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)
  4. Archive 4 (2014)
  5. Archive 5 (2015)
  6. Archive 6 (2016)

Hello and welcome to my talk page!

2016 Year in Review[edit]

Barnstar-stone2-noback.png The Epic Barnstar
For your contributions to history related articles in 2016 you are hereby awarded this Epic Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Biographystar.png The Biography Barnstar
For your contributions to the Featured Articles Vladimir Lenin and O. G. S. Crawford, I hereby present you with the Biography Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
For your contributions to the Featured Articles Vladimir Lenin and O. G. S. Crawford, I hereby present you with the WikiChevrons. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Order-of-the-Red-Star.jpg The Workers' Barnstar
This user has shown great editing skills in improving articles related to Communism or Socialism.
World War II Barnstar.svg The World War Barnstar
For your contributions to the Featured Article O. G. S. Crawford, I hereby you with this World War Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, wow... thank you, TomStar81! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kingston Russell Stone Circle[edit]

The article Kingston Russell Stone Circle you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Kingston Russell Stone Circle 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) 04:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Duerr's Dreamtime.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Duerr's Dreamtime.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) 18:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

TFA[edit]

Thank you for the "horned mask (perhaps representing the Devil?) that was brought out for instances of mob justice in the Dorset village of Melbury Osmond during the 19th century"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Tyndall (politician)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Tyndall (politician) 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Harv Errors[edit]

Hi there, MBO. Since you've already fixed the errors at Nelson Mandela, I just thought I'd leave a note here. The Harv errors script is User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, and I find it immensely useful, not just to spot errors, but to keep track of which sources I am using/need to be used when rebuilding an article. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

That's great, many thanks Vanamonde! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Tyndall (politician)[edit]

The article John Tyndall (politician) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:John Tyndall (politician) 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Gaddafi in London.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Gaddafi in London.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.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Mandela FAC[edit]

I'm obviously recused as coordinator on this article as I've supported, but as this is precisely the sort of article that I'm thrilled to see at FAC, it might be worth pinging any unfinished reviewers to see if we can wrap this up. There is a danger that things get forgotten at the bottom of the list! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks Sarastro1. Yes, I am pleased that I was able to bring it this far but obviously it entailed many, many hours of work over about three years. I think that it was worth it though. Having brought the Vladimir Lenin article up to FA last year, I'm hoping to next turn my attentions toward the Muammar Gaddafi and then Mao Zedong articles. We do really need to get a lot more of our Vital Articles up to scratch. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stephen McNallen[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stephen McNallen 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 FreeKnowledgeCreator -- FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stephen McNallen[edit]

The article Stephen McNallen you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Stephen McNallen 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 FreeKnowledgeCreator -- FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The Homosexual Matrix[edit]

Hello, Midnightblueowl. Given your interest in the LGBT topic area, I'd like to ask you your opinion of The Homosexual Matrix, which I've nominated at WP:GAN. I understand you may have other things to do and won't be bothered if you ignore this message. Also, though I'm sure this doesn't have to be said, I don't in any way expect you to go easy on me - if there is something wrong with the article that needs to be fixed, I want to know. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I was planning on reviewing a GAN soon (I don't do enough to help cut down the backlog) so I'm happy to give this article a review, FreeKnowledgeCreator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you again for your help. I found your review of The Homosexual Matrix considerably more challenging than your earlier review of the Sexual Preference article. If you don't mind my saying so, some of the suggestions you made at the review would have helped me at the Sexual Preference article also. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Not a problem FreeKnowledgeCreator. It's really good to see the work that you have been doing on these sexuality-themed articles. Very commendable! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

"Our"?[edit]

"Heathens commonly adopt a cosmology based in Norse mythology in which our world ..." in Heathenry (new religious movement). :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear. Thanks for pointing that out to me, Ed. I'll ensure that it is removed from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"Odalism"[edit]

I'm really excited to see the article on Heathenry at FAC; I just wanted to quickly raise again an issue I first raised a while ago, but seemed to be missed. You once reverted a user who tried to insert information on the use of the term Odalism, claiming that it lacked sources. I note, however, that there is some discussion of the use/etymology of the term in Gregorius's 2006 paper on Heathenism, so probably warrants at least a passing mention given the already close discussion of nomenclature. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Josh, yes I must have missed that; I wouldn't have deliberately ignored you! I will take a look at the book and add the appropriate information into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Odalism currently redirects to Varg Vikernes, an article about a person who apparently invented the term. I'd suspect that a redirect to Heathenry (new religious movement) would be preferable, but if it's true that Vikernes was the first to use the term, that should probably be mentioned. Anyway- I'll leave it with you, I trust your judgement! Josh Milburn (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
A good point. I'll redirect the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Congratulations on finally getting Nelson Mandela to featured article status. That's no mean feat. Bravo! Hpesoj00 (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Hpesoj00. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Withypool Stone Circle[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Withypool Stone Circle 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) 14:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Withypool Stone Circle[edit]

Thanks for your work on Withypool Stone Circle. I've put a question about "Pickwell Down grits" on the talk page. I note the picture caption "the stones are so small that discerning the site is difficult". I've added a couple more images to the commons cat but thought File:Stone Circle on Withypool Hill - geograph.org.uk - 53966.jpg might give the context while showing the stones and File:Withypool Stone Circle (geograph 4591136).jpg gives more of an idea of the circle (although it is a bit dark and lacking contrast).— Rod talk 20:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Rod. I think that the current lede image (File:Withypool Stone Circle, May 2014.jpg) is a good one to use in the article because it displays the entirety of the circle. I think that File:Withypool Stone Circle (geograph 4591136).jpg, if a little dark, is nevertheless good at displaying more of the circle so I have added it into the article. Thanks for pointing them out to me! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
There is a (poor quality) video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6mf0-p0K14 .— Rod talk 20:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking in some of the books about the local area... The article says "only two stone circles survive in this area" however Grinsell, Leslie Valentine (1970). Archaeology of Exmoor: Bideford Bay to Bridgwater. David & Charles. pp. 39–42. ISBN 978-0715349533.  identifies three which still exist and confirmed (Withypool, Porlock & Almsworthy Common), it also suggests another Mattocks Down Stone circle but not confirmed and no longer in existence. — Rod talk 20:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I was not aware of the Grinsell book; I'll try and grab a copy and take a look. Thanks, Rod. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I bought it 2nd had ages ago when doing Exmoor. It only has a short paragraph on Withypool Stone Circle (& nothing which isn't already in the article, or I would have added it) but more on Almsworthy Common & Mattocks Down Stone. There is also a bit on the Withypool circle in Adkins, Lesley; Adkins, Roy (1992). A Field Guide to Somerset Archaeology. Wimborne, Dorset: Dovecote Press. ISBN 978-0946159949.  - but again nothing which isn't already included in the article. — Rod talk 20:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I think I have a copy of the Adkins' book knocking about somewhere. I'll have a rummage. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Appreciation for your responses on the New Age Talk page[edit]

Dear Midnightblueowl, - I just wanred to thank you here for responding so thoroughly to my "Four items that need to be resolved ASAP" statement on the Talk:New Age page. I love the democratic nature of Wikipedia, especially when it is a democracy weighted by expertise.

At this point I see only Jonathan's and your responses. As senior editors really have no way of knowing that the "Four items" statement is out there, I have taken the liberty of encouraging two other senior editors to add their comments if they have the time - Noleander (who did good work on my FA article in 2011-12) and FutureTrillionaire, who conducted the New Age article's GAR in 2013. I have had nothing to do with either of them since then, and I told them I did not want them to take "my side" in the discussion. I have no idea if either will respond

I also looked at the last 250 edits to the New Age article, but could find no one that had made substantial additions to it (and was registered with usernames) but you and me - mostly of course you. So I have no one else to "objectively" invite into this process. If Jonathan's and your comments constitute our consensus I will accept them on the Talk page and do what I can to improve my extant portions of the article within the rules laid down. I liked your new intro. to the Politics section, and I had to laugh when I saw Creme's and Satin's pictures together - definitely the poles of the New Age political project.

Now I'll thank Jonathan. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Babel41. Yes, we may have some difficulty in getting more folks to join the debate; I'm not sure that New Age is a topic which will attract a lot of interest from Wikipedia editors. I'm happy for you to contact Noleander and FutureTrillionaire but do beware of WP:Canvassing; it's easy to find oneself accused of canvassing even when that is not one's intention (it happened to me once). I'll ping a few editors who seem to be interested in NRMs and esotericism to see if they have any thoughts on the issue.
Apologies if any of my comments on the New Age talk page are a little blunt or even abrasive. That is certainly not my intention. I've become particularly committed to the heavy use of academic sources in part through my experiences with Heathenry (new religious movement), which I brought up to GA status and which is now undergoing FAC. That article has faced constant attempts by certain Heathens to promote their own particular take on the religion, and they regularly turned to emic sources (both online and print) in order to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Midnightblueowl, - Just a note to let you know that I put a short, very unTrumpian "concession speech" at the bottom of the Talk:New Age page. Nobody came to my defense on any of the issues I raised. I must tell you that, as you've continued to edit the article by the standards you set, it has begun to read beautifully.
For the record, I never wanted to do what the Heathenry editors tried to do to you and impose "my" take on the article. I can see why you would react so strongly to any hint at that sort of thing! My concern was simply that your concentration on academics, esp. scholars of religion – in an article about a contemporary movement that few would call religious or academic – was shutting out insights and perspectives from other reliable sources "closer to the ground," such as books by non-academic authors from major publishers. You'll find no agenda there - a concern for maximum breadth, maybe.
What I most wanted to tell you here is over the next week I will do what I can to redo the Politics section (after the excellent first three paragraphs you created) in ways that are consistent with the comments you and Joshua provided on the Talk page. I am sorry I cannot work more quickly, I have unbreakable family and work commitments and am not in great health. But I'll do what I can. And now that I know The Rules, I will not find it "blunt" or "abrasive" for you to revert what I do with little or no feedback. Dear Owl, I am as committed to excellence as you, and I would love to see you bring this article – about a topic too often sneered at – up to FA status. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, Babel41. Yes, hopefully we can get this to FA at some point in future, although of course there is no great rush. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Midnightblueowl. Just a note to let you know that the work on (my portion of) the Politics section is going well, I think and hope. It's a lot shorter than the "original" now, leads with scholars, avoids brilliant Syntheses, and - well - you'll see. Hopefully within the next two days. Best, - Babel41 (talk)

Hello, Hello, Hello ![edit]

Hello, Gooday to you sir, i developed a new page Reverend King Ezeugo "It's a really great article" so I have been told. But I would really be grateful and thankful if you could, out of your busy schedule; read it, enjoy it, and most importantly give me your candid advice as pertains which categories I should improve on. Celestina007 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Celestina007 - just some basic recommendations for now:
  • As for categories: Category:Nigerian people, Category:Nigerian Christians, Category:Christianity in Nigeria would all be good starting options.
  • In the lead, you mention that Ezeugo is a "preacher", but I would specify "Christian preacher" (or something even more specific).
  • "Chukwuemeka Ezeugo known predominantly amongst the Nigerian people by his sobriquet Dr. Reverend King, is a preacher who hails from south-east, Nigeria specifically Anambra State" - the grammar is a little all over the place here. There should be a comma after "Ezeugo", and that which comes after "south-east" should really be after "Nigeria".
  • Ensure that there is a citation to support every statement made in the article. If there is no citation, then a particular piece of information should be removed.
  • Wikipedia tries to avoid "Controversy" sections. Merge the information from this section into other sections of the article. For more on this issue, see Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies.
  • Avoid having the title of any sub-section all in capital letters.
I hope that this advice might be of some help to you! Well done on the work that you have put in at present. Wikipedia desperately needs more coverage of African topics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Buddhism and gnosis[edit]

Hi Midnightblueowl. This article may be of interest to you: GIOVANNI VERARDI, The Buddhists, the Gnostics and the Antinomistic Society, or the Arabian Sea in the First-Second Century AD. The author argues that there was an exchange of ideas between Gnosticism and (Mahayana) Buddhism, due to their shared bases of support, namely merchants, who were in extensive contact during the Roman era. The thesis seems to make sense.

In addition, what's really interesting to contemplate about, is the mutual influence over a longer period of time. Greek culture may have had some influence on Buddhism, while this possible mutual influence of Gnosticism and Buddhism may have added some Buddhist influences to western esotericism. Which, as far as I know, lived on during medieaval times, and became more popular with the Transcendentalists and Theosophists. Who, through the Unitarian mission in India and the Theosophical Society, influenced elites in India (and also Japan and Sri Lanka). And then "Eastern philosophy" was popularized in the west, mainly through adepts who were influenced by western esotericism, like Vivekananda and D.T. Suzuki, and who offered forms of Vedanta and Buddhism which were recognizable in the west, due to those esoteric influences. Which, themself, may have been influenced by Buddhist thought. Hmmm... "West is west, and east is east, and never again and aging the two shall meet." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Joshua Jonathan. Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but I don't think the emphasis on the "Western" in "Western esotericism" is there because it is believed to be free from "eastern" influences. Clearly, if one looks at Theosophy or the New Age there are Asian influences aplenty. I think that "Western esotericism" is "Western" because it has emerged as a category distinct from both "religion" and "science" in Europe and the European diaspora. Obviously, Asian countries (particularly those of the south and east) have experienced different histories from their European counterparts; they had different "religious" systems, no 18th century Enlightenment, and (as far I am aware) the distinction between "religion" and "science" as distinct categories is not a native concept for them. Thus the "esotericism" category does not appear to apply in those contexts (although Gordon Djurdjevic and a few others have recently begun to argue that there are comparable "esoteric" systems in certain Asian regions... it all get rather confusing). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Withypool Stone Circle[edit]

The article Withypool Stone Circle you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Withypool Stone Circle 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) 20:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
For your recent massive improvement of the Steve Biko article. Slashme (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

I reverted your edit at Rosetta Stone giving an incorrect summary. Your deletion, the main thing I was reverting, was not "unexplained". I'm very sorry -- I saw my mistake at once, but when you've saved a summary you can't change it. Anyway, I reverted because I don't think you should have simply deleted all that relevant information (for that matter, it had passed through FA without question) without, at least, asking for a source if you see something controversial about it. But, well, what do you feel? Andrew Dalby 20:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, thanks for your message! No worries with regard to the edit summary. Personally I would not want to see any unreferenced information in an article (excepting of course the summary in the lead) and am really quite surprised that this issue was not picked up at FAC. Then again, this FAC did take place in 2010, and FACs were quite a bit more lax back then. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for your reply. Andrew Dalby 09:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rastafari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orthodox (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) 09:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rastafari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Organic (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) 10:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)