User talk:Midnightblueowl/Archive 4

Your GA nomination of The Black Island
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Black Island you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Prhartcom -- 21:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


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

Tintin (character)
Hello Mignightblueowl! Well, I learned today that I need to change the tone of this article to be more encyclopedic. Lesson learned. I may have to resubmit for FA again someday but for now perhaps this current submission can be saved--if I make that correction immediately. I see that you have started your improvements already. Earlier I had asked you for some material from Peeters, and that would be great, but adding new material is no longer a high priority, getting the prose corrected is. Thanks for any thoughts you have. Prhartcom (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Prhartcom; yes, I've just seen that you started the FA process (I actually started making additions before I saw it). The tone will have to change – maybe part of the issue is that you have relied quite heavily on Farr, and his use of language is thoroughly un-encyclopedic, and regularly expresses his own subjective opinions as if they were objective fact. Truth be told, I think that Farr is perhaps the worst Tintinologist to use; he's prolific in writing, but the quality of what he rights is not brilliant (in my opinion). I'm not always the best person to rely on when it comes to changing prose; I will focus on adding information (not just Peeters, but Assouline, and multiple other sources) if I may. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank-you for that observation, and you are right. I must excise that tone of Farr's immediately. Thompson's too. Of course, Farr's Tintin & Co. is a major source of material as that book's focus is on the characters. Please, do continue editing the article yourself as you are making the kind of improvements it needs. I am anxiously awaiting my chance to edit the article for tone when you are done. Prhartcom (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to sound like a right old biddy here, but I will stress "patience... patience", Phartcom. :p Articles like The Adventures of Tintin and Tintin (character) are very complex to produce to a standard where they will be acceptable for GA or FA. They take a lot of time, and a lot of hard work. And when I say a lot, I mean a lot. I am not going to be able to rush the Tintin character article, because the information that needs to go into it is scattered across a huge range of literature, from papers in academic journals, to biographies of Hergé, to psychoanalytical studies, to the pop-lit of Farr and Thompson. Accessing and then reading through that all takes time, and I have other Wikipedia articles that I like to add to, alongside a huge array of real world stuff to do. Producing an article like Tintin in the Land of the Soviets or Popol Out West has been (comparatively) simple, because all of the information on that subject is usually contained within a select group of pages, often next to each other, within any given book. With a subject like the character of Tintin, that simply isn't the case, and important information is scattered widely, even within a single given publication. The Tintin that appears in Soviets is a very different character to that which appears in Secret of the Unicorn, and a fundamentally different one from that appearing in Alph-Art (part of the problem with Farr is that he has a tendency to ignore this temporal variation, instead constructing a normative view of Tintin); for this reason I have to read through all of Peeters, all of Assouline, or Apostolides, and of a variety of other sources in order to ensure that I have all the information required. So without wanting to sound like a hindrance or be disheartening, I really should stress that if we are going to do this the right way, then this is going to take time. Months, probably. But such is the nature of the Beast. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I like it when you're a right old biddy. :D Your advice is wise and sound, Midnightblueowl. As long as the article is improved, I am for it. I am happy to see you have made more improvements to the article (thank-you!) and, even better: I see why they are an improvement.  So maybe there's hope for me, yet. :-)  I love good grammar, correct sourcing, consistency, and crisp, interesting writing.  But I see now that I have been weak at getting the right "encyclopedic tone".  That's okay, I believe my lesson is truly learned.  I will probably get better with practise.  Besides, all of us are occasionally weak at something, right?  ;-)  Please know that I will be forever appreciative of your library and your experience, and for that matter, the experience of every good person I recently met during this FAC.  I feel compelled to mention: I know you have a lot of projects here at Wikipedia going on at once.  You know I am proud of your accomplishments.  But of course you know also that if you are busy I may not wait for you or take any cue from you.  You say it may take awhile, that is fine; but let's not take the rest of our lives.  This project belongs to all of us.  Let's see if you and I and hopefully others can get a lot done on Tintin this year!  I may be busy in real life, but not as busy in other article topics as you, so I feel like I will probably be the one to eventually bring this article to FA, the other nine character articles to GA, and the main article to FA in the end.  I would be very happy to co-nominate any of those with you!  That would be the ideal!  In the meantime, feel free to edit as much Tintin (character) as you can and drop me a line about tasks or a quick status or request or anything at all.  Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Prhartcom; I wrote my last comment fairly late last night, and I may well have been a little too pessimistic. It probably won't take months. A months, perhaps. But I would stress patience, as I really think it important that we do it right. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your update, and I agree that we can complete this Tintin (character) article before the month is out, with the two of us working. It's almost there, I believe.  Good to be working with you again--mutual respect. Prhartcom (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, quick questions please: Please feel free to continue editing until you feel that you have improved what is needed, and thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added Assouline and Peeters books to the bibliography, as they were cited but not yet referenced. Now all citations point to bibliography items without error except one: The sentence mentioning Joseph Kessel cites "Farr 2012 p.34". What is that, is it an error? Is that the source that mentions this new name Joseph Kessel?
 * I see some places where your new prose may need copy editing. Do you mind if I make the corrections myself?  (I have been respectfully avoiding editing any prose until you say you have reached a point of completeness.)

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

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


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

Greetings!
Apropos of nothing, I've just noticed that I'm a single edit behind you on the all time list! I'm not sure we've ever worked together, but the quality of your edits is quite impressive. Magnificent work. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, Gareth E Kegg; it seems that we haven't crossed paths before, but maybe we will in the future! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Peer review
Since you and I seem to edit the same articles (or at least, the same topics), I would like you to comment at the peer review for the Communist Party of China article.. Since the article probably has many bugs, it would be nice to have another eye looking at it. Anyhow, thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, TIAYN. Give me a few days, as I have quite a lot on my plate at the moment, but I shall endeavour to get around to it as soon as possible. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Your GA nomination of Jack Parsons (rocket propulsion engineer)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jack Parsons (rocket propulsion engineer) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jamesx12345 -- 21:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

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

A barnstar for you!
Thank you Prhartcom; the GAR was much appreciated. Will focus on the Tintin (character) article this weekend; am at work atm, so I should get off of Wikipedia! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My first barnstar to you, and my chance at last to return the honor you have bestowed upon me. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Tintin's birthday
Happy 85th Tintin's birthday  Prhartcom (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And to you Prhartcom! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: free use images of Jack Parsons
I am delighted with the progression of the article. I was reading Carter's biography the other evening and noticed in the appendix that he attributed a number of photographs featuring Parsons to JPL (which allows non-profit use of any of their material without permission). The one of Parsons standing above the prototype JATO canister would be a much preferable main image for the article than the current copyrighted one. Frustratingly, I cannot find this image in any of NASA/JPL's websites or archives, though there are reproductions of it on other websites. Perhaps I could get a note of permission from someone at NASA/JPL if I sent them a polite enough email? That said, the famous "Rocket Boys" image from 1936 is available: which I will upload to the Commons when I have the time. (Or you can!) JJARichardson (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello there JJARichardson; you caught me just as I was about to sign off. Thank you so much for helping out over at the Jack Parsons article. I was thinking that maybe after it gains its GA status, we could put it through to FAC as a joint nomination ? I must admit to not being particularly well versed in all the issues surrounding the copyright statuses of images, but if you're confident that JPL images are indeed free to use, then I think that that would be an excellent idea. The trouble with sending an email to JPL is that it would be difficult to prove that you had genuine permission, and some Wikipedia editors might call you up on it at a later date. Is the image that you would like to use actually in the Carter biography; and there, does it explicitly say that the copyright is from JPL ? If that is the case then we could probably go ahead and upload it from a different source no problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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


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

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

I am adequately satisfied with the article for us to make an FA nomination. JJARichardson (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey JJARichardson; sounds good to me. Want me to initiate the nomination, and then stick both of our names on it ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

RE: Jack Parsons
Hello User:Midnightblueowl. I assume you will have noticed my further expansions of Parsons' article, and hope you approve of them. I have also expanded the article's intro slightly; my rationale for this is to follow the example of L. Ron Hubbard and Kenneth Anger's articles, which have leads with comprehensive detail but are not excessive (not requiring the reader to scroll to finish reading them). I hope the FA nomination will advance more soon? JJARichardson (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi JJARichardson; I've seen the added images – fantastic! I haven't noticed any prose changes, but I'll look at them. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Adventures of Totor
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Adventures of Totor you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gabriel Yuji -- 21:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

A friendly word
Hi, Midnightblueowl (or may I call you MBO?). I like what you're doing on WP, I like the credo on your userpage. I've been around the encyclopedia about the same amount of time as you, though I work in different areas so our paths won't normally cross. However, if from time to time you need a detached eye on any of your projects, do call me, I'll always help if I can. Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian; yes, of course you may use "MBO" – it's a lot quicker! Thanks for your offer, and if I can ever aid you, please let me know. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Golden Lollipop Award

 * Erm.... thanks MaoMao. I'm guessing that this isn't a particularly serious award. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The quality of your reviewing
This: Talk:Libertarianism/GA1 is not an acceptable form of review. You should be indicating at least which criteria are obvious at the largest level. For instance, 5 & 1. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's probably a fair criticism of my review, Fifelfoo, and in hindsight perhaps I should have expanded on my reasoning there. As you can see from my other GAR and Peer Reviews, I am usually a lot more thorough. The reason why I offered such a quick review was that it seemed like a clear open-and-shut case. Not only was the GA nomination placed in the wrong category, but the nominator had ceased to be a Wikipedia editor shortly after nominating the page. Even a cursory scroll through the article shows that it fails to fit GAC on almost every point. But, once again, I do think that you are right, and I should have explained myself better on this particular issue. I applaud your diligence! Kind regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries at all! Even for the worst article if often helps to direct editors to improve one thing in particular.  Given my background I always prefer verifiability and lack of OR as a foundational criticism of an article.  Remember, you're not just reviewing for the editor who nominated and ran, but for a community of editors who now might have a new aspiration to improve to GA status.  I agree, though, that with an article with significant and thorough-going problems it may be easy to note that, and then suggest, "While there are many problems, this article would be most improved by focusing on Writing Quality."  I read your review of Wicca, which was a decline, and I wouldn't expect you to even put that level of work into an article like Libertarianism.  Many thanks for your work supporting Good Articles!  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 18:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ken Livingstone
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ken Livingstone you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 19:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eddie Buczynski
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eddie Buczynski you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 19:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Bog People
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Bog People you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 19:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Eddie Buczynski
The article Eddie Buczynski you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eddie Buczynski for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 23:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

--ThorLives (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, ThorLives. Regarding the issue of "Heathen", I was in the wrong, and I've begun to correct my mistake on the issue (so, sorry about that one!). Regarding the use of Graham Harvey (who is, to be fair, a major academic in the field of religious studies, being current President of the British Association for the Study of Religion), I was simply adding information from his work prior to moving on to adding information from other academics (i.e. Jenny Blain, Michael Strmiska, Egil Asprem etc). So I apologise if I gave the impression that I was only intending on using Harvey, because my real intention is to go through and fill this article with academically-referenced material from the widest possible range of scholars on this issue. Your input, however, is much appreciated. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

--ThorLives (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that Dr. Harvey's emphasis is certainly on Nature Spirituality, ThorLives; he made that abundantly clear in a recent interview. But, as an academic source, I still think that we should use his work as a reference in this article, so long as we accompany that with other academic sources, and of course, some of the better practitioner volumes. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Peer review/A Quiet Night In/archive1
Hi- I hope you're well. If you get a chance, I'd appreciate some feedback at PR; if the topic (an episode from League of Gentlemen creators' new series) is not of interest to you, or you haven't any time, don't worry about! Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

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


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

Good work, --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, Bhlegkorbh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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


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

Uncle David
Hi Midnight, just letting you know there seems to be some sort of problem with the FAC page, that means that some comments do not appear when one opens it at WP:FAC, but are only visible when one opens Featured article candidates/Uncle David/archive3 itself. Very odd. Anyway, I've left a couple of queries there, in the context of an overall support, and hope you will take a look. hamiltonstone (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, hamiltonstone! Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I commented there too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, much apprceiated Cas Liber! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dammit! Archived? *sigh* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeh, it's frustrating, Crisco 1492. Really puts me off going through FAR really... Guess I'll be sticking largely to getting articles into GAR in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's partly a matter of getting to know reviewers, and (once you know one or two really good ones) asking them to help at peer review. It's usually tit for tat (a review for a review, essentially, though don't expect them to always support if you go straight to FAC!) but it's certainly worth the effort. When I'm finished expanding D. Djajakusuma, I will probably end up pinging some of the reviewers who regularly help me to help polish the prose before FAC. This will mean reviewing some of their articles too, of course, but that's not a big problem (and it helps me learn about the world). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyedit Talk:Jack_Parsons_(rocket_engineer)
Hi

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

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


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

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

Update: I do have access to Apostolidès, Assouline, and Peeters (2012) after all, but still not McCarthy. Anticipating the additional references, I have added "placeholders" for them under the article's References. I have replaced the article's Bibliography and I have nearly finished verifying the article's current references. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Prhartcom (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Prhartcom; sorry that I haven't been active over on any Tintin-related articles lately, but I've been on Wikipedia fairly rarely this year, due to "real life" commitments. Will try and take a look over at Tintin in Tibet over the next few days. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can certainly understand that, it has been worse for me this year more so than in the past; I have not even had time to go back to the Tintin (character) article yet. But the nominator forced our hand to action for this Tintin article at least. Prhartcom (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

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

" Morris's only surviving painting in oils is of Jane Burden as La Belle Iseult. William and Jane had two daughters, Jane Alice (Jenny), born January 1861, who developed epilepsy in her teens, and Mary (May) (March 1862 – 1938), who became the editor of her father's works, a prominent socialist, and an accomplished designer and craftswoman. Although of humble origins and unschooled in her youth, Jane Morris underwent a remarkable self-education after her marriage. A striking beauty, she mixed freely with the Pre-Raphaelites and posed many times for Dante Gabriel Rossetti, with whom Jane had a long affair. The Morrises' initial happiness together did not survive the first ten years of their marriage, but divorce was unthinkable, and they remained together until Morris's death. "
 * Hello there Chiswick Chap, and thanks for staying vigilent! Yes, I have simply removed the information here because I am reworking the text with the aid of more specialist sources (i.e. more recent biographies of Morris, starting with MacCarthy). So never fear, that information will be re-inserted at the correct chronological juncture in the page before too long. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Super. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

RE: Jack Parsons (rocket engineer)
Hello again User:Midnightblueowl. As you can see I've been working quite frequently on Parsons' article, which I have enjoyed expanding and am hopeful about our goal for it to be featured on October 2. There are, however, some edits which I would like to happen but I do not possess the references to support them. I have read Parsons' Freedom is a Two-Edged Sword online, but it is out of print and is otherwise priced extortionately. I gather that you do own a copy, and if so I'd appreciate it if you could expand the political views section of the article, when you have the time, regarding Parsons' opposition to censorship of the arts/media, gun control, and re-distributive taxation. The latter views definitely reflect a right-wing libertarianism breaking from his former Marxism. Thanks! JJARichardson (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey JJARichardson; sure thing - I will look into that! I'm all for a second attempt at FAC and will get back to you! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey JJARichardson - I'm a tad concerned about the second paragraph in the sub-section "Aerojet, invention of storable solid rocket fuel, and leading the Agape Lodge: 1942–1944"; it's very lengthy and doesn't have many references in it. I think it might be worth doing something with it. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Tintin in Tibet (discussion 2)
Hello, well-respected Midnightblueowl! I have been thinking about you a lot lately, as I have been striving to recreate your diligence and skill over at Tintin in Tibet, which I and another editor just brought to GA. (I have also been striving to recreate your Tintin library!) I would be honoured if you would read it and offer your comments or edits. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Prhartcom; I'm just reading through it now. It's good, although I probably wouldn't have passed it without a few more corrections. It'll be quicker for me to just go through and make them myself; I hope that you don't mind ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely; go crazy. The more input from you, the better. I'll have to tell you about that review sometime, although it would be impolite to do so; let's say it reinforced an appreciation of editors like you who know their stuff. Feel free to ping me when you are done, and thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just looked in history from January 2011 and saw that you wrote much of the Lead and History sections of this article that I have been improving recently. Good to know! I'm glad I did not discard what was there. I remember I liked what was already written; I wanted to build upon it. (FYI, during the recent review, I allowed nearly all of my creative work to be submitted by the other editor, who mostly did not contribute.) Prhartcom (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Something I know you'll like; look what I updated: Good articles/Language and literature (scroll down to "Comics"). Prhartcom (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No further comments or edits? Prhartcom (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Arghhhh! Sorrysorrysorry Prhartcom; I'd forgotten about this. Will get on to it! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh good, that's all it was! I wasn't sure how to interpret your silence at first! Prhartcom (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Prhartcom; on the whole I think it's very good, but I would perhaps recommend some restructuing of the "Critical analysis" section, as it currently comprises of some fairly big paragraphs and some short sentences. That could be evened out a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, although this advice is a little mysterious to me. I am looking at some Critical analysis sections of yours and and I see they are usually three paragraphs with nice-sized sentences so perhaps this is what I should strive for. Please let me know if you have any more detailed advice for me. I will have a close look at it, and thanks again. By the way, would you be interested in taking this article to FA together? Prhartcom (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am more than happy to take the article to FA with you, Prhartcom, but I am concerned that it would not yet pass; I recommend getting a peer review first to iron out the creases. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * is there any issue with me tagging along for FA? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  18:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay in responding, . I have no objections, but can we have three nominators for a FAC ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Prhartcom wasn't very keen on me tagging along so I'll probably just watch. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  16:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Hey Prhartcom; I've had a mixed reception with them before. I've experienced exactly what you described before too. In my cases, I have simply re-instigated the peer review, and kept doing that until I got a response. But of course, that does not mean that you must do the same thing. I am happy to support you if you wish to take it to FAR, but I do think that a Peer Review beforehand would probably be necessary. Oh, and thanks for completing the King Ottokar's GA while I was away! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me your experience. You know, I have often learned from you and, in gratitude, believe I will always be respectful of you and your high level of productivity. That is why I occasionally come to your aid or defense, if I can. Please let me know should you ever need me to support you. So, I may submit the article to Peer Review again but, honestly, I have had you and a few other good editors review it; that may already be more peer attention than some articles ever receive. If you wish to review the Critical Analysis section, though, I would be grateful. Cheers Midnightblueowl, Prhartcom (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Midnightblueowl; it is nearly time to take Tintin in Tibet to FA. Are you still interested in accompanying me? I would appreciate your FA experience! Now, as you suggested to me, I ensured the article got a thorough copy edit. I am grateful to, , and then for each providing rounds of very thorough, expert edits, and the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests‎ is having a go at it now. When the Guild is done, would you consider lending a hand also? As Curly pointed out on his Talk page today, not all copy edits have been improvements. Note that I have rewritten the second paragraph of the Critical Analysis section a bit today; I would be most interested in your thoughts on that section especially. I believe the article as a whole is looking pretty good. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed the brilliant work on The Crab with the Golden Claws. Truly. Prhartcom (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Prhartcom; thanks for the message - I can also confirm that I am fully behind taking Tintin in TIbet to FA. I shall give it a quick look through now. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not now, like I said, nearly. The Guild editor Miniapolis is working who said should be finished today. We will be able to tell when they are done. Best to you as well. Prhartcom (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * They have completed their work. To explain: I wanted to show respect for the Guild copy editor by avoiding what could amount to reverting their work while they were in the middle of it. Thank-you for waiting yesterday and for confirming you are fully behind this project going forward. Prhartcom (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, re. cited references: I believe the article is very well cited and I feel I have adequately covered the work of all of the authors in the bibliography, with the exception of Assouline 2009 and Peeters 2012—the two I have not completed reading. If you were to annotate existing text of the article with additional cited references to these works I would be grateful. As I believe the writing and copy editing of the prose must be very nearly done, my next task will be rechecking all of the cited references, which I would be grateful if you were to do also. I understand if real life takes precedent as this is also very much the case with me. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If you believe anything should be rewritten, expanded, or kept the way it is, please feel free; I am open to your thoughts. Prhartcom (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Prhartcom, I've posted some comments regarding the Tintin in Tibet prose over at the talk page. I will now check Assouline and Peeters later today, hopefully! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello - just to let you know that I have made use of Assouline, and will aim to do the same with Peeters tomorrow. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Soraya
If you do not mind please take a look at Soraya Posts article. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message BabbaQ, but I am unsure precisely why you have made this request ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Conchita Wurst
Hi there,

I must say I do love the improvements you have made to Conchita Wurst's article. The section on International response's may benefit from some further expansion. The part that mentions criticism from Russian politicians could do with the counter-argument that Conchita herself gave on 2 separate interviews for British television. On both The One Show and BBC Newsnight, Conchita responded to what those politicians said with the remark "Well I don’t really focus on negativity at all because there’s nothing which brings me further by thinking about that [...] But actually, I have to say that when politicians, like really famous ones, say that I’m the reason why Europe will crash into pieces, I have to say [that] I’ve never received a bigger honour. Because they think I’m that powerful… thank you. I don’t want to disappoint you but I’m just a drag queen.". Might be a worthwhile addition and maintains WP:NPOV. Wes  Mᴥuse  01:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea, Wesley Mouse ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For your work on Conchita Wurst

EvergreenFir (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC) 
 * Thank you EvergreenFir; it is much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"British Isles"
I see you've been going around Wikipedia passionately creating articles with the British jingoistic name "British Isles" in them, despite that verifiably imperialist 16th-century English term never having been used at the time. I've chosen one such article and commented there. 79.97.64.240 (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have responded over at the talk page that you link to. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Brilliant response. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Archaeological theory template
Hi Midnightblueowl,

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


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

Le Monde de Tintin
Hello Midnightblueowl; I was not stepping forward, but as it has been open for awhile I will now offer to review King Ottokar's Sceptre, if you would like. Prhartcom (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Prhartcom; do so if you feel like you want to, but otherwise do not worry - I am in no hurry! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. I may do so this weekend. I like working with you. Please note: The article is missing Goddin's Volume 2 and should not be; I believe that book absolutely should be referenced and no more referencing Volume 1 (the previous Tintin book should also have referenced Volume 2). I will be happy to do this for the article as well, or perhaps you can. Cheers and have a great week, Prhartcom (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is done. The review looks like it is going well! Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

, The Shooting Star is not ready for nomination for GA yet, I haven't had a chance to review it for errors (I'm actually still improving your productive effort on The Crab with the Golden Claws; it's good but it has a lot of passive voice introduced to it, which I am working to improve). You know that you make plenty of errors (all of us do), you know that I can usually spot them, and you know that you can ask me to review your work anytime. Every writer needs an editor. Or if you'd rather not, at least allow those of us who care for the Tintin articles as much as you do a chance to make our improvements to your productive and greatly appreciated work before you submit it for a formal excellence assessment. You know I have the greatest respect for you. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Prhartcom; you make a fair point, and I appreciate your effort with the editing process. I have been rushing a little with Wikipedia stuff lately due to a spell of free time that shall soon be over; hence my desire to get those two articles through GAN (although they are both undoubtedly broadly ready). Before long, I will not have much opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia on a regular basis. I hope that explains things a little. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It does, thank-you. However, I doubt they are "broadly ready"; Crab wasn't. Just as you told me my writing needed to be copyedited (when I asked you how it looked) you can know it is the same with your writings also. But now, two editors you trust are looking at them (Brigade Piron also), so the articles should be looking good when they go into GA. I have temporarily withdrawn the nomination by removing the GA nominee template from the article talk page. Please do nominate it again if you'd like after giving me a chance to copy edit it (after I finish Crab); shouldn't take me too long. Prhartcom (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am done with Crab; I believe it is now in decent shape. Here is the edit difference between your last edit 26 July and our edits, showing how much work was required: . Prhartcom (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For the love of God, step in and support me wholeheartedly and we'll put an end to it. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a little perplexed; are you referring to the work on Crab, or the debates over at the Tintin in Tibet FAC ? If the latter then I'll be right over to give my two cents. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of King Ottokar's Sceptre
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article King Ottokar's Sceptre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of King Ottokar's Sceptre
The article King Ottokar's Sceptre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:King Ottokar's Sceptre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellence deserves congratulations, Midnightblueowl! And take a look: Template:Did you know nominations/King Ottokar's Sceptre. Prhartcom (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

DYK for King Ottokar's Sceptre
Gatoclass (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

 * Thank you RomanSpa; it is much appreciated! Glad that you are happy with the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! RomanSpa (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

HTMGIANT and Crowley article
Look at the large number of Wikipedia articles that cite HTMLGIANT. How is it not notable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=htmlgiant&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go

2601:1:9280:271:FA1E:DFFF:FEE3:1FFE (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:9280:271:FA1E:DFFF:FEE3:1FFE (talk)
 * Please see Talk:Aleister Crowley for an ongoing discussion on this issue. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Margot Adler
Hi- just a quick note to say that I've just been sent a very nice picture of Margot Adler, who sadly recently died. If you know of any places such an image could/should be added, please do use it! J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks J; I can't really think of where to use the image, other than the Margot Alder page, but thanks anyway. Maybe the Pagan studies page ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Warren Cup
Hi, thanks for taking on the GA. Feel free to email me if there are issues you would like me to sweep up in the background. Timing for the next 7 days would be tricky, it would be great if you gave a bit of flexibility as I am volunteering and presenting at Wikimania and taking part in the hackerthon. This means I am heavily committed in terms of my volunteer time until 11 August. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello there Fæ, and thanks for your message. Never fear; I am very flexible with these things! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  Tintin

Thank you, editor "with a little bit of love and tender care". for quality articles such as Tintin in the Land of the Soviets, The Man-Eating Myth and Nelson Mandela, for good reviewing and for your belief in "the Wikipedian ethos of free and accurate encyclopedic knowledge for all", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 565th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Crab with the Golden Claws GA
Good news! Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like they forgot to promote it. Prhartcom (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message User:Prhartcom; looking at what they've done, it seems that they've done everything correctly, although the GA symbol has not popped up, so there must be something wrong. Will contact them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification
This is to inform you that  Madeline Montalban, which you nominated at WP:FAC,  will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page  as  Today's Featured Article on 2 October 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Congrats, ! Prhartcom (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian, and thanks for the congrats, Prhartcom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Warren Cup/GA1
Midnightblueowl, it's been six weeks since you opened this review, and there haven't been any edits made to address the issues you raised in the first two days. Please see whether it's time to close it as unsuccessful, or attempt to engage the nominator again; one way or another, there needs to be some action. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for highlighting this BlueMoonset; I'll deal with it now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Success
Hi Midnight,

Congratulations on the successful FAC! I look forward to seeing Tintin in Tibet go up on the main page.

Neelix (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Neelix; your input and willingness to review the page was really very much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Great work on the "New Age" page!
Dear Midnightblue, - I want to thank you, so much, for you excellent additions to and edits on the New Age page. I've been the primary contributor to its "Social and political movement" section, and I helped New Age maintain its "Good Article" status a few months ago although I was not sure the article as a whole deserved that status. Now it surely does. Thanks again. - Babel41 (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Babel41 and thanks for your message! I am fortunate in that I have access to the academic texts on the New Age movement, and thus am able to take the page in directions that (I assume) previous editors were unable to do. I see it as a work in progress however, and will continue to contribute to it in the hope that one day it can be pulled up to FA status. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar appreciation

 * Much appreciated Prhartcom; I can't deny that I really rather dislike the FA process much of the time, but I think that it's ultimately worth it. Here's to the next one! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I gave you the Right Half, if you'd like to put that one on your main page instead; I tried to give you a Star you didn't already have. ;-) Prhartcom (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edward Hollamby
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Edward Hollamby you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rosiestep -- Rosiestep (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edward Hollamby
The article Edward Hollamby you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Edward Hollamby for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rosiestep -- Rosiestep (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Edward Hollamby
Congratulations on your newest GA! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rosiestep; I appreciate you taking the time out to review it! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edward Hollamby
The article Edward Hollamby you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Edward Hollamby for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rosiestep -- Rosiestep (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

RE: Jack Parsons (rocket engineer)
Greetings MBO. I'm pleased with the progression of Parsons' article in the past few months. We have followed all the recommendations of the original FA review, including the expansion of its references and a more detailed description of the scientific aspect. User:Chaosdruid's copyedit has also significantly improved the prose. It's a slight regret that we didn't meet the ambition of the article being featured on Parsons' centenary, but of course what truly matters is its quality. I'm now adequately satisfied for us to go for a second FA review. What do you think? JJARichardson (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's go for it, JJARichardson! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Good to hear. Shall set up the review or would you prefer to? JJARichardson (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Be my guest; it's probably better that you are the first nominator given that I already have a solo nomination (Luo Yixiu) open. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

3O needed
Good morning, Midnightblueowl, hope you are well! Over at Talk:Tintin in Tibet, a gentleman (and administrator) is trying to help copy edit this thoroughly copy edited article, but is doing so a bit arrogantly (also here). I reverted half of his changes as unnecessary, and that stung, I would think. Could you pop over and lean on my side a bit? I greatly respect your time and I don't think you need to be all involved, but I would appreciate just a few words of your support. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Strikes
Hey, I know you're acting in good faith, but it's not a good idea to strike other people's comments (as per WP:TPO). Some editors would get pissed off about that, and in this particular case one of my comments wasn't actually addressed the way I'd intended (the one about French publication—I wasn't asking idly, I was implying the wording was ambiguous, and that wasn't dealt with). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Curly. Thanks for your message, and apologies for any offence caused. I wasn't actually aware that Wikipedia guidelines officially considered strike-outs to be tantamount to changing an author's original prose, although I have encountered editors who are cagey about strike-outs in general in the past. I'm more that happy for you to "un-strike" any comments that you felt were not sufficiently dealt with, however (as I stated in my edit summary) I find the strike-outs to be of great help in visually assessing which queries have been dealt with, and which have not. Otherwise we end up with very long blocks of text which are very hard to navigate, particularly for those of us with less than ideal vision. So I would certainly prefer it if you retained the strike-outs where you agree with them, and if you were to use them in future; then again, as you have pointed out, you would be perfectly within your rights to disagree. Anyway, all the best for now! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Shooting Star
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Shooting Star you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Shooting Star
The article The Shooting Star you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Shooting Star for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for writing it- it's a very interesting topic, and the article's a great read. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Luo Yixiu to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,287 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 10:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the congratulations, Bencherlite! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of George Pickingill
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article George Pickingill you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

 * Thanks, and happy holidays to you too Prhartcom! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again! I only just noticed we were not receiving "credit" for FA for Tintin in Tibet on List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations due to a computer bug and we finally are now (see this message here). Congrats on your two other FAs! Have the Happiest New Year! P.S. Time to archive the ol' Talk page! Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Prhartcom, I hope that you had a good seasonal few weeks. I didn't even know that that list existed, so thanks for bringing it to my attention and for correcting that unfortunate omission. Best for now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh! Did you see what Gerda did over at Today's featured article/requests/Tintin in the Congo? How nice! I am so honoured to know both of you; two of the finest female editors on Wikipedia! Prhartcom (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did see it; I don't think that I've encountered Gerda before, but I'm glad that she's taken an interest in that particular article. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably because of me. Prhartcom (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of George Pickingill
The article George Pickingill you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:George Pickingill for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul O'Grady, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ashford and Michael Ball. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)