User talk:Midnightblueowl/Archive 8

Your GA nomination of Munroe Bergdorf race row incident
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Munroe Bergdorf race row incident 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 3E1I5S8B9RF7 -- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Munroe Bergdorf race row incident
The article Munroe Bergdorf race row incident you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Munroe Bergdorf race row incident 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 3E1I5S8B9RF7 -- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

BLPN
heads up --Brustopher (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, Brustopher ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hellenism (religion) and Semitic neopaganism
I noticed your excellent work on the articles Heathenry (new religious movement), Margaret Murray, Witch-cult hypothesis, and Druidry (modern). I was wondering, mostly just out of curiosity, if you were ever planning on working on the articles Hellenism (religion) and Semitic neopaganism, both of which are in extremely poor condition and are in desperate need of revision and expansion? I would work on them myself, but I am too busy working on other articles and you seem to be much more of an expert on modern paganism than I am. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Katolophyromai and thanks for your message. I'd be interested in working on said articles, but as far as I am aware there is very little English language academic material on those subjects that is presently available. Perhaps in future said material will be produced that can be used to built the articles in question. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice
There is an RfC at an article you have edited, to which you may wish to add your input: Talk:American Flagg!. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Concepts of magic per society
Hello! I wanted to thank you for spinning off the material I added into the new article concepts of magic per society; I had been thinking that the subject probably deserved its own article, but I think we should find a better name for it. "Concepts of magic per society" is a seriously arcane and obscure title and I highly doubt that anyone will ever read it. I think a better title might be "History of magical practices" or simply "History of magic." Also, I think that we should restore an abbreviated version of the material in that article to the main article (regardless of whether it ends up being called "Magic (paranormal)," "Magic (study of religion)," or something else). I think that historical information about the subject is important and requires more explanation than the mere etymology of the word. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Katolophyromai and thanks for your message. I've been trying to built up the Magic article for a while now, with the specific hope of getting it to a place where it actually reflects what current scholarship says about the subject. What has concerned me is that it has long been a sort of trivia page for anything and everything anyone could consider to be 'magic', whether that be alchemy, witch trials, ancient Egyptian practices, Papuan curses, and modern occultism. What the article really needs to be is a discussion of the concept of magic, focusing specifically on how the concept has existed and adapted in common parlance and how it has been used by scholars. That's what scholars are now doing, and we should be following their lead.
 * I completely agree that "Concepts of magic per society" is not a particularly good title. In fact, I'm really not sure that we even need such an article at all. If "magic" is simply a Western concept that most scholars now reject as useless, can we even have a "History of magic"? Of course, it would be fantastic to have independent articles on "Curses in Ancient Egypt", "Amulets in Mesopotamia" and that sort of thing, but it would just be unwieldy to try and force such a huge body of material from across time and space all into a single article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy Pongal, Makar Sankranti, Lohri and Bihu to you!
May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending! — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 10:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

TFAR
Today's featured article/requests/Miriam Makeba --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for what you did for Miriam Makeba, "a musician and activist who had a lasting impact on music and popular culture in South Africa and abroad". I today, her birthday, to illustrate my own singing in defiance, - DYK ... that the hymn "Jesu, meine Freude" (Jesus, my joy) by Johann Franck and Johann Crüger mentions singing in defiance of the "old dragon", death, and fear? (March 2014). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

... and for today's Withypool Stone Circle, "one of only three late prehistoric stone circles located in the southwestern English county of Somerset"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

.. for today, on his centenry birthday, Nelson Mandela, the "South African anti-apartheid revolutionary, political leader, and philanthropist who served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999. He was the country's first black head of state and the first elected in a fully representative democratic election. His government focused on dismantling the legacy of apartheid by tackling institutionalised racism and fostering racial reconciliation."! Thank you also for making it possible last hour! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Satan
Hi MBO; congratulations on the latest FA. In case you aren't aware: Satan is currently listed at GAC. I saw it and thought of you! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, Josh! I might take it on, although am finding less time for Wikipedia lately so we shall see. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Lenin
Hi there ! From the history file, I saw that you apparently have been involved in our Vladimir Lenin article quite a lot. I noticed the featured status, but found this to be of interest - and couldn't find a proper headline to put it. And if included, the end of the lead feels reasonable. I added this:
 * "Although there are few historical persons that have been written about so much, there is a lack of personal information about him. Unwilling to be perceived as separate from his politic, or even agree to have a life outside of politics, he didn't leave any biographical data about himself. Very little is known about his early years. What exists in writing before the age of 23 is only twenty documents, most of them public acts as applications and certificates. Stories from acquaintances are missing altogether.(ref)Richard Pipers, "Russian Revolution" (Swedish ISBN 91-27-09935-0; first page of chapter V)(/ref)

Now a "red user" (not in the political sense, but a user with no presentation) removed that part. I think Pipers work is a good one, and that part of interest. I guess it's a matter of opinion. May I ask what you think about this part ? (That particular page lacks a number, the following is p.126; There also is a grammatical is/are matter for which I'm sorry Boeing720 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Or is there ? "What exists in writing before the age of 23 is only twenty documents.." I'm a bit confused, but I now again think its correct, as "What exists in writing before the age of 23.." is , isn't it ? Sorry for this part in any event. But keen to hear your opinion on Piper, if possible. Boeing720 (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Boeing720. I have to say that I agree with Toluwan's removal of the added text. Bear in mind that this is a Featured Article, and is the product of extensive work and discussion through a process of GAN and then FAC. In a case like that, a significant alteration—and the addition of a whole paragraph to the lede would count as that—must be discussed on the Talk Page first to see if there is a consensus. I also think that the added text which you had provided contains errors. It states, for example, that "there is a lack of personal information about him", but there is certainly enough to have enabled many biographers to have discussed Lenin's life in depth. Richard Pipes was writing in the late 1980s and early 1990s, before the collapse of the Soviet Union and the opening up of the former Soviet archives. Since that time, biographers like Robert Service have been able to conduct far more in-depth investigation into Lenin's life, revealing vast quantities of biographical information about him. Always be careful with regard to how up-to-date the books or other sources that you may be using actually are. Hope that helps. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. And I did ask for your advice. However, I did notice the article's status, and pointed that out. Also GANs and FACs, as I understand them at least, do not really examine if something is missing. But as you say, I really should have brought it up at the talk-page first. Pipers "The Russian Revolution" is from 1995, Swedish translation from 1997, by the way. "Only 20 documents before the age of 23 exists", Pipers has written. So I guess he very well may be correct on that still, but the main issue was perhaps about how Lenin "was unwilling to be perceived as different from his politic, or even agreeing to have a life outside politics". Thanks the reply! Boeing720 (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this Robert Service really can't have had a look in any documents after 1991. But I'm sure there is another with that name though :) Boeing720 (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Jacob Rees-Mogg
Not much left to do on this for it to be ready for GA. Well done! I want to check a couple of sources and see if there are other significant media appearances outside the LBC show (and while I find the man’s views odious and repulsive, I cannot deny he can be funny). Other than that, I think we are good to go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that it might be worth holding off for a little while. I personally do not think that it meets GA criteria quite yet; greater prose editing and perhaps access to further sources are needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While I haven't checked the sources yet aside from noting four citations to the Daily Mail that need to be stamped on from a great height, what I find is that if somebody's notability lies mostly (if not entirely) in the internet era, and lots of editors are looking at it, and there is no definitive book source (and I don't think there is), sources don't tend to be too bad. Certainly compared to the state I see some BLPs turn up at WP:ITNC, it's in pretty good shape. In any case, User:Ritchie333/London termini is my main focus at the moment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

edition of page joseph stalin
Midnightblueowl, you undo my corrections thanks for your efforts. Could you please explain how it is possible to report in print (Mar 07) the results of autopsy which according to your reference (Khlevniuk) was carried out two and half month later? Maybe he found additional autopsy? Also I am not sure which of corrections was not referenced correctly? Please elaborate. --Armenius vambery (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I appreciate that you appear to be new to Wikipedia, and I apologise if my undoing of your edits might seem off-putting at first. It is best if you take this issue to Talk:Joseph Stalin, where it can be discussed by a broader array of other interested editors, rather than here on my user talk page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Stalin image
Hey, do you think could work as an alternative? LittleJerry (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but what is the copyright status on that image? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you think we have a consensus now with the main image? LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think so, but it is probably best that we wait until an uninvolved editor comes along and decides to close the RfC. If one of us closes it then there may be concerns raised about the impartiality of the closure. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Slavic Native Faith
Hello, I see you have been involved in the shaping of Slavic Native Faith article for last years. We are currently having some further debates on talk page there. Mind to voice your opinions? Slavicslav (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Image of Vladimir Lenin published in the magazine edited by Nikolai Bukharin
On the page Vladimir Lenin I have put an image which was on the front page of the magazine (Projector) edited by Nikolai Bukharin 15 September 1923. The image was taken 28 Aug 1923.

At the time it is was the most important image published by the most prominent editor. He was the editor of Pravda at the same time.

The image was and still is supplemented by two tags: tag which explains the rights for the image in Russia as successor of USSR and the tag which explains the rights in US.

Please let me know why you continue to delete my contribution from the page? What still needs to be explained? --Armenius vambery (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Armenius vambery and thanks for your message. The Vladimir Lenin page is FA-rated and all of the images used on it have been thoroughly scrutinised during the FAC process to ensure that we could use them on the page. That is the reason why I have been cautious about your new addition, which I nevertheless think is a good picture and should go into the article so long as we can be totally sure of its provenance and copyright status. To that end, I would recommend looking at some of the images used in the Lenin article to see how their tags explain the copyright status. Look at File:19190501-lenin speech red square.jpg for example; it contains the statement that "This image is within the public domain in both the Russian Federation and the United States because its author, Grigori Goldstein, died in 1941, over 70 years ago." It follows this with a tag specifying exactly which images can be counted as copyright free in Russia and why. I would recommend following this specific approach with your photo. Make sure the reasoning is crystal clear so that no one could misunderstand. I hope that that helps. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I have just updated the Permission Tag: "This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication." exactly as in the image from Pravda (Pogrzeb Lenina1924.jpg)--Armenius vambery (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It was not published anonymously in Projector. The author is Samsonov. --Armenius vambery (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

V. Gordon Childe
I was sorry to see the FA fail. I thought it was clearly FA ready. Too bad that nobody could be bothered to revisit their statements. Lack of reviewers seems to be killing FAR. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks ·maunus. Yes, it is unfortunate, although that's just the way it goes. I'll re-nominate the article at some point in future. I won't complain about lack of reviewers as I'm probably just as guilty; I tend to focus very much on content addition and don't do anywhere near as much reviewing as I perhaps should. If only there were more hours in the day. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I've re-nominated the Childe article and it has had two editors take a look thus far. If you were interested, please do feel free to take a gander at the FAC. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Withypool Stone Circle scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Withypool Stone Circle article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 8, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/April 8, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks!

The thumb image isn't very edifying at that scale, but I'm not sure there is anything better in the article, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello Midnightblueowl,

I just want to thank you for your thoughtful remarks at ANI. If you ever need the assistance of an administrator on any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Cullen328 . I don't tend to take things to ANI unless it seems really necessary (as it can be a lot of hassle) but I just thought it best to try and nip WikiNutt's harassment of RolandR in the bud before they began to think that they could get away with it. Unfortunately, I really do not think that Wikipedia has sufficiently strong measures for dealing with incivility, harassment, and the like (I've seen serious, repeat offenders get nothing but a tap on the wrist too many times), but at least raising the issue at ANI on this occasion might make WikiNutt think twice before behaving in the same manner next time. From the nature of their comments I suspect that they might be a child (or at least 'child-like') and hopefully they will 'grow up' a bit in the next few years. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

National Front
Hi Midnightblueowl. I just wanted to ask why you reverted my edits on the National Front article. As you've already gathered, I am new to Wikipedia so I do need to understand problems like these that might arise!! PlatinumHeron (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi PlatinumHeron and thanks for your message. From a Wikipedean procedural perspective, there are two issues here with (two of your three) edits . The first is the very use of the National Front website as a source; generally, such primary sources do not constitute WP:Reliable Sources according to Wikipedia policy. Political parties often mask their ideology using more electorally friendly language and thus we often see a disparity between what a party describes itself as and what academic political scientists describe a party as (thus, the BNP insists that it is not "fascist", although political scientists almost uniformly call it that; UKIP refers to itself as "libertarian", although most political scientists favour the term "right-wing populist", etc). So on that count, the NF's own website would not really be an appropriate source to start with. The second issue is that (I believe, and correct me if I am wrong), that you did not strictly follow what the website actually said but offered your own interpretation of its policy, i.e. the NF do not say "we are white supremacists", rather they lay out a white nationalist perspective on citizenship and it is that which you feel constitutes "white supremacism". I'm not going to say whether your assessment is factually right or wrong—an assessment complicated by the fact that there are two distinct meanings of that term in use within public discourse—but from a procedural perspective, it would constitute WP:Original research and thus would be inappropriate. Generally speaking, whatever we add to an article needs to be sourced explicitly to a Reliable Source, ideally something written by a professional academic specialist and published in a peer-reviewed outlet; where such scholarly sources are lacking, mainstream media outlets (particularly the more 'respectable' sort) are usually to be used. I hope that that clears things up a little, and beyond that I'd just like to say welcome to Wikipedia! It can be frustrating navigating around all the rules and regulations but once you become familiar with them then editing gets pretty easy (at least in my opinion). 11:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, Midnightblueowl! After reviewing my edits again, I would like to go through what I changed (and thanks for providing links to them!):


 * On my first edit, I cited the NF's official policy on their website for a statement on the article that already said: "It calls for an end to non-white migration into the UK". I simply assumed that this would be the best place to confirm this statement seeing as this is what determines its position on things like this! I am still unsure as to how this is wrong, though, seeing as this is what is explicitly stated on their policies.


 * On my second edit I added "white supremacy" to the information box on the right hand side of the page, and I added "white supremacist" to describe the group in the first paragraph. After reading your reply, I do understand how this violates Wikipedia's policies seeing as I did not cite the right sources and offered my own interpretation and opinion of their policies.


 * I am considering reinstating the source I cited in my first edit, but I would first like to see what you think of this.


 * Thanks for your help, and kind regards, PlatinumHeron (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * - With regard to the addition of a link to the NF website in the text of the lede, there are again two issues at play. The first is that primary sources (in this case the NF website) are generally avoided in favour of WP:Reliable Sources. The second is that we generally avoid putting sources and citations in the lede anyway; the lede serves to summarise the contents of the rest of the article, and it is in that latter bulk of text that we include all of the citations. That the NF has a 'whites-only' approach to British citizenship is described in some depth in the main body of the article, where it is appropriately sourced to Reliable Sources produced by academic specialists. In this scenario, there is really no need to add an additional citation (especially to a primary source) in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand! Thanks for your explanation - I was wondering why some articles had no citations in the lede whilst others did.


 * - No problems; there's more on the issue of article ledes here: Manual of Style/Lead section. Some ledes do contain citations (and that isn't strictly against policy), but in practice it's generally avoided. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

History of the Isle of Wight
Hi there, this is a bit of a random request, but would you by any chance have any suggestions or feedback about the "Context" subjection of the Shorwell helmet article? The article is currently close to passing at FAC, but the addition of a section on the contextual political history was suggested. Given your extremely thoughtful parsing of the Guilden Morden boar section when that article was similarly positioned, I figured I would ask if you might have any thoughts on this one. No worries if you don't have time or it's outside your area of expertise. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for going above and beyond on this—I was hoping for a quick readthrough of one subsection, but your edits and comments made a big overall improvement. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's okay, Usernameunique. When it comes to coverage of British archaeology at Wikipedia, I've mostly worked on late prehistory rather than the early middle ages, but I think that the need to provide greater background information is always necessary when discussing a particular site or monument. It's more time consuming for editors, but definitely helps to improve readers' understanding. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Machel
Thanks for this edit; I looked but had missed the earlier link. <b style="color: #52A249;">Un</b><b style="color: #23CE40;">sch</b><b style="color: #7ED324;">ool</b> 04:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, User:Unschool. It first appears in the third paragraph of the "Presidency of South Africa: 1994–99". Personally I don't have much of a problem with duplinking, but the regulations do stipulate against them and they should be upheld, especially on an FA like the Mandela article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sexual Desire (book)
Hello, Midnightblueowl. I recently nominated Sexual Desire (book) for good article status. I wondered whether you might be interested in reviewing the article? Asking you because you were kind enough to help me with two previous WP:GAN nominations. I understand if you are too busy, not interested, or have other things to do. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator and thanks for your message. I am interested, but have not got a great deal of time at present. If I find time in the next few weeks, I'll take a look. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator; I actually went onto the article this morning, planning on carrying out the review, but found that somebody beat me to it! One point that I would raise and encourage you to sort out is the referencing: as far as I can tell, your links to Belliotti 1997, Janaway 1995, Nussbaum 1996, Ruse 1997, Stafford 2005, Roy-Kingham 2016, Soble 1997, Barnhill 2012, and Scruton 2017 are non-operational. I'd definitely recommend looking into that and fixing whatever the problem may be. Not a fun task, but it will be necessary should you wish to take the article on to FAC in future. Hope that helps, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, Midnightblueowl. Thank you for your reply. Although the article has now achieved good article status, further comments are certainly welcome. I checked all of the links you mentioned, but as far as I could determine, with two exceptions they all worked perfectly well and were no different from any of the other links to citations in the article. The two exceptions were mislabeled citations - Ruse 1997 should have been Brown 1997 and Roy-Kingham 2016 should have been Kingham 2016. I have now corrected those errors. The issue of links being non-operational occurred before when you reviewed my good article nomination of The Homosexual Matrix, and again, in that case I honestly couldn't find the problem you mentioned. That is not to say the problem didn't exist, but perhaps instead there is some problem with your browser or some kind of software incompatibility? Things don't necessarily work the same way on different computers or software setups. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You do great work
I must say, you do very good work here on WP. Well done, keep it up :) Pleasure to read you're articles! --TIAYN (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)--TIAYN (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your kind comment, TIAYN. I'm glad that my efforts aren't a total waste of time! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Folklore Invitation
Hello Midnightblueowl, I'd like to invite you to WP:Folklore. You do a lot of great work in this sphere, and I think you'd find a lot to like about this WikiProject! &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks &#58;bloodofox:, I'd certainly be interested. Good work on setting the WikiProject up! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy Burgess
Last November I told you I was expanding the Burgess article. Since then it's been through a peer review and is now at FAC, where it's doing OK. But it could still do with a pair of fresh eyes, and if you could spare the time I'd be very grateful if you would take a look and perhaps leave a comment or two. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Assessment of new articles
, I noticed that at this edit you created a talk page and assessed your own new page The Broad (folk custom) on behalf of three WikiProjects, including WikiProject England. It is all right for you to add project links to a talk page, but you should not assess your own articles. What you should add is something like this. Someone from the WikiProject will then see the page come up as unassessed and will look at it independently. Moonraker (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge Regime
Hi,

the source that I've added clearly states what I've written. Moreover, there is a paragraph in Cambodian_genocide_denial (not written by me) discussing this. I think this edit is politically neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrizioberloco (talk • contribs) 09:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity in the Congo Free State
Crimes against humanity in the Congo Free State, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joseph Stalin
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joseph Stalin 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Coldrum skeletal material.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Coldrum skeletal material.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

need your advice
Dear User Midnightblueowl, could you please advice whether the article Nikolai Bukharin could be nominated to Featured articles? I have provided good quality images. For me it has good references to the solid academic books from reliable authors and overall tells an interesting story. Thanks. --Armenius vambery (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Armenius vambery and thanks for your message. At the moment, the Bukharin article is really in no position to be nominated at FAC; indeed, it would almost certainly fail at GAN in its current state. Large chunks of the article are un-referenced; while some academic sources are used, their application is highly sporadic. For an article to become GA rated, everything in the main body of the article has to be properly cited. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Clear. I will try to energize people on the corresponding Talk page. --Armenius vambery (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Burgess
Hi, Midnightblueowl. Re Burgess, do you wish to return to this review? The nomination currently has seven supports and has completed its image and sources checks, so it's down to you, basically. I'm very grateful for your comments thus far, but if you haven't the time for more, that's fine; perhaps you would leave a note to that effect   for the coordinators. Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Brianboulton; my apologies for the delay. This had spilled my mind as I became preoccupied by other things on Wikipedia. Will hope over and take another look now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Coldrum skeletal material.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Coldrum skeletal material.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Giving space
I notice that in the RFC as well as in the preceding discussion, you argued with every post that expressed a view not in accordance with your own. How would it be to allow others space, at least sometimes, to post their views without an argument? I'd don't particularly mean my own posts, but especially those of neutral participants. A listening space would be ideal...

And especially in an RFC, it seems you keep trying to judge and determine the outcome. Backing off a little might allow a compromise to emerge that is more neutral than any that you or I might think of. I assume that you called an RFC, not merely to prove yourself right, but with openness to learning something new and to listen to neutral voices? Cl ea n Co py talk 05:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message and I'm sorry to hear that you feel my comments at the RfC are too combative. I've always tried to make sure that I make my point in a courteous way and that I avoid any form of personal attack. However, it is nevertheless the case that, if another editor makes a point that I believe is fallacious, then I am going to highlight what I see as its flaws (as I would expect them to do for my points too). If an editor's ideas are robust then they will withstand any critique I can give. If they are not robust then they should be exposed as such. I've been editing Wikipedia for donkey's years now, and I've focused largely on religious and political topics which generate much controversy, doing what is necessary to get them up to GA and then FA standard. In these situations, there are always editors who want to promote emic or highly pro- and anti- claims about the topic in question, there are always editors who don't seem to care what the RS actually say, and there are always editors (particularly on an RfC, where uninvolved editors are brought in) who know nothing about the topic to start with and may be arriving with a range of misconceptions. For this reason, I have found that a firm hand is almost always needed in guiding the article towards following what the RS written by professional academics actually say. That doesn't mean turning an article into my own little fiefdom, but it also doesn't mean letting the article become a free-for-all where everyone's opinion, however fringe or contra to Wikipedia policy, is accorded equal weight and acted upon. If my memory serves me correctly, you are the first individual to ever express any sort of concern about how I respond to others on an RfC. I appreciate your frankness and I'll take your comments on board, but honestly I don't think that there is anything wrong with my approach. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * PS, (and I apologise for the mini-essay!), but looking at the RfC on the Theosophy page, there are only three editors whom I have actually responded to (yourself, Chris Troutman, and Pincrete), so I'm not really sure that it's fair or even strictly accurate to say that I "argued with every post that expressed a view not in accordance with your own". The simple fact is that I didn't. You also state that "Backing off a little might allow a compromise to emerge" but as far as I can see, I am the only editor who has thus far actually tried to put forward a compromise solution . You also say that I "keep trying to judge and determine the outcome", but frankly the outcome should be obvious to everyone: there is a very, very clear consensus in favour of calling Theosophy a "religion" in the lede. Only one editor has opposed this proposal, and their argument made absolutely no reference to any Wikipedia policy and completely dismissed what the RS say as being irrelevant. So, this being the case, I feel that your comment to me was perhaps a little more strongly worded than was needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, one independent editor did propose a compromise solution: to use the phrase "esoteric religious movement" rather than "religion" and "occult movement" separately. The editor asked those active in the discussion to respond to this suggestion; I have done so, and perhaps you'd like to, as well.   Cl ea n Co py talk 21:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is true, they did do that, but only after I had suggested "esoteric religion" as a compromise. Pincrete's suggestion is simply a slight prose alteration of my original compromise solution. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference being that Pimcrete's suggestion IMHO actually integrates all the considerations mentioned in the discussion.  Cl ea n Co py talk 01:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Please review Caillou Pettis
Can you please look over the draft available for the article on Caillou Pettis and see if it is good to submit for actual publication? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyBatman22 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Churchill, Borkum, and the First World War
Hi, I see you made this edit. Please see Talk:Winston_Churchill for some problems arising from it. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of National Front (UK)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article National Front (UK) 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 Nomader -- Nomader (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of National Front (UK)
The article National Front (UK) 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:National Front (UK) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nomader -- Nomader (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of National Front (UK)
The article National Front (UK) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:National Front (UK) 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 Nomader -- Nomader (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 28, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/July 28, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  08:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the "Bronze Age stone circle in southern England"! - How do you like Sankt-Bach-Passion, on his day of death? - Good match ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:God of the Witches.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:God of the Witches.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi,

I would appreciate it if your edit summaries were more specific than "added referenced information". That could apply to almost any addition that wasn't adding a reference, tagging, deletion or reversion. I don't want to have to inspect the diffs to see what change you've actually made.

I am a coder, by background; we use revision-control systems to manage commits to code repositories. We rely on informative commit summaries to help us figure out quickly which commit resulted in which change. I w2ould not be happy with a fellow coder adding a commit summary that just said "added some bug-free code". The page I'm looking at is Populism.

This seems to be a recent change in your style - until quite recently your summaries were helpful.

Thanks, MrDemeanour (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I will certainly try to give greater information in my edit summaries (if I remember to, that is). I've been using "added referenced information" in my edit summaries for quite some time, especially on articles where there do not appear to be any other editors active; where I have tended to add greater information has been on articles where lots of users are involved (such as Joseph Stalin), as on those there are going to be more eyes scrutinising my edits. But nevertheless, I take your point and will try and be more precise with my summaries in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Good-oh, thanks! MrDemeanour (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Images of Joseph Stalin
Please gain consensus before removing any more photos from the Joseph Stalin article as you have been doing over the past few days. I respect your concern over the risk of including images in the article that lack proper documentation and are under copyright. With that being said, there is a distinction between images that are likely protected by copyright and those that are POTENTIALLY subject to copyright. In the case of the latter, nearly all images of Stalin before 1940 would have to be removed because the photographer has not been conclusively identified. The chaos caused by the Red Terror and Stalin's purges during that time combined with the overall lack of transparency of Russia's historical records make it nearly impossible to find out information that specific.

If a copyright claim is raised for an image later on, it can dealt with then. However, trying to preempt the risk by removing good-faith contributions which do not raise immediate alarm bells is counterproductive and detracts from the overall quality of the article. Thank you for your attention regarding this matter. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Emiya1980 and thanks for your message. I don't mind holding off from removing images without consensus in future. My actions in this regard have been formed by the experience of getting Vladimir Lenin to FAC. There we had lots of great images but at FAC they were strongly scrutinised and most of them had to be removed. I fear the same with this article and just wanted to pre-empt such a scenario. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Congrats to another FA! Birthday again for the Main page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Could you review Gordon Hillman?
Hi - I saw that you have edited some pages on Institute of Archaeology staff. If you have a moment - no rush - I'd be glad if you could take a look at the page for archaeobotanist Gordon Hillman, which I have much expanded. I think you'd find the article interesting anyhow. Would be glad of any edits, also suggestions for further content - I can easily add that. Thanks! Mark Nesbitt (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I had no idea that Hillman had passed away. That's sad. I'll try and take a look at some point in the next week or so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - yes he will be much missed. I did send some notes on the funeral and my eulogy to some folk who could not be there. If you'd like these do email me via my my UCL address (on the IoA hon staff page)Mark Nesbitt (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Reversing changes on the Nelson Mandela Page
I see that you've reversed changes that were made by user:Mohau on the Nelson Mandela page. I would like to let you know that this past Saturday we were doing an editathon at the Nelson Mandela Foundation to celebrate his centenary and the Nelson Mandela Foundation archivists were the ones who asked user:Mohau to correct the errors that you reversed, since they are newbies and they can't edit the page. <b style="color: DarkOrange">Bobby</b><b style="color: DarkOliveGreen">shabangu</b> <b style="color:DeepSkyBlue">talk</b> 17:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Happy to discuss the issue further on the article talk page, which is probably the better location in which to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure I was actually satisfied with the responses you gave on the article talk page. <b style="color: DarkOrange">Bobby</b><b style="color: DarkOliveGreen">shabangu</b> <b style="color:DeepSkyBlue">talk</b> 07:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Dion Fortune
The "time traveler" slot on this morning's episode of Radio 3's Essential Classics is about Dion Fortune. Only five minutes or so, but I thought you might be interested to know! I was intrigued to hear that she was involved in the production of soy milk all those years ago. You'll be able to catch it on BBC iPlayer, and they release them as podcasts from time-to-time. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, Josh! Will check that out on iPlayer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Robert Rhodes James
Hi, thanks for this. The surname is actually Rhodes James, not James though, is it possible to fix the refs to shew the author's name correctly? DuncanHill (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Duncan; thanks for the head's up. Will do that now. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bahar Mustafa race row
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bahar Mustafa race row 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 Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bahar Mustafa race row
The article Bahar Mustafa race row 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:Bahar Mustafa race row for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bahar Mustafa race row
The article Bahar Mustafa race row you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row 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 Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

about Stalin
Hello Midnighblueowl! I hope you can manage to get the Stalin article approved as good reading or better. I have read Isaac Deutcher's "Stalin", and if you can find it cheap or at a library, I would strongly recommend it. Especially chapter 7, "The General Secretary". Deutcher is not as bold or condemning in words, as Montefiore. But it's all there (and in the following chapters). Largely in chronological order, from inside the Bolsjevist Party and very explaining. In my humble opinion, better (on the 1920's especially) if compared to both Montefiore's works. Please take this as a recommendation, nothing else. Boeing720 (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, Boeing720. I'll keep an eye out for the book. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Aww, man
It shouldn't even be allowed to oppose an article at FAC based only on aesthetic disagreements over stylistic choices. This is exactly why I don't do FA's. You are doing well, keep it up.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I think that Wikipedia is long going to face this problem. I've read articles at FAC that used language far more floral than anything I have written, and they have passed without raising any eyebrows; it all comes down to who the readers/reviewers are and what their personal preferences may be. There will always be those who want the prose as sparse and spartan as it can possibly be; those who want a great deal more verbiage; and those (like) myself, who probably sit in the middle. Of course, I think that there are times when prose can really do with being scaled back, but I also think that a well placed "however", "nevertheless", or "in order to" enlivens the text and engages the reader. In the incident that you are referring to, what frustrated me was less the content of the comments themselves (which I am always grateful to receive), but the somewhat condescending manner in which they were delivered. The editor themselves does not apparently see it like that, and I don't want to make a big deal out of it, but I hope that they might be more cautious in how they interact with fellow editors in future. It can be easy to rub people up the wrong way even when one does not intend to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no professional outlets for scholarly writing that micromanage published texts in this way. Articles are accepted or rejected on the merits of their content, clarity and intelligibility - only after acceptance do copyeditors start working, and their suggestions for changes are exactly suggestions with final say being up to the author and editor in chief. That is how it should be here as well. I recently had an experience with a copyeditor who rewrote my text completely including changing the argument, I rejected 90% of their proposed changes and the editor agreed and assigned a different copy editor. Integrity of content should always be the main parameter to evaluate. And yes it was clearly condescending in the way they phrased their own arbitrary preferences as a kind of fact that you "need to learn". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've had a similar experience IRL to the one that you described and I certainly think that some professional or semi-professional copy-editors can get over-zealous. I've also done a bit of copy-editing myself over the years and have always thought that the best rule of thumb was to try and ensure clarity without masking or removing the author's own unique style of writing. Personally I think the fact that different individuals write in different ways is a plus, not a minus. It helps to keep things interesting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, especially in a collaborative encyclopedia the strength of which is exactly our diversity of knowledges and styles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This has always been my big concern with FAC (and GAN, and hell, DYK too)... too little emphasis on the content and too much emphasis on the "style" of the text. It is very rare that any article at FAC or GAN gets reviewed on the content - source reviews at FAC tend to be very superficial and have gotten even more so in the last five years or so. Even in a source review - most of the emphasis is on how the references are formatted rather than whether the sources are reliable and whether the article acurately reflects the scholarship. Reviews such as Featured article candidates/Heathenry (new religious movement)/archive2 are unfortunately, rare. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that a big part of the problem is the issue of time and the fact that we are all volunteers. As volunteers, we all tend to focus on the things that interest us, and not many of us are going to be very interested in spending our free time checking references against academic literature and such like. I'm as guilty of this as anyone; I focus very heavily on content addition and very, very little on reviewing. For a while now I've thought that Wikipedia should seriously consider employing a small number of full-time editors who could devote themselves specifically to these thankless tasks, allowing the volunteers to perhaps devote more time to adding content. If we had a team of three or four people whose job it was to read through every FAC, the whole process would be considerably speeded up. In such a scenario, an FAC could potentially take only a matter of days, rather than the several months it often does today. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right
Your massive edits to this controversial article are much too much to be taken in at one time. I have reverted them, and I suggest you discuss on the talk page what major changes you intend to make, and get a consensus for those changes before you make them. In the meantime, please stop editing the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message; currently composing my piece for the Talk Page now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It'd be great if you could take a look at my comment on the Talk page; I'd like to see what you think of my initial proposal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You need to stop reverting on this article. I believe you may already be in violation of the 1RR sanction (but I could be wrong), but in any case you're removing material which has been in the article for quite a while and represents the work of many editors, in favor of your own material, which is based on a very small number of sources.  Instead of removing the material, please discuss it on the talk page. I want us to come to some modus vivendi on this, but we need to cooperate with each other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Burial in Anglo-Saxon England
Hello,

I have just finished reading your article. Very well researched and written! I am surprised its not a FA. MauraWen (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. I think that the article needs a bit more tidying and a wider range of sources before it could be considered at FAC, but that is something that I am considering for the future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Herbert Marcuse
Hello, Midnightblueowl. I am currently involved in a dispute at the Herbert Marcuse article. Since you have shown an interest in Marxist-related subjects, I wondered whether you might want to express your view of the dispute on the talk page? To be explicit about it, I am not asking you to agree with me; I welcome your views whatever they are. I also realize that you may not be interested, in which case feel free to ignore this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Desmond Tutu
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Desmond Tutu 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 Power~enwiki -- Power~enwiki (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Your close of your own RfC on "Talk:Alt-right"
Although I think your close came to the correct conclusion about consensus, it's not considered a good thing to close an RfC you yourself started and expressed an opinion in. In fact, even people who merely expressed an opinion in an RfC should not close the discussion. RfCs should be closed by an uninvolved party, either an admin or an experienced editor, not by anyone who was involved in the RfC itself. I don't think you need to open it up again unless someone complains about the close, in which case you should immediately unclose it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In general, this is true, but when you're closing an RFC in favor of the opposite opinion to that which you expressed, I'd say it's a legitimate invocation of IAR, as it saves everyone time and trouble. If someone objects to this it wouldn't hurt to reverse the closure, but that someone would be being somewhat pedantic to do so. Vanamonde (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but the WP:RfC page does stipulate that "There are several ways in which RfCs end: 1. The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the rfc template." I felt that the consensus had become obvious fairly quickly; it wasn't the view I held to, but it was a clear consensus nonetheless. I might be mistaken, but I don't think that I did anything that was discouraged at the WP:RfC page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A withdrawal is not the same thing as a closure. You closed with an evaluation of what the consensus was, while a withdrawal just says that the question is moot.  However, Vanamonde93 makes a fair point above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Desmond Tutu
The article Desmond Tutu you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Desmond Tutu 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 Power~enwiki -- Power~enwiki (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Godfrey Mwakikagile
Dave (talk), Hello Midnightowl, help edit Godfrey Mwakikagile to provide links to cited sources. I have provided the sources but am unable to link them to the article; I don't know how to. I have read your article about Nyerere, in which you quote Godfrey Mwakikagile, and you know your subject very well. 18 September 2018


 * Hi and thank you for your message. I don't really have time to work on the Mwakikagile article right now but I can see that a lot of hard work has already gone into that article, so well done. I'll try and pop along to the article's Talk Page to give some suggestions on how to sort out the referencing system in the next few days. If I forget, do remind me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Dave

Tintin
Thanks for all the great articles on Tintin albums you have written, I really enjoy reading them! Do you plan to get the one remaining album, Flight 714 to Sydney, to GA too, and make them all a good topic? Forunaga (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, if that has been left out then I must get around to doing that too. Thanks for the reminder, Forunaga. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly look forward to it, the series of Tintin articles you have written is really appreciated! Forunaga (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:William Price 1884.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:William Price 1884.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ithikkara Pakki
Could you please create an article for Ithikkara Pakki ? He is a heroic outlaw roamed in the 19th century British India, a Robin Hood-esque highwayman and savior of the poor. He along with Kayamkulam Kochunni are the most popular bandits of Kerala and legends on them are part of the local folklore. Not much of any information is available, but there are few. 2405:204:D08C:B7BF:1D28:9E23:AB57:C59 (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

help
I just posted a response at Western Esotericism to Epinoia at talk, can you re-post it so Epinoia can read it, thanks, Arnold45.49.226.155 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC}

Weastern esotericism
 * -Thank you for keeping the Western esotericism article alive, I prefaced your last edit in talk to see if it is in the flow of the discussion, 'A overview definition could also include stating Esotericism and esoteric is "the study of our appearing as an object", as best described in post modern Representationalism, (referenced in your subsection and is a article by Wikipedia); Western esotericism is influenced, to this day, by all cultures and their traditions, thought and practices.' Arnold 45.49.226.155 (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The
Hello. I see that you have capitalized "the" several times in your recent edits to Morrissey. Per MOS:THEMUSIC, the t should be lowercase. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * . Hmm, that doesn't look right to me but fair enough. The policy says what the policy says. I'll revert those edits. Thanks for the heads up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Israel Regardie.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell‎
Hi,

I've got a problem: in Witch (disambiguation) the acronym W.I.T.C.H. for 'Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell' is not found, as I found, while writing fr:Witch Bloc.

Therefore I made an entry in Witch (disambiguation) using varying methods, which by an user repeatedly is deleted.

In a second attempt, I made a separate disambiguation file: W.I.T.C.H. (disambiguation). That was not for long. The same user modified it to a redirect, which is worthless, as there is nothing .... . The only way, to circumvent this 'AGF'-editing under formal pretext, I see, is to rename the article to 'W.I.T.C.H. Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell‎'. Your opinion? Yours AVS (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know; I'll take a look at the disambiguation page and see if we can sort this out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joseph Stalin
The article Joseph Stalin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joseph Stalin 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Boris Johnson's parents' nationality
They were British citizens, my friend. It is nonsensical to refer to them as 'English' in this context of gaining another citizenship.

Who appointed you?Varnebank (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course they were British citizens, but they were also of English nationality. We already stipulate that Johnson is "British" in the opening sentence (as he would probably identify if asked), so describing his parents as "English" in the second paragraph allows for a greater level of detail. More importantly perhaps, "English" has been used at this juncture of the lead for many years, so any such change should probably be based on a Talk Page consensus. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Joseph Jacobs.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Shrub's Wood Long Barrow
In the Shrub's Wood Long Barrow article, which you wrote, none of the short-form ("sfn") references in the "Footnotes" section have corresponding full citations in the Bibliography (or anywhere else). That seems to be something you might want to fix. Deor (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Stalin
Using the same cite twice in a row is generally discouraged. Ideally, a cite should support every bit of text between it and the previous cite. LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi LittleJerry, I appreciate your point. I'm wondering if we even need to mention the cannibalism issue at this juncture, to be honest. We do need to get the word count down a little bit and I don't think that the cannibalism is particularly pertinent to a biographical article about Stalin per se. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not you--it's him

 * Midnightblueowl, I see that Beyond My Ken is giving you trouble on the alt-right page. I would invite you not to take his behavior personally. Beyond My Ken is an uncooperative, quarrelsome editor who demands that others abide by the rules of Wikipedia while he refuses to abide by some of them himself. To put it mildly, he does not play well with others in the sandbox. It's not you--it's him. SunCrow (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, SunCrow. I already had that impression; I don't know why Wikipedia tolerates such incivility, to be frank. There are a small number of editors who flout the rules constantly but seem to have enough friends to protect them from sanctions. It's sad and is a major flaw in the way that Wikipedia is presently run. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Just a reminder, Alt-right is under a WP:1RR restriction.
This edit and these edits are an unambiguous violation, since they took place less than 24 hours apart. I suggest you self-revert. --Aquillion (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Your edit about the single Interlude at Morrissey
Here's my edit summary concerning your recent revert. Don't try to sell that the only single he has ever released as a proper colloboration with another singer, is a trivial information. Your way of acting was no more no less wp:vandalism. Valboo (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There should not be unreferenced information in an article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Julliberrie's Grave
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Julliberrie's Grave 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 3E1I5S8B9RF7 -- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Julliberrie's Grave
The article Julliberrie's Grave you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Julliberrie's Grave 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 3E1I5S8B9RF7 -- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks
Good to hear from you, Midnightblueowl, when you Thanked that edit, hope all is well! For more on this, I had just discussed it with an impartial editor, our friend Curly Turkey here. Happy holidays and take care, —Prhartcom ♥ 18:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Prhartcom; Hope you have a good festive season! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)