhartcom (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I am more than happy to take the article to FA with you, Prhartcom, but I am concerned that it would not yet pass; I recommend getting a peer review first to iron out the creases. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Midnightblueowl: is there any issue with me tagging along for FA? Thanks, Matty.007 18:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in responding, Matty.007. I have no objections, but can we have three nominators for a FAC ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Prhartcom wasn't very keen on me tagging along so I'll probably just watch. Thanks, Matty.007 16:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Midnightblueowl. Today the peer review for this article that you suggested I apply for was closed without being peer reviewed, but with the statement that it was. What is your experience with requested peer reviews? In any case, I believe I am very nearly ready to proceed with submission for FA. You? Prhartcom (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Prhartcom; I've had a mixed reception with them before. I've experienced exactly what you described before too. In my cases, I have simply re-instigated the peer review, and kept doing that until I got a response. But of course, that does not mean that you must do the same thing. I am happy to support you if you wish to take it to FAR, but I do think that a Peer Review beforehand would probably be necessary. Oh, and thanks for completing the King Ottokar's GA while I was away! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me your experience. You know, I have often learned from you and, in gratitude, believe I will always be respectful of you and your high level of productivity. That is why I occasionally come to your aid or defense, if I can. Please let me know should you ever need me to support you. So, I may submit the article to Peer Review again but, honestly, I have had you and a few other good editors review it; that may already be more peer attention than some articles ever receive. If you wish to review the Critical Analysis section, though, I would be grateful. Cheers Midnightblueowl, Prhartcom (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Soraya[edit]

If you do not mind please take a look at Soraya Posts article. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message BabbaQ, but I am unsure precisely why you have made this request ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Conchita Wurst[edit]

Hi there,

I must say I do love the improvements you have made to Conchita Wurst's article. The section on International response's may benefit from some further expansion. The part that mentions criticism from Russian politicians could do with the counter-argument that Conchita herself gave on 2 separate interviews for British television. On both The One Show and BBC Newsnight, Conchita responded to what those politicians said with the remark "Well I don’t really focus on negativity at all because there’s nothing which brings me further by thinking about that [...] But actually, I have to say that when politicians, like really famous ones, say that I’m the reason why Europe will crash into pieces, I have to say [that] I’ve never received a bigger honour. Because they think I’m that powerful… thank you. I don’t want to disappoint you but I’m just a drag queen.". Might be a worthwhile addition and maintains WP:NPOV. Wes Mᴥuse 01:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, Wesley Mouse ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Young cats.jpg

For your work on Conchita Wurst

EvergreenFir (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you EvergreenFir; it is much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"British Isles"[edit]

I see you've been going around Wikipedia passionately creating articles with the British jingoistic name "British Isles" in them, despite that verifiably imperialist 16th-century English term never having been used at the time. I've chosen one such article and commented there. 79.97.64.240 (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have responded over at the talk page that you link to. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Brilliant response. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Morris, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kermes, Granton and Madder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Archaeological theory template[edit]

Hi Midnightblueowl,

I've been aware of your contribution of Template:Archaeological Theory for some time, and IMO, it is exactly the sort of thing on wiki that is actually useful for students and other interested parties because it puts an article in full context. On a similar note, I wondered if I could get your opinion on a similar template I've been working on here on sub-disciplines of Archaeology? Do you think it's complete enough to actually launch? Brigade Piron (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Brigade Piron; you know I had completely forgotten that I ever created that template... I don't tend to do much with work with templates here at Wikipedia these days. But I think that the one which you have proposed certainly looks set to go! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Le Monde de Tintin[edit]

Hello Midnightblueowl; I was not stepping forward, but as it has been open for awhile I will now offer to review King Ottokar's Sceptre, if you would like. Prhartcom (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Prhartcom; do so if you feel like you want to, but otherwise do not worry - I am in no hurry! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure. I may do so this weekend. I like working with you. Please note: The article is missing Goddin's Volume 2 and should not be; I believe that book absolutely should be referenced and no more referencing Volume 1 (the previous Tintin book should also have referenced Volume 2). I will be happy to do this for the article as well, or perhaps you can. Cheers and have a great week, Prhartcom (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
This is done. The review looks like it is going well! Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of King Ottokar's Sceptre[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article King Ottokar's Sceptre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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) 17:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Morris, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Socialist society and St. Mark's Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ottokar's in Bromley.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ottokar's in Bromley.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. Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, I am so sorry about this. I have removed this image and the other one from the article. Prhartcom (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of King Ottokar's Sceptre[edit]

The article King Ottokar's Sceptre you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:King Ottokar's Sceptre 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) 17:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellence deserves congratulations, Midnightblueowl! And take a look: Template:Did you know nominations/King Ottokar's Sceptre. Prhartcom (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Red House (London)[edit]

I'm not sure why you think edit-warring is acceptable at Red House (London), nor why you choose to ignore WP:CITEVAR, which is really quite specific on this subject. Perhaps you would care to explain on the talk page of that article? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1[edit]

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.

Red House (London) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Radicalism, Wilmington, Peter Fraser and Labour Party

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for King Ottokar's Sceptre[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Western esotericism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Traditionalism. 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) 08:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15[edit]

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.

Edward Hollamby
added links pointing to Blackheath, Kirby and Lofthouse
Red House (London)
added a link pointing to Southeast London

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benandanti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gagliano. 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) 08:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Daly was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference WM was invoked but never defined (see the help page).