Open main menu

Contents

2016 Year in ReviewEdit

  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)
  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)
  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)
  The Workers' Barnstar
This user has shown great editing skills in improving articles related to Communism or Socialism.
  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 CircleEdit

The article Kingston Russell Stone Circle you nominated as a good article has passed  ; 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.jpgEdit

 

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)

TFAEdit

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.   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 ErrorsEdit

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  ; 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.jpgEdit

 

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 FACEdit

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 McNallenEdit

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.   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 McNallenEdit

The article Stephen McNallen you nominated as a good article has passed  ; 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 MatrixEdit

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

  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 CircleEdit

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.   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 CircleEdit

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 pageEdit

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 gnosisEdit

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 CircleEdit

The article Withypool Stone Circle you nominated as a good article has passed  ; 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

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

SorryEdit

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 20Edit

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. 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 27Edit

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. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve Biko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edendale. 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) 09:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the Vladimir Lenin article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 April 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 22, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10Edit

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 Gallas. 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) 09:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Nine Stones, Winterbourne AbbasEdit

I've put this in the art and archaeology section for FA. Let me know if you'd prefer it in the history section and I can move it there instead. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's great, Sarastro1 - thank you. I was planning on nominating a new article for FAC but am still a little confused by the rules. The FAC page states that "None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it." Does this two-week embargo just apply to editors whose FACs have not passed (and thus been archived) or does it include editors whose FACs have passed too? It would be great if the wording on that FAC page could be made clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
You can nominate when you like if an article has been promoted. I might have a look and see if we can tweak the wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Sarastro1. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heathenry (new religious movement)/archive2Edit

Sorry I didn't get to this last time it was at FAC; I will try this time, but I'm swamped at the moment. Perhaps you could try notifying a few WikiProjects? I do wonder whether there may be interested parties in the wider Wikipedia community who don't habituate FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and congratulations on Nine Stones, another nomination I didn't quite get to... Josh Milburn (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This image under DREdit

Dear Midnightblueowl,

Would you be willing to give your opinion on this image under DR? It depicts The Tholian's Web which was one of the few *Good season three TOS season 3 episodes sadly. Unfortunately, no one else has replied to it unlike the other images on the list.

PS: I had Time Trap deleted since I agreed that it was really decorative. But I would think that a Tholian Web is a bit more than decorative. This image was kept when the Community gave more input while others were deleted.

Its your call here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv. Thanks for your message. I saw this image earlier, and I did not comment then because I am really not sure on this particular issue. I think that the image of the Tholian ship's web may be useful in helping the reader to understand the special effects available in the 1960s, but whether that is a sufficiently good rationale for keeping a non-free image I don't know. I'll give it some further thought. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, Thanks for your thought here Midnightblueowl. I felt sometimes a visual image is more helpful since a picture can be worth more than a thousand words but the Community seems to have forgotten about this image DR. Thank for your reply again from Vancouver, Canada--Leoboudv (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon paganismEdit

Hello there, I just wanted to inform you that I was very impressed by this article of yours. And I was all the more desparate to figure out why the "Hutton 1991" inter-reference links don't work! Maybe you can help me with that? I'm really not that familar with the Wiki syntax, I must admit... Anyway, have a nice Easter and please ping me if you have any questions! Best--Hubon (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Hubon; I've fixed the problem! There were basically two forms of citation formatting in use in that article, which caused some problems. When I begin preparing the article for GAN at some point in the future I will ensure it is all standardised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I say thank you for reacting so quickly! Just out of curiosity: What exactly do you mean by preparing the article for GAN? What is GAN?--Hubon (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
--Hubon - GAN refers to WP:Good article nominations. It's the process by which an article can come to be rated as a "Good article". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm in your debt! And I'll keep my fingers crossed for a successful rating process. All the best!--Hubon (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

FAC requestEdit

Hello Midnightblueowl,

When you get the chance, could you review Naruto for FA? If you can't, please reply. Thanks. -- 1989 15:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heathenry (new religious movement)Edit

I am somewhat new at editing, and wanted to ask about the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heathenry (new religious movement)/archive2 which is listed as under consideration for a FA. Should we just jump in to edit this or is there a process for how this happens as it is FA considered? Thanks from a newbie! --FULBERT (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi FULBERT and welcome to Wikipedia. You are more than welcome to add any comments to the FAC page (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heathenry (new religious movement)/archive2). The sorts of things that can be posted there include suggestions for improvement, queries, and statements of support/opposition to the FA nomination itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Midnightblueowl. Certainly a lot to learn about how the editing and navigating tools works, but I have to start somewhere! Appreciate your guidance. --FULBERT (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin TFA delayedEdit

Hi -- sorry about the sudden nature of this, but with the TFA coming up in 24 hours I didn't have a lot of time to spare. You'll see some pings, but see User_talk:Iridescent#Lenin and Talk:Vladimir Lenin; Iridescent suggested that we delay this to the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution, and there was some support and no objections, so I've gone ahead and pulled it from this month's TFA list. Hope that's OK with you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added it to Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page/Date connection for November 7; I assume Iridescent gave that date because the October 23 date given in the October Revolution article is old-style dating. If there's a more appropriate date, let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Christie November 7 would be the appropriate date; that's when the Soviet Union celebrated the anniversary, so it's the de facto official date. It's still a public holiday in parts of the former Soviet bloc (although no longer in Russia itself), so what official commemorations there are will be held on that date. (Minsk will presumably be the focal point, as Belarus is the most significant country in which the date is still officially celebrated—I assume Putin will block any attempt to commemorate the event at the Winter Palace itself.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by iridescent (talkcontribs)

Lead talk page discussion on Joseph StalinEdit

A talk page discussion on the recent changes to the lead has been started by me here. SpikeballUnion (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:VA/EEdit

Hi, I noticed you haven't been particularly active at WP:VA/E of late. Feel free to come on back. pbp 15:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, User:Purplebackpack89. I've been popping over every now and again, but there does not seen to be a whole lot of activity taking place there right now (at least, not in the topics that I have greater familiarity with). Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

PingingEdit

Thanks for pinging me. I may misunderstand, but I've a feeling adding other user links after you have signed will not generate further pings to those users. I think you have to sign again. Apologies if I've got it wrong. --John (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks John. I'm a bit of a luddite when it comes to the techy-things. I've pinged the editors again. There are a few other discussions and what not going on over at the Lenin talk page; if you are interested in the subject then feel free to butt in on any of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Me too. It makes me feel very old to admit that I see all the pings and thanks as a very recent thing I haven't got my head round yet. But it's been about three years I think! --John (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

TemplateEdit

I reverted the Rastafari template, as a side template it seems fine. Nice work in originally creating it. Randy Kryn 12:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Randy and thanks for your message. I used to be a big fan of sidebars (about a decade ago), but from my experience they are not widely liked at Wikipedia and there are certainly many instances where they clog up the lede. I think that we will need to move towards a lower-page template with the Rastafari page; I will re-create the latter, but under a different name so that it does not replace the sidebar. Hope that deals with any issues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Both sidebars and bottom templates seem to fill a niche. I don't know about the 'not widely liked' view, haven't run into anyone complaining about them, and in some instances they work quite well in presenting the Wikipedia map to readers early. Is it just a few editors who don't like them, or have there been widespread discussions? Some of the best templates I've see or worked on are sidebars. Randy Kryn 12:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Logo of RCEdit

Hi, I want to comment this edit: Rodnover Confederation is not "one particular group" but, as their name says, a union of rodnovery group in Poland. It unites most of polish rodnover groups. Greetings ;) -Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Wojsław Brożyna. I'm still not convinced that the logo of any particular Native Faith is really warranted on the article. If we have a Polish logo, then there will probably be those who want a RUNVira logo, and then a logo from a Bulgarian group, and so on. I'm also not sure that a logo itself really conveys any important information to the reader. That being said, I think that images related to Polish practitioners are desirable, particularly as the majority of images are of Ukrainian and Russian practitioners. Ideally, we would have more photographs of Polish practitioners themselves and of their shrines. Are you aware of any such images that we could use? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I have some photos, but first I have to ask people who are visible on them about sharing to Wikipedia. If they agree, I can upload something :) --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

StalinEdit

Why have you bloated the Joseph Stalin article with excessive detail of his early life? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaisonHorta (talkcontribs) 12:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing excessive about it; the length of the material is perfectly in keeping with FA-rated political biography articles like Vladimir Lenin and Nelson Mandela. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Romuva (religion)Edit

Why the POV tag? I don't understand what you meant by the edit summary and I really see nothing wrong with the lead. Renata (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Renata, and thanks for your message. The main issue is the statement that "Romuva is a contemporary continuation of the traditional ethnic religion of the Baltic peoples, reviving the ancient religious practices of the Lithuanians before their Christianization in 1387." This is the equivalent of the Christianity article beginning with "Christianity is the one true religion set forth by God through the medium of his son, Jesus Christ". It's a view that members of the religion promote, but is not one that is accepted by academics in religious studies, who regard Romuva as a new religious movement and a form of Modern Paganism. See the GA-rated Heathenry (new religious movement) article, which provides a better framework for what we should be looking at with Romuva. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gerald Gardner, Witch.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Gerald Gardner, Witch.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Judith Phillips.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Judith Phillips.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Raymond Howard and the Head of Atho.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Raymond Howard and the Head of Atho.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

MakebaEdit

Greetings, MBO. I'm not certain this is quite in your line, but I was wondering if you would be interested in doing the GA review for Miriam Makeba. Though she is not a politician, she was (as I'm sure you know) a very political figure. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde, I will try and get to it in the next week, unless someone else beats me to it. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks! Vanamonde (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

ANIEdit

Yes, you are missing something. Nearly all discussions at ANI are archived by a bot. The particular discussion in question here was closed by administrator Neutrality with a quite lengthy explanation. The bot automatically archives closed discussions after a certain period of time (I think it's 24 hours). Any open discussion that has not been edited in a certain period of time (I believe that's 4 days) are also archived by a bot. Restoring a closed discussion is pointless, as it is closed. If you object to the close you should take it up with Neutrality, and after that, appeal the close at WP:AN. As you've made a subsequent edit to another thread, I cannot undo your edit again, so the bot will archive it again in 24 hours. John from Idegon (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, John from Idegon. Where did this discussion take place? I cannot locate it anywhere. I've looked through Neutrality's contribution list here and still cannot find anything matching the description you provide. Might you be confusing this discussion ("User:Xx236's disruptive editing and advocacy on Vladimir Lenin and other Soviet themed articles") with that at "Problematic behavior by User:Medeis at the reference desk", which Neutrality certainly did close with a lengthy explanation? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Midnightblueowl is correct. I only closed the Medeis discussion. I did not close the Xx236/Lenin discussion. Neutralitytalk 19:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I see what happened. And I apologize. I must have clicked the goto in the edit summary here. Smack me with a big juicy trout please. John from Idegon (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Not a problem, John. It's an easy mistake to make. The ANI discussion I restored is currently waiting for an administrator to come along and sum it all up; I've put a request out but no one has yet been able to do so. Hopefully it won't take too long. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Gospel of Jesus' WifeEdit

@Midnightblueowl: I altered the Gospel of Jesus' Wife article to your specifications. Do you think that it's ready to become a FA? If more changes need to be made, I will make them. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Picture of LeninEdit

Hi,

I saw that you deleted the photo I uploaded to Vladimir Lenin yesterday. As specified in the description, the photo of Lenin I previously uploaded is a derivative work of a picture that has already been uploaded to Wikimedia commons and has been identified as belonging to the public domain (see File:Lenin1921.jpeg).. Since it was in the public domain, I was under the impression that I did not need to provide license information.

If this is not sufficient, please me in the right direction of website guidelines that provide otherwise and I'll see what I can do to make proper corrections. Thank you for your consideration.

Emiya1980 (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Emiya1980. Discussions over which images could and could not be used over at Vladimir Lenin raged on quite a bit back in 2016, when the article was being prepared for FAC. The problem is that there are a great number of images which are on Wikimedia Commons (including File:Lenin1921.jpeg) which have had 'Public Domain' tags attached to them but without any greater explanation made as to why they are so. Basically, just because an image has a tag, it does not mean that the tag is correct. The explanation featured on File:Lenin1921.jpeg is not sufficient; it does not explain why the image is PD in either the Russian Federation or the United States, which it would have to do were it to be included in the FA-rated Lenin article. I appreciate that this can be a real frustration (it was for me), but we need to be mindful of it to ensure that the Lenin article retains its FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Citations in the LeadEdit

In the New Age article you removed a citation in the article lead. While I think a citation may still fit in the Lead section, I appreciate your explanation of why you removed it. It led me to search for what this meant, and in the process discovered the Wikipedia Manual of Style (which I have not seen before!!). Very helpful. Thanks!! FULBERT (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Glad to see that you are finding your way around, FULBERT! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Following dedicated exemplars helps! FULBERT (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Steve BikoEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Steve Biko 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 HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 18, 2017Edit

Nelson Mandela has been scheduled for the above date as today's featured article. I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time to make sure it's up-to-date. You're welcome but not obligated to edit the text that will appear on the Main Page; I'll be trimming it to around 1100 characters. Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 00:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Dank; I'm just wondering if it might be better to hold off on this one for a year. 18 July 2017 will mark the 99th anniversary since Mandela's birth; if we leave it till 18 July 2018 then we can actually use it on the centenary of Mandela's birth. Unless of course we use it as the TFA on both dates, which is fine by me but possibly not something that we generally do. If you wanted an alternative (at fairly short notice), I recently got Heathenry (new religious movement) to FA status, perhaps that would be a good one to go with? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought the same about the date, and would support the alternative. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I'll be happy to run it next year, I'll add it to WP:TFAP. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Heathenry (new religious movement), I nominated the other --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Steve BikoEdit

The article Steve Biko 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:Steve Biko for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Glyn Daniel.gifEdit

Thanks for uploading File:Glyn Daniel.gif. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eran (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Peter Dinklage discussionEdit

Hello Midnightblueowl. You might be interested in reading Talk:Peter Dinklage#Overruling the RFC where one of your suggestions on a FAC has been mentioned. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Steve BikoEdit

The article Steve Biko you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Steve Biko 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 HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well done! I was hoping to review this one, actually, but HaEr48 got to it first. He's a fascinating and important figure that I don't know nearly enough about...in any case, congratulations. Vanamonde (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Order of Nine Angles Reference QueryEdit

Given your input in the ONA article - bringing it to GA status - could you answer a question about a quote and a reference given in the article? The section reads: "Religious studies scholar George Sieg expressed concern with this association, stating that he found it to be "implausible and untenable based on the extent of variance in writing style, personality, and tone" between Myatt and Long," with the reference being to an article in the International Journal for the Study of New Religion.

Since I don't have access to the journal, and since the validity of the quote has been called into question, can you confirm it is accurate? If it isn't accurate, then shouldn't the quote be removed from the ONA article? Pavane7 (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Pavane7. The quote in question does indeed appear on page 257 of the source (in footnote 9). I will post a comment to this effect on the appropriate section of Talk:David Myatt? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Your help is much appreciated. I'll restore the quote to the DM article. Pavane7 (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

CongratulationsEdit

... to your latest FA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gerda - and thanks also for taking the time to read and review it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 21, 2017Edit

Had to pull one, and Murder of Dwayne Jones has the anniversary coming up, so ... I've scheduled this one for the above date as Today's Featured Article. I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time to make sure it's up-to-date. You can edit the text that will appear on the Main Page if you like; I'll be trimming it to around 1100 characters. Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing at " a Jamaican teenager who was murdered in an act of anti-LGBT violence as a result of his gender non-conformity in July 2013." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Referendum PartyEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Referendum Party 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

AN/IEdit

Soviet Socialist Republic of Abkhazia GACEdit

Hey just a heads up that I may need a few more days to get a chance to go fix up the article. Just temporarily busier than I expected, and don't have the time I'd like to properly go over it. So don't fret that I haven't done anything, I'm not ignoring it or anything. Thanks. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: - not a problem at all. There's no rush on my part. Take your time. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a heads up in case you didn't see my comment at the review page, but I went through and finally got everything taken care of. Kaiser matias (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
And again, finished things there. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  The Original Barnstar
I just want to show that I truly do appreciate the time and effort you put into helping get this article to GA. Thanks once again, it was a pleasure having you look it over. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of Referendum PartyEdit

The article Referendum Party you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Referendum Party 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) 05:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Narendra Modi, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Lorstaking (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!Edit

  The Epic Barnstar
Am I correct in thinking that the GA I passed earlier today was your 100th? Congratulations, that's a mighty achievement! Vanamonde (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Vanadomde93: - thank you very much. Indeed it is my hundred. Here's to the next hundred! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Randall Flagg FACEdit

Hi you left a comment on the Randall Flagg FAC page before at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Randall_Flagg/archive7, would you mind taking a look and seeing if I fixed the issues you had? Thank you.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I went over the article and addressed the concerns to the best of my knowledge. Thanks again.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

An LGBT Barnstar for you!Edit

  The LGBT Barnstar
Please accept an LGBT Barnstar for all your work on the article Death of Leelah Alcorn, recently raised to Featured status. Thank you. — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Adding my congratulations too on today’s TFA. Well done on getting another important article to the front page. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!Edit

  The Africa Award
This is for all the time and effort you've put into Steve Biko. I hope the FAC goes well and I hope there is much more great Africa work from you in the future. Indy beetle (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

FolklorismusEdit

I noted the new article that you created, Folklorismus. Consider a merger with fakelore, since apparently it is already treated there.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eckhardt Etheling and thanks for your message. The two concepts are similar, but definitely distinct. Fakelore tends to have somewhat more pejorative connotations than folklorismus. There is certainly space to flesh out both articles, in my view. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017Edit

Seems I suddenly am able to attend Wikimania 2017; will you be there? I would have emailed this to you, but could not find a way to do it! FULBERT (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi FULBERT. I'm afraid that I will not be in attendance. Montreal is not exactly local to me and in general I tend not to bother with 'real life' Wikipedia/Wikimedia events and meet-ups. Still - enjoy yourself while there! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Will be my first time at something like that. Sorry will miss you! FULBERT (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Heathenry (new religious movement) scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the Heathenry (new religious movement) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 18 August 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 18, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!Edit

Precious
 
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you especially for today's Steve Biko, "one of the most famous South Africans in modern history, a man who is probably the second most prominent icon of the anti-apartheid movement (after Nelson Mandela", - well planned! I like the song in the DYK section, and am proud to have a little new music in the set. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey, Gerda, the song's mine ;) Joking aside, yes indeed, thanks for all your work on this, MBO, and it was a pleasure to work with you. Vanamonde (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't yet get to you because I had "things to settle" ;) - I like the collaboration, and to see the result on one page (the link will turn blue during the day). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Lenin, "one of the most prominent political figures of the 20th century, a man who established the Soviet Union and whose ideas had a colossal impact on the global communist movement."! I have a FAC open., btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Mortimer Wheeler, "one of the most prominent British archaeologists of the twentieth century, who specialised in Roman Britain and in the archaeology of the Indian subcontinent."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Death of Leelah Alcorn, a transgender teenager living in Ohio who killed herself in 2014, attracting international attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Two questionsEdit

First, I've sent two more influential 20th century heads of state to GAN; Carlos Castillo Armas and Manuel Noriega. Any interest in reviewing them? The first, in particular, has languished at GAN for many months now. Second, since you did a very thorough GAR of Miriam Makeba, would you be interested in helping me taking to FAC? It'll take a little work, I think, but that's okay since I believe both of us have two nominations there already. If you're busy with other things, no worries. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Happy to co-nominate the Makeba article (after Biko goes through, of course) and will try and have a go at one of the GANs at some point if I get the chance. Sorry that I cannot be more definite on the issue at the moment! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. I've several things going on in real life; so there's no hurry on any of it. Vanamonde (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Asking for opinionEdit

Hello, Midnightblueowl, recently there have been a disagreement occured about if Benazir Bhutto is the first woman who had govern a Muslim Nation or not. Currently a talk page discussion is active about this. If you have any opinion then plz give it on talk page.[1] Ominictionary (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

SwinsideEdit

Not really Wikipedia-related, but anyway... Inspired by reading your articles on stone circles in the south, I had a (leisurely!) hike to Swinside and then over some of the surrounding hills today. I was very impressed; the circle was a lot bigger than I expected. I hope to see a few more in South Cumbria in the next few weeks, but I'd be surprised if they can top Swinside! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Castlerigg stone circle might just top it! Bit of a tourist trap, but very dramatic scenery. Hope you enjoy your visits, Josh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:West Country Wicca.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:West Country Wicca.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Steve Biko scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the Steve Biko article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 12, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 12, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested to know that Biko (song) has been scheduled at DYK, for the same occasion. On an unrelated note, wondering if we could wrap this up now, get it off both of our to-do lists. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

MakebaEdit

I know you are really busy with the Stalin article; I'll do my best to review it at GAN, once you send it there. If possible, now would be a really good time to have a go at Makeba: I've worked my way through a good number of my sources, and I'd like to do substantive work before polishing formatting and such things. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde and thanks for the reminder. Yes, Stalin has been preoccupying me a fair bit lately, as have debates over the content over at Norse religion. Will hop over to Makeba now! Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to be annoying, but I've worked my way through my major sources; unless we dig up something new, it's mostly going to be polish and (hopefully soon) nomination. Would you like to take another look at it when you've the time? Vanamonde (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Was planning on giving it a read-through again tonight. In the meantime, I've found a few extra sources, like Tyler Fleming's "A marriage of inconvenience: Miriam Makeba's relationship with Stokely Carmichael and her music career in the United States", Safundi, and Ruth Feldstein's "Screening Antiapartheid: Miriam Makeba, "Come Back, Africa," and the Transnational Circulation of Black Culture and Politics". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Wonderful, thanks. Have at it, I'll be back in a few hours. Vanamonde (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm hoping to nominate this early next weak; what d'you think? Vanamonde (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: That sounds fine with me; I'll try and make any further amendments in the next 24 hours. If you want to use me as a co-nominator (so that you may also have another, solo, nomination on the go), please go ahead. I will likely have patchy internet access for the next two weeks or so, for which I apologise in advance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
24 hours is great, 2 or 3 days is also okay. I was indeed hoping you would co-nom: I still have a solo-nom pending. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Modern Paganism decisionEdit

I see the move request for Modern Paganism was not done, and wanted to ask you about the process of that. While I voiced my disagreement with it and am happy with its outcome, can you help me understand the process and how it was finally determined and then boxed to prevent further changes? Not disagreeing with it, and just trying to learn how this flow and discussion finally ended. Thanks. FULBERT (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi FULBERT. Basically a proposal was made, and time was given for various other editors to offer their 'support' or 'opposition' to the proposal; or simply to offer 'comments' on it. In each case it is important not just to give a statement of opinion but to explain one's views through reference to Wikipedia's various policies. After the conversation appears to have been exhausted (i.e. no one has posted for a week or so), and particularly if there is a very clear majority consensus (as there was in this particular case), another editor—usually, although not always, an administrator—can close to the discussion, offering a summary as to its conclusion. This article may be of a little further help, as might WP:Consensus. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I saw some of these and generally understand it; what I am trying to understand in this situation (the first one I have been involved with) is when a date was decided for this to happen? Did it just "feel right" and so somebody just did it? I am just trying to understand this as a process issue. Thanks! FULBERT (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
For making Steve Biko into a superb article, and getting it to TFA on the anniversary of his death. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI in case you have any interest, I am trying to do something similar with the upcoming centennial of the Balfour Declaration. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Onceinawhile. Will try and take a look and offer any suggestions I can at some point!

Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Referendum Party FACEdit

Hi, I've a couple of points outstanding from my review if you'd care to revisit. Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi Brianboulton, thanks for your message. I haven't forgotten, I've just not been active on Wikipedia much lately. Let me just finish with a GAN review and I'll be over to the FAC in an hour or so! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

One of your edits to the Miriam Makeba pageEdit

Hello, thanks very much for your help with the Miriam Makeba article. However, I just realised that I basically had to undo an edit of yours there because it broke the accessibility of the bibliography section for screen reader users like me. See Template talk:Refbegin#Fixing hanging indents. Graham87 06:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries, Graham. Thanks for letting me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Scientific publication on the Primary School ProjectEdit

Good evening.

The Wikipedia Primary School project is now over. One of the outcomes of this project is a scientific article, co-authored by Heather Ford, Florence Devouard, Martha Pucciarelli, Luca Botturi and Iolanda Pensa. You (your username actually) happens to be mentionned in the article. This message is hereby to inform you of that fact. I would like to invite you to have a look at the article, a draft of which is available here. In case you have any issue or question, please get in touch with me :) In any cases, I would like to ask you to confirm that you have read this message !

I will further inform you when the article is published.

All my best. Anthere (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anthere and thanks for letting me know. The "here" link does not seem to work, however. Could you re-send it? Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Arg :) Fixed. Anthere (talk)

StalinEdit

Great job with the article, but I think you should briefly mentioned the failed talks between the Soviet Union and UK/France before the Nazi-Soviet pact. LittleJerry (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks LittleJerry. From what I recall, a lot of the major Stalin biographies do not mention attempts to establish links with the UK (although they often mention the pacts with France and Czechoslovakia). That's not to say that we can't mention them in the article, of course, so long as we have the appropriate citations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
A user keeps reverting my edit, even though I sourced it to one of your books. I hope you'll chime in. LittleJerry (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@LittleJerry:, Ah yes I see what you mean. If the problem persists then I suggest opening up a Talk Page section on the subject; a persistent edit war will not be of benefit to anyone. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything wrong with the edit? I really don't like wasting time starting a talk over a relatively minor thing, but I feel there is no justification for the removal. If you feel the information is relevant, then if it is removed again you could revert it back. A user is in the wrong when they edit against a consensus. LittleJerry (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@LittleJerry: Personally I do not see anything wrong with the information that you added. I think that Gravuritas' view is that the claim being made appears a bit speculative, but I think that your rewording largely deals with that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Just a few questions, shouldn't you mention that Stalin's regime has been called "totalitarian"? Autocrat seems weak as his and Hitler's have always been seen as different from traditional autocracies. Also does "Category:Anti-nationalists" apply? LittleJerry (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@LittleJerry: I think that a mention of Stalin's regime being totalitarian is certainly warranted; we do so, for instance, in the Lenin article. Regarding "anti-nationalists", I am really not sure. As I understand it, Stalin's relationship with nationalism was fairly complicated; as a Marxist he clearly had internationalist ambitions but also saw nationalism (particularly Russian nationalism) as a powerful tool for mobilisation, and we have reliable sources to bolster that. I would probably avoid "anti-nationalists" as a category (indeed, I'm not really sure how useful it is as a category for anyone in the first place, to be perfectly honest). Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Don't the biographies mention the denunciation of the pact with Japan and the declaration of war? I think the foreign policy article could be replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@LittleJerry: I don't think that Service, Khlevniuk, or Conquest specifically mention the declaration of war, unfortunately; rather they refer to the attack that the Soviets launched between the two atomic bombs. Perhaps Volkogonov does, but that is something which I shall have to check. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Khlevniuk mentions the denunciation (but I also have access to google books which does not give the page number) and Gellate's book "Stalin's Curse" mentions the declaration of war on page 184. You could also try Roberts' book. LittleJerry (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I replaced Gellatey's book with one of your biographies on Stalin publicly attacking anti-Semitism [2]. It is a 2007 so you may want to check if it is consistent with the 2004 version. Same with the racism line. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Polytheism article questionEdit

Can you give some feedback on the recent edits on the Polytheism page, Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs)? There was a user who added a number of items which I undid as they were not sourced nor supported. I left that in the comments when I undid the changes and also on that user's own Talk page. This user finally added references though they are still incomplete, which I pointed out on the Talk page of the user. What would you say is the best way to finish this? I cannot locate the references that were added as they are incomplete and somewhat dated and think they need to be either completed (which I cannot do) or removed. After the many undos today, I am hesitant to do any more of them. Any suggestions? Thank you. FULBERT (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi FULBERT. If the editor was adding unreferenced material, you are fine to remove it so don't worry too much about that. I would urge the editor to include page numbers with their edits, which are crucial. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks; that is what I was thinking, though I wanted to make sure it was not just me as I have already received pushback. FULBERT (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

O.G.S. Crawford scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the O.G.S. Crawford article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 28, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 28, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the "prominent early to mid 20th century British archaeologist"! - Would you have a moment to look at the top of this cantata which looks like a stained-glass window. Peer review, images. Reformation is on my user page from 2012, DYK? 500 years on Tuesday, and I'm not ready ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gerda Arendt; apologies, but I've only just seen this, having logged on after several days away. Will take a look now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
No problem. The peer review was closed (not by me), the image question is on the talk. It has been described as a waste of time (not by me). Bach wrote two cantatas for Reformation Day, BWV 79 and BWV 80. One looks lie about Luther's theses, the other like stained glass, - both lead images are not ideally suited to the specific cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guilden Morden boar/archive1Edit

Interesting-looking article at FAC, in case you missed it. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Josh; I had indeed missed this! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Winston Churchill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Connaught Place (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, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

CongratulationsEdit

...on the promotion of Referendum Party. I look forward to seeing it on the main page. 20th anniversary of the party's one and only general election would have been a good date, but that's gone. I reckon any date will do, given the relevance of the politics. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Brian. Hopefully the not too distant future will see other UK political party articles reach FA status too, particularly those of the three big hitters. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Best to be generous to the Lib Dems, they've had a rough few years. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Michael Portillo#Infobox proposalEdit

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Michael Portillo#Infobox proposal. Smerus (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello againEdit

Hello and thank you for your time and comments last time. I consider you the foremost model of Wikipedia-contribution, and you articles have long served as a template or ideal for me in that regard. On a slightly different note however, I must say I like you user page set-up a lot as well, and therefore I ask if I could borrow your design (and change it to my liking), as I am not great at the technical formating to create a visually pleasing user page. Obviously it wouldn't be anywhere near as full of accolades, but it's a nice start. I would be sure to give you credit on it! Cheers--Simen113 (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Simen113. Feel free to adopt any of the formatting from my user page as you see fit. There's really no need to credit me when doing so, as I largely built the format using bits and pieces I in turn had borrowed from others anyway. Share and share alike! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Stalin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ingushi (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) 11:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

ChurchillEdit

What is "Gilbert 1991"? I cannot find a 1991 work by Gilbert in the sources listed. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi DuncanHill and thanks for your message. "Gilbert 1991" is a reference to what is perhaps the foremost Churchill biography yet published: Martin Gilbert's Churchill: A Life. It may be that that is not currently in the listed sources, which I shall rectify. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
You shouldn't add references in that form (surname, date) before adding it to the sources. It makes the article look amateurish and slapdash, and is incredibly frustrating to the reader. The referencing on the article has been atrocious for some time, see the talk page for some discussion of this. DuncanHill (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin scheduled for TFA (2)Edit

This is to let you know that the Vladimir Lenin article has been scheduled as today's featured article for November 7, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 7, 2017. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, Mortimer Wheeler for December 23 and Death of Leelah Alcorn for December 28.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert MugabeEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert Mugabe 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 My name is not dave -- My name is not dave (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.Edit

Hi Midnight,

Thank you so much for such a thorough review of the Balfour article. After two FACs and two peers reviews I thoughts I had ironed everything out, but the points you managed to find were great improvements. I am very proud of how it reads now.

Onceinawhile (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Midnight, if you’re happy with the changes, and you are supportive of the nomination, would you mind confirming at the FAC?
One week to go until the centenary. I am still hopeful that it has a (perhaps small) chance of getting through TFA on time!
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Content Review MedalEdit

  The Content Review Medal of Merit  
Thank you for your recent work at GA, particularly for your thorough review of Manuel Noriega. Your work is an example for all of us! MX () 18:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, MX. Reviewing can be somewhat tiring but is important to keep the cogs of Wikipedia running. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jomo KenyattaEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jomo Kenyatta 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 Indy beetle -- Indy beetle (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Coldrum skulls.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Coldrum skulls.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

TyndallEdit

I see you have Tyndall at FAC – your penchant for dodgy political characters almost matches my own. For myself, I have embarked on an expansion of Guy Burgess; it's very much in the sandbox stage at present, and won't be showing much on the page before the year's end. I mention this, in case you have designs in that direction yourself (we can always join forces if you have). In the meantime I'll try to find time to review Tyndall, whom I remember all too well. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brian and thanks for your message. Glad to see you working on the Burgess article; I have no plans on editing it, but if ever wanted a second pair of eyes to give it a read through do give me a ping. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert MugabeEdit

The article Robert Mugabe 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:Robert Mugabe for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of My name is not dave -- My name is not dave (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jomo KenyattaEdit

The article Jomo Kenyatta you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Jomo Kenyatta 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 Indy beetle -- Indy beetle (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert MugabeEdit

The article Robert Mugabe you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Robert Mugabe 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 My name is not dave -- My name is not dave (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jean Bolikango/archive1Edit

I don't know if the ping reached you or not, but I was just checking if you had anything further to add at the Jean Bolikango FAC, or if your concerns had been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I have responded to your second round of comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Lenin TFAEdit

Many congratulations on getting Lenin to the front page on the centenary of the revolution.

I have become a great admirer of your work, which is both of the highest quality as well as on subjects of great importance and very high readership.

Midnightblueowl, you are a great asset to Wikipedia. Thank you for all your hard work and dedication.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Onceinawhile. It is appreciated. Over the past few years I have been reminded of a comment made to me by User:Khazar2 (sadly retired) that we need to focus on getting the 'top importance' articles to GA and FA quality. For that reason I have been trying to improve several of those 'big name' famous political figures; a daunting task but, I hope, a worthwhile one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Lenin, on a normal day, gets about 8,000 views. The current TFA gets about 10. Whilst breadth and depth are important components of what Wikipedia brings to the world, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to conclude that it is – quantifiably – hundreds of times more important for Lenin’s article to be of high quality than it is for TFAs such as today’s. It would be great if all articles could be of high quality, but that of course is not possible. On the other hand, it’s much much harder to get an article like Lenin to TFA status given the breadth and complexity of the available academic information on the topic.
Which is a long way of saying that I completely agree.
PS - Lenin had 123,000 views yesterday, so qualified for WP:TFAMOSTVIEWED.
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I was quite pleased to be able to put Lenin on the main page for such an important anniversary.Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

HelloEdit

Do you think you could take a look at Talk:Benito Mussolini/Archive 4#Infobox picture? It has turned into quite the polemic there. It would be great to get your input.--Simen113 (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

MagicEdit

If you were a professional, well informed and well read, magician would know these are academic sources. Please replace them at magic. Miistermagico (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Midnightblueowl, Please examine my user page. I hope it meets your approval. If it does please include an entry there. Thank you, miistermagico Miistermagico (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Forgive me Miisteragico (talk · contribs), but I am really not sure what you are trying to say. The citations that you were using in your edits on magic (paranormal) were not "academic sources" at all; they were not written by professional academics, peer-reviewed, or published by an academic press. They may (or may not) have gained widespread readership and respect among illusionists, but that does not make them academic. Moreover, the magic (paranormal) article is about magic as a (quasi-)religious concept, not illusionism, so using sources about the latter to describe the former is not particularly appropriate. The article should rely on the academic studies of professional anthropologists, historians, and scholars of religion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Process Church logo.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Process Church logo.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Porlock Stone CircleEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Porlock Stone Circle 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 Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Midnightblueowl. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page ReviewingEdit

Hello, Midnightblueowl.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Desmond Tutu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Taylor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 20:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PopolEtVirginie1c 09022005.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:PopolEtVirginie1c 09022005.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Porlock Stone CircleEdit

The article Porlock Stone Circle you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Porlock 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 Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

National Front (UK) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Punk
William Stukeley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Chatsworth

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!Edit

  Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
And to you, Ealdgyth! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all!Edit

  We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!    — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Trotsky Service.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Trotsky Service.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Grahame ClarkEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Grahame Clark 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Grahame ClarkEdit

The article Grahame Clark you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:Grahame Clark for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation ReviewingEdit

Hello, Midnightblueowl.
AfC submissions
Random submission
2+ months
3,447 pending submissions
Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Midnightblueowl/Archive 7".