User:Dr. Blofeld/August 2013

A DYK project, if you'd like
I just created Cine Rex, which you could probably gussy up for a DYK candidate; seems to be of the sort that would make a nice one, with minimal effort. But, I don't want to get too far distracated from my principal task. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Town Range
The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Eagle Peak (Wyoming)
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Peer review
I held that PR after your suggesstion but, you did not posted a single comment nor edited as per your earlier post. Will you ever fulfill any of your promise. Please comment ASAP as i will close it soon Peer review/Priyanka Chopra filmography/archive1. Thanks.— Prashant 17:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Prashant I've been taking a breather from wikipedia for at least a week now, but if you want me to comment you should know by now that telling me that I don't keep promises and shouting in capitals to do something is likely to do the opposite.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Why you always misunderstood. Please, understand that it was you who suggested to hold a PR not me. Also, you have told me that you will edit and change few words. Also, since i type on my iPad (lot of problem and pain) that's why sometimes it becomes hard to type due to capslock and then to lower case. I have always respected you. If you can help. You were the one who promised that if i let the Chopra fac keep going smoothly, you will take look at my future projects. I will be happy if you can edit or comment. Thank you.— Prashant 14:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said, there has been a very good reason why I've been taking a break from wikipedia and if you got out of your own way of thinking you'd understand why. Yes, I said I would look at it on July 29 and a week has passed and I still haven't. I really haven't been in the mood for even visiting wikipedia let alone reviewing, frankly I'm rather fed up with the project at the moment. I'll do my best to take a look at it within the next day or two, from what I see the others have already offered some good suggestions.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  15:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Only Schro had commented there not many. Also, he is not happy with prose. Prose tightening is the solution. But, i think your comment/edit will fill that place. Hope you reflect soon there.— Prashant 16:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Il ritorno di Ringomusic.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Il ritorno di Ringomusic.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the Barnstar for the GA of Bangui. I have started editing Badajoz. Can you locate from your records some of the references to texts which are presently not referenced.-- Nvvchar . 18:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiMania 2014
Are you planning going to WikiMania next year?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 22:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Is Der Stat going? Grin grin.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  22:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure I could persuade him - it isn't that far from Gottingen. Or for that matter, Wales.-- Gilderien Talk&#124;List of good deeds 22:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Mmm given how inattentive the foundation is to editorial input and how much work actually needs doing on the encyclopedia, sitting around talking about how great or how bad wikipedia is in a bunch of t shirts with wikimania on them and giving Jimbo and Sue some brownies I'm not sure what the point is. Every day needs to be wikimania day online and the foundation to sponsor exciting events and competitions on site if we are to get serious about improving quality on here... But a lot of very productive decent editors on here love wikimania so I'm assuming it has some sort of benefit, not my sort of thing, really.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  22:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I think that is from the idea that it makes people feel more a part of the community, and lets you get to know new editors; most people seem to give up online feuds once they meet someone in real life, and I suppose it would increase collaboration on important topics.-- Gilderien Talk&#124;List of good deeds 22:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Define part of the community ;) - I am certainly not part of Teh Community, and was a few days ago in danger of being banned for disrupting the TFA. Well, you see, I am still here, and after spending most of yesterday at the arbcom case and the opera (waste of time was mentioned), I actually expanded an article today, the first in August! In case of interest: there are red links and stubs on Carl Moritz (architect) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you never used to encounter any trouble on here!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The George Hotel, Crawley
Hi Dr B. Sounds like a good suggestion; I reckon it has potential for FA-status. I will check all my Crawley books etc. to see if there's anything more I can add. I'll do a check for dead links as well. Just thinking about timescales, if you submit for FA I will be away for most of September, so if there were questions/challenges relating to material I have added they would have to wait until I get back on 27th Sep. (I have tried a couple of times to get better photos, but they have a regular street market in the High Street and it is based right in front of the hotel!!)  Hassocks 5489  (Floreat Hova!)  12:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Wards of Zimbabwe
Hello Dr B! Hope you're well. I see you started some of the articles on the page Wards of Zimbabwe. I'd like to help fill in some of the gaps, but I'm struggling for a good source guide to say these places actually exist. Do you know of anything online as a starting point? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm Crisco 1492. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ''This has to go back at you as well, after looking around a bit. Comments such as " I see you're not here to be constructive", implying that those who disagree with you are indecent, and "You're the model prototype of WP:OWN to the point that you'd happily restore a vastly inferior article version just to restore your full additions to the article" are against AGF and CIVIL.'' — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's uncivil? Would you assume good faith after reading his comments on the Paris talk page and comments like this?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  16:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The first comment by Dr. B. was in response to :Pathetic. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC). The second was the product of a long-running dispute where he was subjected to edit-summaries such as: 17:20, 25 July 2013‎ Der Statistiker (Trollish cut by Dr Blofeld/Tibetan Prayer, with the most childish reason given. See 12:56, 22 July 2013‎ The third was in response to You seem to have a really bad case of WP:OWN. His responses when we include the context in which they were given don't look out of place at all and certainly are not template material. In the wider context of incivility within Wikipedia where everyone and sundry is described as "assholes", "liars" etc., not to mention the passive-aggressive mocking responses which seem civil on the surface yet they are very insulting to the recipient, Dr. B.'s responses are quaintly civil by comparison. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  17:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Blofeld has his crew of supporters, as always (as if he wasn't able to defend himself). My comment "pathetic" was with regard to Dr Blofeld opening an article stub Demographics of Göttingen (which was later deleted) and coming on may talk page to tell me I should edit there, as if being from Göttingen I wasn't qualified to edit the Paris article and should only edit Göttingen related things. I'm sorry but such teenage behavior is indeed pathetic. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It was actually a serious effort to try to get you working on constructive. I db authored it because you made it clear that you weren't going to bother. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  17:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Blofeld has his crew of supporters, as always... I never met you and your response to my comment is presumptuous. Your attempt at classifying me is a good example of low-level incivility but if you think this will prevent me from expressing my opinion you are wrong. Nothing else to add. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  17:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you've never taken part in the discussions on the Paris talk page, and suddenly, when an admin finally calls Dr Blofeld to order you pop up from nowhere to write a comment in his defense on his talk page (how did you even know an admin had lectured him on his talk page??). I know there is lots of backstage messages and canvassing being done by Dr Blofeld here, and your sudden message only 3 hours after the admin has left a message here is a troubling indication of this. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I solemnly swear on my mother's life that I didn't email Dr. K to post here, to my knowledge I don't even have his email address. My talk page is watched by nearly 400 people Der Stat. So if you've come here to complain about me you're going to get knocked down pretty quick.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  17:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dr. B., what a geek! How dare you have no social life!! Göttingen has some great clubs a cricket club, not to mention a wide demographic!! Some of us simply live to edit Wikipedia - regards from the "supporter's crew". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Backstage with Dr. B."

LOL. Yep, in the last 2 weeks on here I've been called both a "coward" and a "geek", a first time for both in 4 decades! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  17:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're such a coward you daft old Welsh git. And now we know what your're really like backstage. Call yourself a lute-player!? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Darn, Der Stat will be calling me a sheep shagger now Martin you silly fellow Welsh moo! Ich liebe Schafe!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pop-up social life from nowhere... Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Not everything is probability and statistics. Especially when you try to apply them to the social dynamics of en.wiki. I have Dr. B.'s page watchlisted and when I saw the message I simply provided some context to it because I thought it did not give the proper context to the events. I am also a believer in freely expressing my opinion, without fear of being classified, especially by use of statistics. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  18:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not provide the proper context which was that he had gone out of his way to create the article stub Demographics of Göttingen just to post on my talk page that I should edit there, which I found extremely spiteful, to say the least. Der Statistiker (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I will not challenge the validity of your perception, although I may or may not agree with your conclusion. However my point was that there was a certain prehistory between you two and therefore the incident mentioned in the warning should be viewed in the wider context of the other exchanges. I didn't want to isolate you as the only cause of the problems, which I found mild on both sides, from what I checked in any case. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's extremely spiteful, words simply cannot describe how you've treated me Der Stat. I've encountered some real nasties on this website but without a doubt you're the most consistently obnoxious here. I believe in karma and if you treat people like this in the real world you're going to fall on your face real soon, you lack even basic human empathy and understanding which is verging on psychopathic, it just isn't normal to persistently treat people like you do, miffed that I reedited an article or not.. Most of the nasty people I've encountered on here at some point indicate that they have some sort of human understanding but you've been relentlessly mean towards me and the work I've done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but a guy who goes on other people's talk pages to tell them that they are "a danger to society" cannot be taken seriously. Der Statistiker (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If Promenader was seriously considering reverting the Paris article to April version then he would be a threat to our readers and community. Just editors who would think that acceptable would certainly be a danger to our encyclopedia. Promenader, sure he's really not happy with the way the article has been handled, but I don't think he really enjoys making people suffer unlike yourself who I'm yet to see an ounce of empathy and understanding from. There's a difference between being pissed off that somebody edited your work and relentlessly being unpleasant with every post for weeks, most normal people would cool off and try to get on and progress. You genuinely seem to enjoy having somebody and something to complain about and to stalk my edits and dig holes in my work. I'm yet to see even the slightest indication that you're capable of friendly, constructive conversation which isn't mocking and odious in nature. I'd love for you to prove me wrong. I'm really not the sort of guy who likes having an ongoing dispute or nonsense, anybody or anything I've had a problem with on here I've always made a big effort to sort out disputes and problems with other editors so as a result they rarely last longer than a week, or even a few days. However, I really don't seem to be getting anywhere with you, I offered you and Promenader the chance back in July to draw a line and to just drop the attacks and try to work with me. I even incorporated ideas given into the lead which I'd hoped would help improve the situation but for some reason it soured Promenader and he's been pretty much even worse than you you since. Superzoulou at the moment seems the only one here genuinely trying to get somewhere. Again, I say that if you change your attitude towards me and the article you'll find me quite reasonable. If you're really not devoid of any reasoning and empathy I ask you to draw line here and you'll find that how you treat me is a mirror of how I treat you. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a note: that neither Der statistiker nor Blofeld's comments included foul language, they were both aimed at denigrating another (named or indicated) editor. As for whether or not these actions were understandable in the context, that's outside of WP:CIVIL as currently written. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Carl Moritz (architect)
Alex ShihTalk 16:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Tang Qunying could probably be nominated for GA, unless you want some more text to be added. I have edited it today.-- Nvvchar . 00:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You may like to nominate Honiara, better referenced than Badajoz.-- Nvvchar . 06:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Priyanka Chopra
This is a note to let the main editors of Priyanka Chopra know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 14, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/August 14, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Priyanka Chopra (born 1982) is an Indian film actress and singer, and was the winner of the Miss World pageant of 2000. She has become one of Bollywood's highest-paid actresses and one of the most popular celebrities in India. She has won a National Film Award for Best Actress and Filmfare Awards in four categories. She made her acting debut in the Tamil film Thamizhan in 2002. The following year, she starred in The Hero, her first Hindi film release, and followed it with the box-office hit Andaaz. She subsequently earned critical recognition as a seductress in the 2004 thriller Aitraaz. By 2006, Chopra had established herself as a leading actress of Hindi cinema with starring roles in the highly successful films Krrish and Don. After receiving mixed reviews for a series of unsuccessful films, she received critical acclaim for her portrayal of unconventional characters, including a troubled model in the 2008 drama Fashion, a feisty Marathi woman in the 2009 caper thriller Kaminey, a serial killer in the 2011 neo-noir 7 Khoon Maaf, and an autistic woman in the 2012 romantic comedy Barfi! She released her first music single "In My City" in 2012, and her second single "Exotic" in 2013. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent, look forward to seeing it!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  09:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Mata-Utu, Cathedral of
Hello, Dr. Blofeld. I know you're busy, but when you get a minute can you look at the talk page of the article Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption, Mata-Utu ? I believe I've uncovered some issues there that you might be able to address. The problem is: what do you do when you find out your reliable sources are flat out wrong? Thanks for your time (and for the good wishes you expressed on my talk page). --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:22 Jermyn Street.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:22 Jermyn Street.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Malanville2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Malanville2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Kouré giraffe.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Kouré giraffe.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. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kousso-Kouango, near Boukombé.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kousso-Kouango, near Boukombé.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Bramshill House
I've done the review, left a few comments on the review page and notified the nominator. Looks plain sailing: a fine article. Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tim!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  09:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Badajoz
I have fixed the reference. I also created a number of stubs linked in this article and one of which I intend to post on DYK.-- Nvvchar . 16:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

PR
You're needed at Peer review/Tiruchirappalli/archive2. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  17:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

HEY STRANGER!!! :) --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 03:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of exclamations by Robin


The article List of exclamations by Robin has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Sheer trivia

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

April Fools!!! Actually I think it might be possible to find reliable sources which discuss Robin and his exclamations.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  07:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * But it's August?! I see that User:iridescent 2 has wisely stepped in. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ranbir Kapoor
Hey, your comments have been addressed at the Kapoor nomination. :) -- smaro jit   HD 13:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Uzbek Soviet Encyclopedia set
Rahmat ("thank you"). LOL. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of exclamations by Robin for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of exclamations by Robin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of exclamations by Robin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:Reviewing
Well, I didn't review any article as of now. BTW, you could review my Jab Tak Hai Jaan article :) Plea$ant 1623 ✉  10:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I already started the GA review for Lilian Faithfull, and I also mentioned that I will post comments on the next day. JTHJ is ready for GA, just I have to put the GA nominee tag. Thanks, Plea$ant 1623 ✉  15:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, but please be quick. I'll be only available till 20 August!Plea$ant 1623 ✉  17:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Parasakthi 1952
Thank u for starting the review on it. However, I cannot find any info abt when the play Parasakthi (on which the film is based) was staged. I have even contacted veteran film historian Mohan V. Raman, but he does not seem to know. So how to settle the issue? Is "remove any mentions of it" an option? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank u very much for the barnstar. BTW, Parasakthi is the second old Tamil film to become a GA. First is Karnan (1964), also nominated by me Kailash29792 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Rapa Nui
Thanks. I will address the issue as it comes up. I wish to nominate these two Tang Qunying and Kanchi Kailasanathar Temple; the latter is more important since I have not taken an Indian article to GA for a long time.-- Nvvchar . 22:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Mughal-e-Azam
Here are some potential sources that I had identified. Some may be used already. I think it needs most work in Themes and Historical accuracy, but I have not been able to write in a eloquent manner. I am sure that you can do better. There may be helpful material existing in Jodha_Akbar, Jahangir, Akbar, and Anarkali, though some of those have few sources. It is important that people know that this is not a true story. Please have a read through and make improvements where you can. Also know that there has been someone disputing information in the colorization section. See User talk:Shaku india for that.

book text http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/immortal-dialogue-of-k-asif-s-mughal-e-azam-urdu-text-roman-transliteration-and-hindi-and-english-translation-IDI032/ london film festival? http://www.serpentinegallery.org/2008/06/indian_film_season11_december.html language http://www.uiowa.edu/~incinema/Hindinote.html

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2010/aug/240810-mughal-e-azam-bollywood-yesteryear-films.htm

legacy: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-02-25/news-interviews/28633801_1_srk-king-khan-k-asif http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-07-31/news-interviews/28294508_1_mughal-e-azam-love-story-film http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-08-05/india/28284062_1_mughal-e-azam-dilip-kumar-saira-banu http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-07-31/news-interviews/28308033_1_badal-indian-films-urdu

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/30/2011021820110218052338899f17784a/King-Khan-makes-documentary-on-MughalEAzam.html http://www.indianexpress.com/news/classics-like-mughaleazam-cannot-be-remade-srk/754723/

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/140935/mf-husain-revives-mughal-e.html http://www.khaleejtimes.com/weekend/inside.asp?xfile=/data/weekend/2010/September/weekend_September5.xml&section=weekend

$$ http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-24/news/30437557_1_tata-sons-shapoorji-pallonji-mistry-tata-group

5 crore restoration http://www.rediff.com/money/2004/aug/06films.htm http://specials.rediff.com/money/2004/aug/07wk1.htm

Music review http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1611016091.html

historical accuracy http://books.google.com/books?id=l8T0uwJtMxkC&pg=PA168&dq=Mughal-e-Azam+historical+accuracy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bNfQUfiqJsW60QHkj4DIDw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Mughal-e-Azam%20accuracy&f=false page 164-173 http://books.google.com/books?id=UjEEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA77&dq=Mughal-e-Azam+historical+accuracy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bNfQUfiqJsW60QHkj4DIDw&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Mughal-e-Azam%20historical%20accuracy&f=false p 76-77 http://books.google.com/books?id=5-mFd5pfgNsC&dq=Mughal-e-Azam+historical+accuracy&q=e-azam#v=snippet&q=e-azam&f=false have one cite already, may be more in here.

Oh, and in another FA, awardsandshows.com was not considered reliable. That's why I had that other source in there that you removed. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  22:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff, eeks!!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  10:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Important sources for Mughal-e-Azam
I got some sources. I hope they are useful.— Prashant 02:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2005/03/21/mughal_e_azam_2004_review.shtml - Themes
 * http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2013/feb/14/mughal-e-azam-reel-history
 * http://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/a-masterpiece-turns-50/article595996.ece
 * http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/akbars-beloved-anarkali/article4633617.ece
 * http://www.hindu.com/br/2007/03/20/stories/2007032000321500.htm
 * http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZsKR1RKoJKUC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=themes+in+mughal+e+azam+the+hindu&source=bl&ots=xSlFrHlsCj&sig=RE80f5LXeNL94b7CMlmuWrn3Sro&hl=en&sa=X&ei=N0cIUrmAC8PqrAep5YGIDA&ved=0CBkQ6AEwBzgK
 * http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/news/ie/daily/19970530/15050683.html
 * http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/news/ie/daily/19970524/14450523.html
 * http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mughal-e-azam/ 100 % rating.

Thanks Prashant!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  10:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Dr. B, Can this source [] where emphasis is on the role of women in film, be used for the theme?-- Nvvchar . 18:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Lilian Faithfull
I've left comments on the review page. After the comments have been addressed, I will pass the article. Thanks, <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 ✉  07:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've passed the article. Cheers, <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 ✉  12:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of OHMS (1980 film) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article OHMS (1980 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/OHMS (1980 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SL93 (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that you created the article, but if this is notable, I think that you would likely be able to show it. SL93 (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I cleared some red links when Nielsen died.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your statement about it being a CBS film making it notable, but that doesn't matter. I withdrew the nomination for a different reason. SL93 (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is actually anything I say you'd agree with!! If you don't think a mainstream CBS TV film with some lead CBS players in it which is documented in numerous sources is notable then you clearly know little about WP:GNG. It passes GNG because of sourcing and being a mainstream TV series with major actors in it, not purely for one or the other.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just follow notability guidelines very closely, but I do make exceptions. I know about WP:NF as well as WP:GNG - "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career". For something that I do agree with, I do agree with your Good Article reviews. I also like that you reviewed the old foreign film article after a new editor messed up the review. SL93 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's quite a lot of topics though which are generally accepted as notable on here even though extensive coverage might be sparse. Films with notable actors generally fall under that category, even if I agree that every subject should need to have reliable sources to justify its existence.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed that with topics such as high schools and congregations. If films with this many notable actors are considered notable, I will have to do research just because someone, that person being you, brought it up. SL93 (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you'll find that most films starring a notable actor will meet requirements on here, but an exception might be independent very low budget films or documentaries with a non notable cast and director except the notable actor who is now a has been or is seriously struggling with his career to get mainstream work. Michael Madsen I know has starred in some very low budget films. But if every Steven Seagal direct to video film is notable..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC).

The Day the Clown Cried
Speaking of movies, there's news here. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Yep, although one questions Suck.com as a source!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't disagree with that. There are other sources. In any event, the short that surfaced is of interest. Like watching a slow motion train wreck.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Jab Tak Hai Jaan
I've addressed all the points. You can go ahead now. Thanks, <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 ✉  12:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:Honiara
Uh oh, that's a long article. Still, I'm ready to accept the challenge (read: GA review) :) <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 ✉  13:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you okay?
What has happened to you Blofeld, you are not even informing about various activities you are organizing. Nor you have reviewed Kaminey, but has reviewd 10 other articles instead. Any problems? Also, I was keen to review your last article but you requested other editors to review it. What should I assume.— Prashant 13:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I will review it this evening. I left it until last because it looks a huge article which will take more time to read and review than the others. Not sure when it was that I suddenly have to tell you my every life activity and further impatient posts like this continue to do little to improve our relationship. I may have another article ready by the weekend for you to review if you want, but no rush... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll do that. Also, there is not much comments on the flc. What to do?— Prashant 16:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited OHMS (1980 film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New Philadelphia, Cameron Mitchell and John Ramsey (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) 15:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Whitey Chandler
Yeah, that's what all that hard living'll do to a person. Ever seen anything with Whitney Cummings? They tried to make a new series with her on E!: Love You, Mean It with Whitney Cummings. I watched about three minutes of one episode before I felt the urge to throw up. The local press adore her, as she's a DC product. Never mind the fact that she's absolutely filthy. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hard living, I suppose. I have a feeling that a lot of them abuse their bodies so much that eventually they begin wearing out.  Outside and in...half of 'em will be dead by the time they hit 50, I'll bet. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Plastic? Hrmm...could be.  Remember Heidi Montag, who was disallowed from the LA Auto Show for containing more plastic than the cars on display.


 * I see you've been working on Honiara - one day I shall get there and provide pictures. It's on my list of places I'd really like to see.


 * Incidentally, have you heard about this website yet? It's kind of fun.  Especially when someone makes a big edit. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The Zen music gets a little boring after a while.  Still, I suppose it shows that there's always someone with a little too much time on his hands... -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly? I don't, really.  Often I find myself looking something up after reading about it somewhere, only to find out that I was the one that created the article in the first place.  It's kind of depressing, and kind of awesome at the same time. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I can barely remember what I edited three days ago, much less three years.  Sad, really. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure - I'll have a look. I'm getting close to the 600,000 edit mark, too. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not limited to non-Western things; you'll find the same thing from time to time in articles about semi-obscure indie films or television productions. Worst, though, are American election articles; people don't bother updating them after the elections.  We have election articles from 2008 indicating that so-and-so "is being challenged" by someone.  Sometimes someone who won.  It's really unfortunate; I try to fix it whenever I see it, but there's a lot that I'm sure I miss.

-- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, based on those pictures I suppose it's a good thing he doesn't take after his mother. *ducks* -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Badajoz & Rouen
Thank you, and absolutely. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am still interested in improving Rouen, however I was wondering if you might be interested in improving and then GA-nominating a country article? It would be an onerous task, but a collaborative effort would preordainate a succesful, much less torpid process. Interested? QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A bit too big a challenge right now I think..♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

PC on the main page
Yay!!!! Very happy to see one of the most versatile actress of Hindi cinema on the main page. It feels so great tha her article is a featured content. Yay!!! Very happy!— Prashant 00:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful isn't it, well done!! The prettiest lady to ever grace TFA in my opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

True! No one can deny it.— Prashant 08:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I cannot stop staring. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  15:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Chandralekha
The 1948 film Chandralekha is my next "wannabe GA", so I was just wondering if u could review it and suggest me any improvements (any improvements can be suggested on the PR page). The film, just like Mughal-e-Azam, was once India's most expensive film, which may build your interest in reviewing it. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll look at it later.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Gregorian Tower
R u telling me to do GA review for it? Apologies, because I am not a professional reviewer and don't usually edit articles outside arts and music. I however had a good look at the article and found some issues:
 * 1) Tower of the Winds appears like an alternate name for Gregorian Tower, so why not bolden it?
 * 2) There are some red links. Either they be unlinked or articles on them be created.
 * 3) "The tower is now called the "Specola Astronomica Vaticana", the Vatican Observatory" - no source provided
 * 4) The Gregorian Tower appears to have very high historical value and importance, but with only 7 sources in the article, how can it achieve GA status?  Kailash29792 (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Not telling no, your choice, no worries if not. Length has never been important, and I believe it is a credible account of the tower and covers the main aspects which is what is required for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed references to tags. Is my editing in Mughal E Azam editing OK.-- Nvvchar . 15:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Signature
I like the new look. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Honiara
Hello, sorry for the delay for the GA review. I've posted comments at the GA page. Regards, <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 ✉  15:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries, thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!
You're welcome User:Simon Burchell! Thanks for the beer and the article!♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Philately WikiProject
I moved you from the active to the inactive section based on more than 9 months of inactivity. I know you are an active wikipedian, so if you want to move back, just do it or let me know. We would love to see some more philatelic activity from you. ww2censor (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm not actively interested in it as a topic. sorry about that, I may still add the occasional article though.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood, no problem. ww2censor (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ya
So thanks for that. Please just archive the nom, given it is now overrun by people who detest me it will never get anywhere anyway. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know your relationship with these editors, it is of course possible that they have long standing disagreements with you and a grudge against you. I'm commenting merely as a neutral observer and if indeed their comments are also in good faith and they have no history with you then you've been excessively rude and disrespectful in your response which isn't the attitude to have at FAC where you must respect all concerns.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If they actually had legitimate concerns then ya, FPaS has an extensive history with me, the guy hates me. Faizains concerns are so beyond reality they are not worth considering, or do you think up to 400,000 women raped equates to the few thousand reported attacks by the rebels? Or up to a few million dead is equal to twenty thousand odd dead in reprisal attacks? Sorry but the facts are the facts, and due weight on this was discussed ages ago. Sorry I got short with people, but god almighty, I have worked hard on this article, and FPaS has been there twice, last time to oppose the FA, and this is the second, again to oppose it. Sorry to have wasted your time. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration, but at FAC your history or disagreements means nothing to the delegates Graham or Ian who treat every comment independently, and if there are concerns with neutrality and you're aggressive in your response to criticism it'll fail pretty quickly.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again. sorry to have wasted your time. I have spent over a year reading on and researching this, I know the subject matter inside out. It has now, again I will add, turned into a "this ain't gonna happen cos this is DS article" I doubt anyone on Wiki knows this subject as well as I do, and all I wanted was for this to maybe get on the frontpage one day so people could see what these women had gone through, and that was it. That was all I wanted, for their suffering to be known as this is a forgotten crime. This place is a waste of time so long as those with an axe to grind get away with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * DS, FAC is tough and it doesn't look to me as if you are being treated differently from other nominators. It is not a pleasant process for many nominators - I have had similar experiences at FAC even when none of my archenemies participated in the review. It is basically a gauntlet and the only way to win is by taking the blows quietly and just do what they tell you to. I kind of tried to warn you of this when you suggested nominating the article for FAC a few months ago.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If it were any other editor I would not be bothered at all, FPaS detests me, he has called for me to be banned several times from Wiki for gods sake. All he ever does is harass me or belittle me. Look I appreciate what you are saying, but there ought to be a rule that an editor who hates another editor, then hell they ought not mess with their Fa noms. But I am done, I am no longer editing mainspace with this account, I am not going to be stalked and belittled anymore. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair I think I've called for you to be banned a couple of times too. FA noms are there to be messed with basically it is the wikipedia equivalent just pull down your pants in the school cafeteria and asking for a spanking. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not recall you however openly admitting to hounding me, nor do I recall you piling snark upon snark upon me, nor do I recall you're making belittling comments over some grammatical errors I had made, there is a big difference there. And I quite simply cannot take the grief anymore, hell you know how short tempered I am at the best of times, never mind when someone is telling me to use Bose in an article on rape in the liberation war, if that woman were any more wrong she would turn inside out. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a break is in order and a return with renewed energy and a calmer demeanor tomorrow. The inclusion of Bose or not should of course depend on how she has been received by other scholars, so presumably you can make an argument for dismissing her by showing that other scholars have done so. That will be more effective than a tantrum.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone who writes that there were but a few thousand rapes gets zero weight, especially when they write in the same article there were only 30000 Pakistani troops in theater, it was 90000, as that is how many the Indian army took as POWs. Bose just writes junk to be sensationalist and make an impact, her work is joke. Hell our Wiki article is a more reliable source than the kak she writes. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That may be but you cant ask the reviewers to take your word for that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

FAC has improved since 2011 in my opinion. In the old days it seemed FA reviewers wanted to obstruct everything from passing and it seemed almost impossible to produce the "perfect" article that they required. Things generally have much improved today, only it can still be extremely tough at times, particularly on big articles which might be controversial.. And with reviewers like me around now :-] ♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Off the wall
Hey Dr B., I thought you might like a look at my latest foray into a crazy topic carefully-researched article on a topic of great importance. Enjoy! Prioryman (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Haha, how about mentioning "in film", The Dictator's beard and the "Godfather of Harlem/Morgan Freeman for one!♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of songs by Lata Mangeshkar for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of songs by Lata Mangeshkar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Udit Narayan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 10:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Why are you messaging me as if you're the one who nominated them? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The nominator did not notify any of the article creators/major contributors. That's why i used the standard template to notify all the users. I am unaware of any other template that can be used which would not give the impression of me being the nominator. And i was lazy enough to rephrase it all. And then people say i am canvassing for collecting favourable votes and then they drag me to ANI or AE or some another courtroom for not being neutral enough in the note. Easier to use template i thought. And i guess there would be sufficient consensus with your initial comment. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 12:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The AFD nomination appears to be based on a good-faith misreading of Wikipedia policy, which is very explicit that this type of list is not just appropriate but explicitly encouraged, provided the performer in question meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. If you see any more of these, feel free to cut and paste my comments here. – iridescent  12:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ce
Hey Blofeld! I don't understand what's going on. I think you are unhappy that I didn't commented back on the review page. Trust me I don't checked after that day. You seems angry that I didn't resolved it, but me too watched it today, when you informed me. Also, I'm not good at writing plot...but ill try condensing it and in prose tightening. I have resolved your all comments but, have not ce or condensed that's why I'm have not posted reply to your rest of the comments. Ill do it in coming day.— Prashant 16:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Angry? Nope, just when I or anybody opens a GA review, I take for granted that once you know about the review that you'll be watching it for developments..♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right. But, I was watching it from last month but no one was ready to review it. Then, I saw some talk pages that GA Bot has started informing about its opening. That's why I stopped checking thinking that GA Bot will inform me too when someone opens the review. But, unfortunately that Bot didn't informed me.— Prashant 17:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep it open for 2 weeks, plenty of time to get somebody to copyedit it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Why thankyou Mr. Banerjee, glad you like it!♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Who in this world can ignore the work of Blo?<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0em 0em 0.8em,#FF4500 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#90EE90 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#696969">$oHƎM❊<font style="color:Gold">আড্ডা 09:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Apinac for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Apinac is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Apinac until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Anup Mehra  ✈ 08:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL you haven't even stated a reason for deletion!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

re: Lists
Hi Dr B. Yes, from the outset the lists look very non-notable (and I still believe they are). But they are likely to end up as a keep, so it's a moot point! At least there will be some improvement to them. And great work on The Mountain Eagle. Maybe the original reels will turn up in a vault in Argentina someday.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Diego García de Moguer
Alex ShihTalk 12:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

2 months, yes, that's efficient! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply
Sure, I can review it. And yes, I have begun work on Padukone. Finished work on the career section, but have work left on the others! -- smaro jit   HD 15:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow! I would love to watch "The Great Ziegfeld". And count me in if and when you want to work on Audrey Hepburn. She is simply marvelous!! Sadly, I have not seen any of Claudia Cardinale's films. -- smaro jit   HD 01:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds brilliant, will definitely watch it tonight. Roman Holiday is brilliant... Audrey Hepburn is simply magical in the film. I watch it everytime they show it on TV. -- smaro jit   HD 11:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . I absolutely loved Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird. What a fantastic film that is! -- smaro jit   HD 11:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My favourite Audrey Hepburn moment is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ezy50aY6Bg I used to watch this everyday when I was a kid. -- smaro jit   HD 11:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Out of those films, I have seen only Rebecca, which I really liked. Oh yea, the one review of Roger Ebert which I didn't agree with was that of Little Children. I thought the film was really, really good. -- smaro jit   HD 12:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply
Sorry but I can't join you, as I have exams from 21 August to 30 August 2013. BTW, could you please look over Chennai Express as there are some hypocrites (pardon my language) vandalising the article. Thanks, <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 ✉  17:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Palacio Municipal de Caracas
Of course, my apologies for not doing so. I often comb the DYK articles for GA nominations. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will review the article you suggested. It seems interesting. As far as potential GA nominations go, would you be interested in this article. You must remember it! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

May the Force be with you
Of course I'm a trekky! (I thought we talked about that a long time ago.) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Warren Zevon.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Warren Zevon.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. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Apinac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Christian Brothers and Estivareilles


 * The Mountain Eagle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Bioscope and Realism


 * List of American films of 1931 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to John Holland

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Dárek
There is no similar compilation anywhere, not even at Biblioteca Nacional de España ! In just a few days this will be mirrored all over the internet. Krenakarore TK 20:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

FLC
I don't know what is going on with some ppl her! But, it's heartbreaking that some thinks otherwise. See the filmography flc, you'll get to know better.— Prashant 11:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if there are real concerns with the accuracy of the figures, then it's fair.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh really? Accuracy? What? All the figures were in Approximately. He is talking about inflation, rate of that time. Tell me any article uses the rates of that time. Writing a list of chief minister is very easy, work on film article first. I think it's unfair, this was not told at PR. Now, he says to use crore, then tables will not sort properly. What should I do? It's ridiculous to see and very heartbreaking and very demolarising. I just don't want to work here. I too have a life and don't have time to deal with those pple.— Prashant 11:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Barton Aqueduct
Thanks for your review, much appreciated. Eric  Corbett  11:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You're quite welcome.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
L Faraone  17:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Kailashnathar Temple
GA nomination withdrawn.-- Nvvchar . 18:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Nallatech for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nallatech is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Nallatech until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Improving to my edits on Thomas Andrews and Captain Smith
I have just made some edits to Thomas Andrews and Captain Smith by gathering sources but I think that my words are not that good enough, can you correct or improve any I may have made? It's okay if you refuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.221.117.228 (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Me going to mess up commons
Me going to try to add whole bloody mess of public domain reference sources to commons. Me have already started with the Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, and me have at least a few more on my computer here to upload later, generally relating to religion/philosophy/mythology sorts of things. Me do think that having them available will make it a bit easier for interested parties to find sources to establish notability, and me might even try to generate a few particular lists like those me have been making for some of the religion type projects listing the articles in those sources, with links to the commons address so others can find them. Me do have a thirty-year old reference book on reference books, the Sheehy, and me will try to get together a list of the reference works included there that are PD to help in finding sources which were still then considered good enough for listing in that source. Considering you are one of our best article creation people, me thought you should know. John Carter (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons? You mean wiki source? Excellent news. You'd be lucky if I create 5 articles a month nowadays, but if there's something in particular you want started I'd be glad to help.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, actually commons. At this point all the HERE, with the exception of the index volume, which isn't PD yet, is available here, although each volume only as a single file, so the individual doesn't necessarily know if there is an article on any particular topic in it without looking through it. WikiSource separately would be a great place to have stored individual articles which contain more or different material from the articles we have here, and might even be a way to help the encyclopedia, if the articles or content here is still comparatively weak. I hope to also try to eventually get lists of articles for the more reliable of these sources together as well, so we can know what they cover at more or less length to help determine what we should cover with more or less length as well. Sorry to hear the output of articles has dropped off, though. You were and probably still are at least one of the best people we might have for creation of missing content. John Carter (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I finally concluded that quality is really more important than quantity, it's no use having 10 million poorly researched barely useful articles and most important articles being inadequate. If so many important articles weren't neglected I'd still support stubbing but the reality is that we have a severe shortage of editors actively improving articles. But if you want some help starting some PD content I can help out but can't promise too many.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Blofeld, Hi John Carter, many greetings and respects to my peers (me no 5 articles a month, nowadays me just keep uploading photos in Commons to avoid feeling an outsider). I just felt very tempted to put my fishtail in this, so please excuse my boldness. Pdf files are uploaded to Commons so they can be proofread before being transcluded into the main namespace of Wikisource. Hoverfish Talk 22:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Greetings Hoverfish! Sometime we must get Montevideo up the GA! As I see you've seen, currently working on a film..♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will be glad to work with you again whenever you feel like it. Yes, I saw you were very busy as always and dropped by to leave my name in the edit history as a greetings token. I think the one most useful thing I have done for Wikipedia was to stand by you back then, when the world seemed to be falling on you. But that was then. As so many say nowadays, watching you work is quite an inspiring experience. I hope you have time to enjoy the summer over in your hemisphere. Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 01:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Aalborg change
I just wanted to notify you of my reformation of the Recreation section at Aalborg. I transcluded what was essentially a duplicate subsection. I am notifying you as I consider this to be a fairly strident move. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but in my opinion it belongs in the cityscape not culture/sport.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, Thanks for your appreciation and motivation, Infact your support came as a final seal of FA for Hyderabad during FAC, Thanks once again. Regards. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Award
Thank you very much, Dr. B., for the milestone DYK 1000 award. Ibitekerezo marks the milestone 1000. The first was Mysore mallige (used in making the famous perfume Chanel No. 5, in 2007 for which my state of Karnataka is famous. The first non native English speaking user to do so. A great deal of credit goes to you and Rosie as well who have continued to collaborate with me all these years.-- Nvvchar . 17:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I can not find more on Apinac. Do you want me to nominate it on DYK? On The Great Ziegfeld I have added all that I could find.-- Nvvchar . 17:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

100 GAs award
Hearty congrats Dr. B. It is definitely an inspiration for me.-- Nvvchar . 02:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. You deserve a marching band down main street. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Unexpected
Hello! It's getting tough to solve vensatry's comment. I suspect someone has pinned him to do such things. Your comments seems to surprise me all the time. You are taking his side. First you ce all stuffs and when I got 3 supports why these 2 oppose? I hope vensatry writes a film article which is 10 times hard then his cricket articles... Also, no one is ready to copyedit Kaminey. I can't ask more ppl. I'm very busy. Could you please give it a small ce.— Prashant 09:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you not see my "Didn't anybody ask you to comment in the peer review" comment? Clearly I'm not happy that he was asked and didn't but has now found the time to oppose in the review. Kaminey needs more than just a small copyedit Prashant.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that. It's very frustrating that he is posting senseless questions. Well, please if you can ce Kaminey and improve it. Well, I'll buy its DVD (which has a bonus disc of making...) in Durga Puja holiday and will include and rewrite it for FA. Till now, I think you can help by improving it.— Prashant  15:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't have to suspect anyone, as I have very little interaction with people who work on Bollywood film-related articles. Currently the list is not FL worthy and I never said this will not become a FL in the near future. You never assume good faith on any editor here but expect everyone to support you. You should stop commenting on others' areas of interest. FYI, I started my Wiki career by editing Indian film-related stuff only; five of my seven GAs are film-related articles only. There is nothing great in polishing an existing piece of work which was already expanded by some good contributors and take them to GAN and take the whole credit. Rather, creating an article and developing it from the scratch should be much harder. So stop being silly. &mdash; Vensatry <sub style="color:indigo;">(Ping me)  09:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Prashant you do react very strongly to opposes. But what concerns me is that when you go out of your way to appease somebody and they still oppose..♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Next Angelou GA
Hi Doc, since you reviewed the last article about Maya Angelou's poetry, I had up at GAC, would you mind taking at look at my latest, I Shall Not Be Moved (poetry)? I usually don't make a request to bypass the queue, but I need the points if I'm going to move on the finals of the Wikicup, which is something I'd really like to accomplish. By that token, I would greatly appreciate it if you also looked at my most recent FAC (Featured article candidates/Format of Sesame Street/archive1), which I know is about a different topic, but I'm confident you'll be able to handle it fine. ;) Thanks so much. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't mind at all, I'll look tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the review! It's taken me a few days to get to it, but I finally have.  I went back to work, and then I was sad about not getting into the finals.  Ah well, there's always next year, right? ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Doc! I appreciate the assist; let me know how I can help you with any of your projects.  I suspect that this article will never get to FAC, since it may not have the potential to be a FA.  I've been wrong about that before, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=570129215 your edit] to The Great Ziegfeld may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=570789750 your edit] to The Great Ziegfeld may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * MGM Studios in Culver City, California in 1935, and the cost of production exceeded over US$0 by the end of the production, {{citation|author=
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * the main cast proposed for the film included Marilyn Miller, Gilda Gray, Ann Pennington, and Leon Errol.{{sfn|Green|1999|p=54}} Featured in the film are [[

File permission problem with File:The Great Ziegfeld set.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Great Ziegfeld set.jpg, which you've attributed to "s". I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Great Ziegfeld
That Movie Magg review really does give great info but, right, can't use it. I'm thinking over how to deal with the songs and I'll get back to that maybe this evening. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Battle of El Boden
As the original author of Battle of El Boden, Please see Talk:Battle of El Bodon -- PBS (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

A matter is being discussed
...at the reliable sources noticeboard where you might wish to share an opinion. Thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering your thoughts and, as we all dislike drama, it was a most sensible suggestion. I find it difficult at times to find neutral analysis of a "charged" topic... and I thought the Congressman's words were neutral and not at all too promotional of the film. However, I did find a nice full-length review in The Epoch Times that I added to the article. I do not expect any to call them unreliable or partisan. I imagine we'll re-hash this again at the 5th and 6th AFDs. I think too, that I will use archive.org to save these links for that future time when they might become non-functional and I'd be asserting a future keep per WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP. Cheers,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism alert
I am not "established" to edit protected pages, but since you frequent the Clint Eastwood article, take notice of | this recent edit where Joekiddlouischama knowingly and intentionally removed extensively sourced facts, rewrote neutral sentences with heavy opinion incorporated in them, and deliberately inserted lies. Mystiques00 (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, he's been reverted.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts?
Any thought on ce Kaminey as I have resolved all your comments, except ce. Please help as i don't want another GA review. Also, the flc will fail due to an editor who don't even knows about the topic.!!!!! — Prashant 08:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It still really needs a thorough copyedit. I can't see who else is going to do it but me. I'll try to give it a copyedit sometime, but when you go to renominate for GA naturally I won't be able to review it. I can't make major improvements to an article and review it too! In terms of content it is fine for GA but the quality of the prose really does need to be of a certain standard for me to pass it and I'd have expected at least some criticism of the film however successful it was. The FLC, well it looked fine to me and I still feel that any issues brought up at the FLC can easily be rectified. You've done a great job on it and it is a shame that certain editors aren't willing to help sort out the issues they see with it themselves but have the time to oppose in detail.. I think it would be unfeasible to list everyone of her trivial appearances. She is first and foremost a film actress, and I wouldn't expect the article to list every minor advert or talk show appearance but to have a full list of her films. Making rough currency conversion guesses though really was a major flaw identified.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * One thing that definitely should be done is the reduction of the plot section (it is over 1000 words, it should be less than 700 words as per WP:PLOT) Kailash29792 (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I said it needed condensing in the review.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If you think I don't have any knowledge over the topic, then why the hell did you invite me to comment at the PR. It doesn't mean that one has to always support your nomination, when you're not even responding to constructive criticism. And Mr. Blofeld, remember I'd invited you for plenty of PRs in the past; mainly on WP:INCINE FLs. You did not even bother to comment on the FLCs. At least I have the time to comment on FLCs. Look at the Kareena Kapoor article, you will know the editor's problematic behaviour. He always assumes bad faith on people who doesn't collaborate with people and is fairly a POV pusher. &mdash; Vensatry <sub style="color:indigo;">(Ping me)  12:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not bother? Has it occurred to you that I might have been busy? I haven't the time to overlook every Indian article which goes through on wikipedia you know, I do my best to try to keep track of what is going on as it is. It's just when somebody asks you to peer review something and they don't (that's fine) but then somehow they find the time to deliver a detailed oppose at FLC and still continue to oppose despite valiant attempts to address them then it doesn't look as if you're interested in helping other editors promote content. You were asked because you do often find issues that others haven't identified whatever the subject may be. You have some good points, although I disagree that every trivial appearance she ever made is needed. If constructive criticism at FLC is needed to improve the article and pass it this is a good thing still, but not if progress can't be made. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not say that every trivial appearance should be listed. But I certainly feel that he has not made a proper research. I don't know why her upcoming documentary was not included by the user who boasts of having a great knowledge on the topic; at least any of the so called great editors who were involved in the PR should have pointed out before a user who doesn't have any knowledge over the topic. I'm still stuck with oppose as I honestly believe the list isn't FL ready. The delegates are not going to archive this nomination based on my oppose alone. Also there is one more user who is not satisfied with the list. I do see a blind support from a user who I think has not even read the list. The FLC page says "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly". But the nominator was not polite in addressing the issues on any of the nominations that he has worked upon previously apart from this list. How do you expect someone to support a nomination when the nominators themselves are not interested in it anymore. You feel that I have time to oppose; see 1, 2, 3, 4 are some nomination which I found problematic initially and how the nominators responded. You should also see this candidate for example, to know how a user like Harrias has responded to Giants' comment in this archived nomination. That's the spirit! &mdash; Vensatry  <sub style="color:indigo;">(Ping me)  05:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely your call, you can oppose whatever you want to, but I know where I stand in my perception of the situation and yourself. I failed an article of Prashant's for GA yesterday on Kaminey and did you see his response? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh great!! Now here we go, Blofeld don't tell that you are in his side. What I did yesterday was my anger as you have helped many other editors passing their article but ce yourself. But, failed mine with even touching. This has nothing to do with the flc and Vensatry's nonsensical questions. I'm okay with it. Now, its my turn to review his article, then I'll se how much criticism he can tolerate. Also, it is said that editors should response to constructive comments and not nonsensical VENSATRY.— Prashant 17:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I did the same with the passing of the other of your GA articles and gave you your first ever GA and award on wikipedia didn't I and defended you when an editor put them up for GAR? You took it for granted that I would spend hours copyediting the article just to pass it. Well, it doesn't work like that and you're really lucky I copyedited your other ones and passed them. I gave you two weeks to get some assistance and told you well in advance that I would fail it if you didn't. What part about '''I can try to make a few improvements but I'm not willing to edit it to the extent that it needs and I think it needs at least two editors working on copyediting it. I'm willing to take a look at it once one or two other editors have copyedited it first''' didn't you understand? Every post of yours comes across as spoiled and childish Prashant and its not surprising how people respond to you on here. You take everything personally and see everything as some sort of competition and when everything doesn't completely go your way you attack the work of others and always assume the worst. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

So, you are saying if others are slapping me, I should give them awards and put my other cheek to also me hard. Come on you have seen Vensatry's comments on the flc. First it started with budgets/gross and when I resolved then he came up with a few more. It shows how much he is insecure of that list. Childish? Well, you can say so because I work on every article to make them GAs or FAs but these kind of editors, who are bias and create disruptive environment which is hard to work are very rude to me. They should give others respect. I don't have any problem with you and will not have. I don't mind if you failed it or passed. I respect you a lot. But, with few editors it becomes hard to work, Vensatry's points took 1 whole week to resolve. As, I have now entered in my University life, it has became hard to have long conversations and resolve never ending questions. I just want others to not waste others time.— Prashant 17:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't mind me failing your articles?? I think I've made it perfectly clear at the FLC and here my perception of the situation. In response you've again resulted to attacks, have got the wrong idea of the situation and where my sympathies lie, and have left a barely legible rant in cap locks on your talk page insulting Vensatry as an editor now. You continue to dig deeper holes for yourself, every post of yours seems to get worse. There's only so much people on here are willing to take of your tirades Prashant. I've been perfectly fair with you and have gone to great lengths to help you out but if you can't help yourself then I'm wasting my time. Enjoy uni life, I hope it will change you for the better.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Planning to ruin my FLC? please try your level best. I've pleased mentally challenged persons in the past. &mdash; Vensatry <sub style="color:indigo;">(Ping me)  03:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for failing my article!!
Wowwwwwww!!! Blofeld, I just saw you failing my article. Thanks!!! Tell me what to give you a medal or a star. It's very frustrating that this is first time my article has failed in first attempt. I wanted a help. I don't think the prose was disgusting at all. Far better than GAs like Imran Khan and few new Indian GAs. I thought you'll help me. But, what you did is not fair. I corrected all your issues. Only ce and that is not my job. I see another fail in the form of flc. Sorry, i can't work here anymore due to these kind of behavior towards me. Almost all editors (who themselves are biased and play favorites).— Prashant 11:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You really need to grow up Prashant. I didn't say the prose was disgusting and if you think my decision to fail the article was a personal thing then you're really more childish than I had thought. I said it needs a major copyedit and condensing and as reviewer you can't expect me to do that. I gave you two weeks to make the needed improvements and you barely edited it. The plot is over 1000 words and it's supposed to be max 700. The article just lacks the quality of prose to pass it. To my knowledge you didn't request copyediting assistance and took it for granted that I'd edit it and pass it. Well, things don't work like that. If you nominate an article for GA it is your responsibility to see that it passes. I'm sorry that you can't accept this, but I'm sure Eric and any other decent reviewer here would agree with me. I did warn you that I'd have to fail it if the quality of prose wasn't significantly improved in the two week period. The problems with the prose is reflected in your above message which is riddled with grammar and phrasing problems. As I said above, some time I'll help you out and copyedit it myself and you can renominate it but somebody else will have to do the review. Please drop the silliness, it does you no favours.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Lilian Faithfull
Thank you for making Lilian Faithfull a GA. If I can help you with any articles, just drop me a note and I'll see whether I have anything useful to add! Fram (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps you have a decent article on a Belgian/Flemish painter or something which might reach GA with a bit of work?♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of my articles are too short and simple to be a GA anytime soon. Things like Octave Uzanne, Nils Rosén von Rosenstein or Achilles on Skyros probably come closest. I have plenty of articles on interesting subjects, like Achille Collas, Cromwell Dixon, or Antonio Ricardo and Juan Pablos (the last two are the kind of subjects where you are amazed that no article was already written). Perhaps Polly and Her Pals can become a GA, but that one can hardly be called my work anymore. Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects may be the most important of my articles. Still rated "Start"-class, don't know what class it actually is though. Fram (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they'd all need a fair bit of work to get up to GA. Sometimes the more obscure subjects though are easier to get to GA when they have less sources. The Faithfull article is short but is comprehensive and a decent account of her life based on what could be found on her, I don't think it would ever be possible to get it even close to FA level. I'm sure there are painters or paintings which would have a similar level of coverage which could be developed. Ill keep one of the painters in mind anyway, but The Great Ziegfeld and Aalborg are next.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I haven't really written many articles on painters yet, more on publishers, musea, books, comics authors, and the like (plus a wide array of miscellanea, it's sometimes much more fun to tackle a subject you know next to nothing about before starting the research). I'm looking a.o. to expand the article on Jean Bertin now, he seems to be a fascinating figure, inventor of the Aérotrain. Fram (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This Guitar
Hi Dr Blofeld. Thank you very much for holding off on this GAN – much appreciated. I'm finally able to devote some time to wikipedia again. As and when you're ready, of course. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's great, I'll review it shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Million Award
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou Khazar, to date I've heard little but whining about the Paris article!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, illegitimi non carborundum... -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Request
Hi there Blofield, not sure if you remember me but we had some contact a year or so ago. =) I hope you have been well. Since one of your editing areas seems to be film biographies, I was wondering if you might be interested in looking at my current FAC nomination for Julianne Moore? If so that would be great, but but no worries at all if you are busy. Cheers! --<font color="#CC0O66">Lobo (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Vaguely, very vaguely! Can't remember what it was, it wasn't the Naomi Watts article was it? Sure, I'll look at it within the next few days. BTW if you're interested I plan on getting City Lights up to GA soon, I don't think it needs much to pass. The Great Ziegfeld first though. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We "met" through Peter Sellers (I was a reviewer and then we had some communication - I even have a barnstar from you!) That's great you want to work on City Lights. I'd be happy to take on the review, if you like, I'd obviously love to see it as GA. The Great Ziegfeld eh?! Ha, that's an interesting choice. Are you a big fan of the film? I absolutely love watching '30s films, but I actually wasn't very keen on that one, I'm afraid to say. Love William Powell though.
 * Any help you can give at the FAC would be great, thanks. --<font color="#CC0O66">Lobo (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah that's right, I remember now! Yeah Ziegfeld surprises me as it's not normally the sort of film I'd like, I suppose I was blown away by the extravagance of the film especially for its time and I was also fond of the humour and the OTT acting by the likes of Rainer in particular so those elements combined I thought it was an excellent film. Unlike You Can't Take it With You (I usually love Jimmy Stewart's films too, I especially love him and Hepburn in The Philadelphia Story (film) and actually spotted the film playing in the background of Bruce Almighty the other day!) and The Best Years of Our Lives which I found exceedingly dull. 1950s was more my period in film, but I'll watch anything post 1888! I'm currently watching every Academy Award winner since 1927, An American in Paris is next. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I really enjoyed both those films you mentioned, but there we go - different strokes for different folks. How many BP winners have you seen so far? As of today I've seen all but 11; I'm not actively going through them, but I'd also like to see all of them. Enjoy An American in Paris, it's not as great as Singin' in the Rain, but it's funny and charming. Have you encountered ICheckMovies? It's good fun for a film buff. --<font color="#CC0O66">Lobo  (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've emailed you!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Keith Moon
Remember this? I've put it up for peer review here to see if we can give it the big push to get it through FAC. If you can help with anything, that would be great. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   15:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A random silly challenge re: animal hats...
Hi Blofeld -

Given your skill at finding sources for things that seem as if they should be notable, yet there aren't really the sources to prove this - here is something really silly that might yet - I don't know - appeal enough? User:Mabalu/Animal hat. I started writing this, thinking "Oh, there'll be plenty of sources by now" - and then I actually started looking around and couldn't really find that many reliable sources. Odd, given how ridiculously (in more than one way) widespread these hats are, and how much attention they receive, that there doesn't seem to be that much reliable coverage. Fully understand if this is something you aren't interested in, but thought I might ask... (I really need to get back to doing more of the Red Carpet Fashion articles too...) Mabalu (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman, Drmies and Bonkers The Clown are into quirky articles, they might be interested?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Top Secret!84.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Top Secret!84.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 18:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm let me guess, because of Val Kilmer's dodgy mullet?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ziegfeld
The poster has been changed to PD and has a larger image. Since the book photo isn't a full version of the image you have on the article now, I uploaded a new file of it at File:Photo from The Great Ziegfeld 1936.jpg. You can swap this free one for the one there now. ;) We hope (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's great, really appreciate your help!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Chandralekha
Can u pls have a look at Chandralekha (1948 film)? I am wanting to bring the article to GA status, because it was a significant Indian film of the 1940's, comparable to Mughal-e-Azam. Any improvements needed, pls tell me. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood
I would like input regarding | This edit. I have had a lengthy discussion with the editor, who has been very civil with me but we have yet to reach an agreement


 * | The US.com article where Dina Eastwood exclusively announced her marital separation states: Married since March 31, 1996, Dina and the Million Dollar Baby director have one daughter together, 16-year-old Morgan. Eastwood is also dad to seven other kids, though he has only been married once before.


 * | The Los Angeles Times states that Eastwood has 8 children: Clint has one child with Dina: 16-year-old Morgan. The "Gran Torino" director and actor has seven other children from various relationships


 * | USA Today also confirms that Eastwood has 8 children: The couple have one daughter, Morgan, 16. Eastwood has seven other children.


 * | As does EXTRA.com: The couple has one daughter together, 16-year-old Morgan. Eastwood, 83, has seven other children from various relationships


 * | Alison Eastwood stated "My dad has eight children by six women" in an August 2011 interview with The Sunday Times.

These are all very reliable sources. The third is especially concrete &mdash; his own daughter confirms that he has eight kids by six women. The quote should be restored, because all evidence indicates that it's the truth. There are no legitimate news reports stating who the mystery 8th child is, but that should not prevent the statement and the quote stating how many children he has from being present in the article. 02:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think even Eastwood truly knows how many kids he has. 7 or 8 have been made public but I remember his interview with Ellen in which he has said something like "7 that I know of" or "at least 7 yeah". I wouldn't be surprised if he has at least 10. He was very promiscuous in the 70s and 80s.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In any event, User:Mystiques00 is guilty of canvassing even after he had been warned not to. I have asked him to remove his non-neutral canvassing posts to you and other editors. As for the arguments he posits for an unsubstantiated rumor, they've already been addressed and debunked at Talk:Clint Eastwood. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Vysoká u Příbramě
Vysoká u Příbramě, where a symphony was born, is a one-liner, more de, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Disappointing isn't it that within 5 years nobody could add a single thing to it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * yes - I expanded the symphony, don't have time for the place, you know the problem: need to find the sources for what de says, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

re This Guitar GAR
Hi Dr. Blofeld. I hope you saw my message on the GA review page. Again, I'm sorry for my choice of wording in reply to your suggestion about full stops in citations, and if I've given the impression that you were being overly fussy. I didn't mean that, and I don't think that, at all. Your comments throughout the review were very welcome and constructive. I had thought the article was going to fail actually, because of the anti-Rolling Stone slant – and I was absolutely fine about the possibility of that happening, because if I couldn't resolve the issue, then I could hardly expect your concerns to evaporate. So I'm grateful for your perseverance – it forced me to find a solution where I didn't think there was one. Besides, as I look up this page with utter awe, you've been responsible for 100 articles achieving GA status (let alone those you've helped take there as a reviewer, like "This Guitar") ... I mean, who would I be to think you're not fully cognisant of what's required of a Good Article!

What I'd always intended to say here on your talk page, whether the article passed or failed, was how inspiring I find much of the text on your user page, Dr B. (Sorry, I can't help myself – hope you don't mind me being so informal?) Back when you first took the nomination and I clicked on your user name, I found myself wishing I'd had those points to hand as something I could've directed other users to perhaps, during petty disagreements in the recent past. You say some insightful things that I think we all need reminding of, some of us more than others.

I've not been on wikipedia for long, but in that relatively short time I've been amazed at the energy and time some contributors put in to maintaining, furthering, confrontational situations with others; the lengths they'll go to, the forums they'll find to take the problem to. It's mostly a result of personal-agenda, letter-of-the-law stuff (and, as I think you say, often laws/rules that they themselves have instigated) with no thought for the spirit of the community. As is the nature of all communities, people think they're right simply because they work so hard not to be seen to be wrong, however they can go about achieving that. Politics, basically. Obviously, I think I'm perfect in this regard(!) ... No, but seriously, as soon as I find myself no longer feeling and thinking like a reader – no longer focused purely on the content of the encyclopaedia and what each article delivers – I'm out of here. What your Encyclopedia Problems and Site Problems reinforce so well, I think, is that so much of the community pages are behind the scenes to readers and utterly trivial in the grand scheme of things. Readers, millions of them, notice whether there is an article covering a certain subject and the content of the article; they don't care about community consensus, MoS issues, MfC, dispute resolution, etc. I don't mean to ridicule those things, but it does get ridiculous when so much energy gets diverted there while so much work remains to be done on the quality of the articles. That's just the short-term loss to wikipedia; in the longer term, I get concerned about the mini mafias that form around a particular issue, article or project and force away editors, new and old, who are a bit more individualistic in their thinking – those who don't need to join a tribe and be noticed, but might bring a lot of enthusiasm and knowledge to the overall project. Because creative people just won't stick around in a situation that's basically a popularity contest.

Anyway, I've either parroted back to you much of what you've already said, or I've taken some of your comments out of context to suit my ideology – a bit of both no doubt! Hope I haven't overstayed my welcome.

PS. I'm now thinking George's acoustic part is played in open E, as on "The Light That Has Lighted the World" and other songs. Just a thought ...

Cheers, Doc. I'd welcome you reviewing another GAN of mine sometime in the future, if you happened to feel inclined. JG66 (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, too much of the gospel according to St JG66, above, I think ... (These things often seem ill-advised after the event.) I'd be happy to reciprocate in the future by reviewing one of your GANs, Dr B, not that I've ever done a GA review before. Because my field is music articles, and even then a specific period within a particular genre of popular music, it might be an idea if I do an album or song article review first, just to get in the swing of things. Having said that, I'll take a look at anything you've got up there – if the process doesn't seem too daunting, heck, I might just get down to it anyway. It's about time I started wearing the reviewer's hat once in a while, instead of wondering why there's usually such a large backlog of noms! JG66 (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply
Yes, changed my username. I got really bored of my old name. Coming to the point, I agree to take the GA review, and will start the review on Monday. Thanks, --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Jionpedia ✉  18:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah., it is.<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Jionpedia ✉  19:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dollars72.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Dollars72.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. ww2censor (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)