Archives
Archive 1 (2006-2011) Archive 2 (2012) Archive 3 (2013) Archive 4 (2014)

Hello and welcome to my talk page!

Thank you for your substantial contribution to the article. <3 <3 <3 Glitchygirl (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Thank you for the thank you, Glitchygirl! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Coldrum Long Barrow 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 Squeamish Ossifrage -- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged the review on hold. This is a very well-researched bit of work, and I'll be happy to pass its GA candidacy with only some relatively easy changes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Coldrum Long Barrow you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Coldrum Long Barrow 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 Squeamish Ossifrage -- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm co-writing the TFA text with article nominators these days, and I made more tweaks than usual to this one; please have a look. Were any of my changes mysterious? Is anything left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Prhartcom. I'd prefer to keep discussion in one place, so I'll stop watching here. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No one with their head screwed on straight would consider those to be reliable sources. Not only that, but they're often redundant to other sources in the article. Do not readd them again. Ever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luke. Sorry that we've got off to the wrong foot. Don't get me wrong, I'm not championing these tabloids as high quality sources, but I think that they may be necessary in this instance. I'll open up a talk page discussion over at Talk:Death of Leelah Alcorn where we can discuss the situation in a civil manner with others. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I take an extremely dim view of anyone readding these sources. I'm happy to have a talkpage discussion about it, but I'm not going to ever change my view on these sources. With regards to your readership comment, a large amount of people read TMZ, but that would never be a reliable source for anything at all bar perhaps themselves. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Although I do apologize that you're on the end of it; it's kind of my standard response to anyone re-adding anything to do with the Daily Mail. Excessive, yes, but probably justified. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've put together three paragraphs of waffle, so do give it a read. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your concern regarding said tabloids, I just think that there are a few instances where their inclusion is indeed appropriate. And yes, I agree that these tabloids shouldn't normally be read; they simply don't reach the intellectual heights of The Sun and the Daily Sport! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of the 3 revert rule so that you do not exceed it today. 1, 2, 3 Best, Mike V • Talk 19:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Mike V, thanks for bringing this issue to my attention. To be fair to myself, at least one of these cases was an instance in which I was dealing with another user, who has themselves been called out for edit warring and disruptive behaviour at the administrators' noticeboard. So I do believe that it is unfair to hold me responsible for edit warring on that particular issue. But thank you nonetheless. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's best not to fight edit warring with edit warring. Also note that the 3RR has very strict criteria as to what is considered exempt. Mike V • Talk 19:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping by to say "yes" to Ted Hollamby as English architect, and agree with "good" article. Qexigator (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Qexigator, and thank you for your message. I'll open a conversation over at Talk:Helena Blavatsky at some point so we can discuss how to proceed with the lede. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Midnightblueowl, I delved into this mystery for you (File:Iron man book.jpg) and found that, according to History, you did upload it October 2006, which was probably a few months after you started editing! It has been illustrating this wonderful book all this time until yesterday, when someone, rather than upload a new version of the same filename, uploaded a new version with a different filename, causing this one to orphan and the message appear as if you had recently uploaded it. I spoke to the new uploader yesterday and suggested that next time they can upload a new version of the same filename to avoid this. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, thanks @Prhartcom: I've no recollection of uploading it to be honest, but as you say it was a long time ago. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are you doing mate?, long time. Requesting you to comment on this one when you find time. —Vensatry _(ping) 08:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I thought this to be ChrisTheDude's talk page. Apologies for cross posting. However, feel free to comment on the nomination if you find the topic to be interesting. —Vensatry _(ping) 10:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, @Vensatry:! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mortimer Wheeler 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good work on this article. It is coming along quite nicely! HGilbert (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hgilbert: I'm always glad to see people appreciating my work! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgilbert: I'd like to also say thank you to yourself for the edits that you have been making. It's good to work alongside another editor who is helping to improve this contentious article. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...the more I explore sources, the more it seems a quagmire of unreliable and contradictory assertions. HGilbert (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mortimer Wheeler 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:Mortimer Wheeler for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mortimer Wheeler you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mortimer Wheeler 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like to take this article to GA status. Since you have expanded so many Tintin books, I figured I might as well ask your help for the article's expansion. I already have the Michael Farr book (The complete companion one). If you could send me photos of the books by Thompson, Assouline, Apostolides and Peeters (if you have them), which are related to the article, it would be greatful. Thanks. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 17:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Ssven2, In my opinion, it is inappropriate in the extreme to ask another editor to provide "photos" (I assume you mean of each page) of the sources they use to research their articles, and it isn't appropriate to expose your email address in that way (editors occasionally allow other editors to contact them via email using the link Wikipedia provides in the menu to the left, but many editors, especially such as editors with the community respect and reputation as Midnightblueowl, do not normally accept email in this way and solely prefer communication via Talk page). In my case, I went to the trouble and expense to acquire all of the books you mention for my own library, just as I feel certain Midnightblueowl went to the trouble to do. May I suggest you doing the same, as well as checking your local university or public library for these books? Cheers and good luck to you. Prhartcom (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Ssven2 and thanks for your message. It is good to hear that you are interested in helping improve Wikipedia's coverage of The Adventures of Tintin. However, I can't help but share Prhartcom's view that it is inappropriate to ask another editor (in this case myself) to take photographs for you and thus do a significant part of your research for you. I am more than happy to use the resources that I have access to to improve The Castafiore Emerald (as I have done with many other related articles), but asking me to engage in criminal activity (in this case copyright infringement) is something that I do not feel comfortable doing. Further, I would express caution about posting your private email address online, for you open yourself up to threats from spammers and the like. I hope that you understand. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. I have removed the phrase containing my email-id as a precaution. As of now, I will expand the article using the Farr book. Thanks again. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 05:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightbluewowl, do you think The Castafiore Emerald is ready for GA? — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 00:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssven2; yes I do think that it is. I've yet to put in anything from Apostolides or McCarthy into it but those certainly aren't necessary for it to undergo GAN. Go ahead and nominate it if you like. :) Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Castafiore Emerald turns a GA! Yay! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great Ssven2, thank you for taking it through the GAN process! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too for shaping up the article. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 01:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Midnightblueowl, hope all is well, and congrats on starting your edits on what I am assuming is your next project, The Secret of the Unicorn‎. I remember probably five years ago now, when I was a wee editor, I rewrote the Synopsis of this article and you promptly rewrote my rewrite (as mine was too long and nothing but OR). You then went on to greatly improve the whole article, completely intimidating me. We had a discussion about it then (our first); I learned from you then to always keep my synopsis short. I don't believe you were into GAs back then so I applaud you if you are heading in that direction now. Having said that, I will give you a tip I picked up about Mr. Jackson's and Mr. Spielberg's next project which is supposed to be out late 2015: I distinctly remember them telling an interviewer that they couldn't disclose the title of the next Tintin film, but did say, "We know which books we’re making, we can’t share that now, but we’re combining two books which were always intended to be combined by Hergé." (only one example of this quote) I think that means that we almost certainly know which two books are about to be adapted, and which two books are bound to need improvements by then. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I'm going to go for GA over at The Secret of the Unicorn. I've been away from the Tintin articles for far too long (mostly focusing on archaeology and esotericism-themed articles), so hopefully I can make up for lost time over the coming months. Yes, I never used to see the point of GA or FA, but then again, when I was a novice editor I didn't even see the point of having referencing (I've learned an awful lot over the last decade). The longer that we spend as Wikipedia editors, the more we learn, or at least that is how I feel. Only earlier this month I ended up learning a lot about WP:BLP regulations through my work at Death of Leelah Alcorn, which I had previously known next-to-nothing about.

My guess would be that Seven Crystal Balls-Prisoners will be the basis for the new film (and I hope so, because those are among my favourite stories in the series), although going just from those quotes then I suppose that it could also be the moon adventure (I hope not, I've never found that one very interesting) or the "Tintin in the Orient" arc (not sure how that would work as a single film). If that is the case then we should ensure that the Incan adventure is brought up to scratch (i.e. GA) before the year is out, which I am confident that we are more than capable of achieving. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. The Seven Crystal Balls-Prisoners of the Sun, with the title "Prisoners of the Sun", will almost certainly be the next Tintin movie. And what an exciting movie that will be, when the solar eclipse is halted by our hero Connecticut Yankee-style. Yes indeed, those two articles must be ready. I'm working on a couple of other projects now but really need to return to the Tintin (character) article, then of course I would eagerly help you tackle perhaps one of the two articles for those books. I'm afraid we don't have until the end of the year, as the title for the movie is bound to be announced any time now of course, and guess what people will start to do the moment that it does. I would even venture to say we should consider dropping everything and getting this settled. Prhartcom (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I shall endeavour to have both Secret of the Unicorn and Red Rackham's Treasure done by the end of this weekend, and then shall move on to the Peruvian adventure next week. How does that sound ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My gosh, you are prolific in the extreme (as I have always said about you). That would be wonderful. I think I may drop my current GAN and get busy on whichever of the two books you don't start on first, if you have no objection. Prhartcom (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I won't send anything (i.e. Secrets or Red Rackham) off for GAN until you give me the go ahead, either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've basically exhausted my source material when it comes to The Secret of the Unicorn, so if at some point you have the opportunity to give that one a read through, it would be useful, and then if we're both happy with it it can be sent off to GAN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just finished giving it the once over. It was very good; there were long passages with no errors that I could see. The plot had plenty of problems but I believe I fixed them all, and the Adaptation section had been copied in from The Shooting Star without making a single change; that was also corrected. I believe I will give it another read-through tomorrow but right now I think it is ready to be nominiated. Which of the two books we were discussing above are you interested in taking on? Prhartcom (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I've just realised that I didn't respond to this one (I think that I was authoring it when my computer crashed earlier). I have sent Secret of the Unicorn to GAN, but who knows how long it'll have to wait there (not that there's any rush). I've found that most of the sources dealing with Seven/Prisoners discuss them together, and often provide information pertinent to them both, so I've just been adding information to both articles simultaneously rather than treating them separately. However, feel free to butt in and correct or improve my prose at any point, as I know that a lot of it isn't up to scratch yet. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Midnightblueowl; I have just completed proofreading Red Rackham's Treasure, as you requested; thank-you. Just to point out a few things: We can't ever use the encyclopedic term "Tintinologist", a word used only in marketing materials and not by reliable sources. Please go easy on the clichéd "revolves around" phrase; once per article is quite enough. I changed a few of the critics "asserted" their points to a different euphemism since it was being used repeatedly. As primary references in a plot synopsis are not necessary, perhaps only these few references at the end of the paragraph are more appropriate. I improved the plot summary mostly by telling the last few pages of the story and to tie this story better into the previous story. Other than these and a few minor fixes, once again there were actually very few mistakes in this article. I believe you can submit it for GA. Prhartcom (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I re-read both books in this two-part story and they still look good; well-done. I wanted to pass on some advice I took from Neelix when he was reviewing Tintin in Tibet: He suggested that the tense of the Critical analysis section be changed from past to present tense. I understood what he was explaining: Artists and their critics may have written their piece yesterday, but their work speaks today. This writing practice tends to avoid passive voice and lends to reading that feels more alive, while still keeping the required encyclopedic style. (An exception would be a direct quote in the section; the interview occurred in the past.) I have not made the tense corrections to these sections; I am interested in hearing what you think about this first. (Side note: Neelix gave me about thirty suggestions on that article and I believe I accepted all of them but one. In other words, I greatly respected and reality-checked each piece of his advice. This one that I am passing on to you was like almost all of his advice: excellent.) Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an apt proposal; I am happy to see the prose in the "Critical Analysis" sections of the articles switched to present tense. On a related note, I've yet to send Red Rackham's Treasure to GAN as I am a little unsure about some of the references; we have two citations to a French-language book without any page numbers, and I don't think it can pass GAN (or at least, a thorough GAN) without that corrected. I don't have access to this particular tome, and even if I did, I cannot read French, so I am wondering as to whether it might be worth removing those references altogether, or seeing if we can find a decent replacement ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you brought that up. I went to the trouble of changing the referencing style of that source to the cite book style used consistently and only at the very end of that process realised that there was no page number. I must admit that at that point I just hoped no one would notice. I would be able to read the source if it were in front of me (barely) but that will never happen: the book is sold only in Belguim, probably only at the Musée Hergé. Since it is in low distribution I began heavily leaning heavily towards leaving it out. However, I considered one more possibility: asking the editor who added the information to find the page number for us. I used WikiBlame to determine the editor is a fellow named Marktreut who added it five years ago and has not been active on Wikipedia since. I notice everything else that editor added has been excised, therefore, I think you can guess where I am heading with this: Cut it.

I'd be glad to help you take a look at modifying the tense in the Critical analysis sections.Prhartcom (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly forgot: The article had two missing references that you may have intended to get back to: the The Daily Telegraph 2011 and Ubisoft 2011. I added the missing references. I located an appropriate article in The Daily Telegraph written by reporter Michael Farr. The Ubisoft reference did not exist so I changed to a different source. Prhartcom (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one is more fun conversational rather than strictly business: I wanted to acknowledge that I was impressed when you said you recently learned to write articles that have BLP concerns, and that I agree that sounds interesting and useful. I have even just finished writing an article that was just promoted to GA that has one area that could very well be infringing upon BLP and was wondering if I should ask you about it.

But first, pivoting from that, I too have been learning areas of Wikipedia that had not been crystal clear before and one of those I recently learned was writing articles that have primary source concerns. I spotted that the Ubisoft reference to the Tintin game in the Red Rackham article would have been published by the Ubisoft company, the game publisher, and therefore would have been reference to a primary source. That was one reason I looked instead for an industry magazine discussing the title in order to find reference to a secondary source. It's fun to learn any new knowledge about Wikipedia.

Pivoting again, I also learned something about editors who think Wikipedia is a battleground, but that is another story. Prhartcom (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have improved the Synopsis and Adaptation sections plus made other small improvements to The Seven Crystal Balls and Prisoners of the Sun. Would you please look to the top of the References section where I have left some temporary {{sfn}} templates there for you? These are of the authors you have not yet used in the article (but that I know you intend to). Please take inline refs from here then delete when done. Cheers, Prhartcom (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Prhartcom:, that's great, thank you. Have send Red Rackham to GAN then will turn my attention to finishing off Seven Crystal Balls when I get the chance. Best for now! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Tintin in the Congo TFA tomorrow. Prhartcom (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. What a day monitoring this TFA. The worst was having to tell an editor WP:NOBLE. ;-) Prhartcom (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've just seen what you mean... oh dear oh dear. I'll pop over and lend my support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, it's okay, my dear Midnightblueowl, (be sure not to rouse that guy, he's already calmed down)—You never asked for this one today and I have taken care of it; besides in only a few minutes the day will be over. ;-) Prhartcom (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a wonderful job as always for the two latest Tintin book articles. Saved the most fun (Apostolidès) for last of course. ;-) Prhartcom (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Prhartcom. Yes, I tend to leave both Apostolides and McCarthy to last. I don't know if that's because it's most convenient to put them in last or because I put off the chore of reading those two books to the very end ! Psychoanalysis and literary criticism are two disciplines that I'll never get my head around, I'm afraid. I want to make some more additions to the publication history of those two articles before sending them off to GAN; in the meantime, make any revisions that you see fit! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Prhartcom: I think it's about time to send Seven Crystal Balls to GAN, if you're happy with that course of action ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the heads up; I actually just started someone's GA review so my attention has been elsewhere; please give me the weekend to take a good look at it. Cheers to another success, Prhartcom (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ready now; quite a few corrections and improvements were made, not only to this one but I am happy to say also to a few others for consistency purposes (view the differences to see if you approve). Prhartcom (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Requested Move (article rename) discussion that you may be interested in at Talk:The Adventures of Tintin (film)#Requested move 30 January 2015. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a DMY vs MDY discussion that you may be interested in at Talk:The Adventures of Tintin (film)#The article uses European date formats.. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Secret of the Unicorn 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have another book besides Farr's one. It is called "The Adventures of Tintin at Sea" by Yves Horeau. It describes that Red Rackham was also based on the character, Lerouge, who apears in C. S. Forester's novel, The Captain from Connecticut, probably also explains why he is called Rackham le Rouge in the book's French version. Rackham's outfit is also inspired mainly by Daniel Montbars, better known as Montbars the Exterminator. Page number 39 of the book. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 16:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I wish I had that book. I mentioned it on the main article, The Adventures of Tintin. Prhartcom (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssven2 - I'd forgotten about that book. I actually have a copy of it knocking about somewhere, which I purchased when I visited the original Greenwich exhibit. I'll look into it. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Secret of the Unicorn you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Secret of the Unicorn 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me in further expanding The Castafiore Emerald? I have expanded the article using Farr's books. The Assouline and Thompson references are from the Google book previews. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 10:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sven; I'll try and get around to it after completing my work on The Seven Crystal Balls/Prisoners of the Sun - best for now! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It needs some work as I'm sure Ssven2 would agree (it's not always written in a neutral voice and it needs WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE) but it's a good start, it's a big improvement over what was previously there, and should be commended for that. I'm sure Midnightblueowl will get to it in the order she prefers. FYI, the Thompson pages that are online are of the newer paperback printing that has completely different page numbers; these will need to be changed to the page numbers of the hardback (I own both copies and perhaps can do this myself later). Prhartcom (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leo Martello, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patricia Crowther (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me as well: know a TinTin (and cartoon) scholar, shared it with him, will see if he has any thoughts :) Sadads (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ssven2, and also Sadads and Gerda Arendt. Your comments are much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from the scholar via Facebook: "In general, the Wikipedia entries on all of the Tintin volumes are remarkably good. I skimmed this one just now, and apart from the watering down of points that often takes place in consensus prose, this look good. I'd like to see more on the recent debates about whether the book should have a warning sticker on it, but there's stuff here that I didn't know, and the writers' knowledge of the French scholarship is more than surface." The article definitely holds up :) Keep up the great work! We definitely need more strong, and nuanced, coverage of humanities topics. Sadads (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great Sadads, thank you. If there were more reliable sources discussing the issues surrounding warning stickers, then we'd definitely be able to include that here, so if the scholar (or yourself) did come across any such sources then please do let myself or User:Prhartcom know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to review Red Rackham's Treasure? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 16:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ssven2, and thanks for your offer. According to the instructions for undertaking a GAN, a nomination may be "reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article". I see that you have made a number of edits to the Red Rackham's Treasure article recently, but I'm not sure what constitutes "significantly" in this context. However, if you feel a desire to undertake the review then I certainly won't complain. All the best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought and decided to ask you before taking up the GAR. Well, can I do the GAR for The Seven Crystal Balls as I haven't made any contributions to that article? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 06:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl, if you want, you can ask User:Jaguar to review Red Rackham's Treasure. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush on my behalf, but if they would be interested in reviewing it then that would be fine with me, @Ssven2:. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Literary Barnstar
		For your work on the Talbot Mundy article Ian.thomson (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ian, I hope to expand and improve the article with other reliable sources over the coming weeks, with the intent of getting it to GA status in the near future. All the best! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you plan to respond to my remaining comments at your Uncle David FAC? More than a week has passed since I made them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just logged on and seen this message User:Cwmhiraeth, so I'll get to this immediately! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Flag Fen tools.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 17:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Flag Fen weaponry.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 17:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Flag Fen Centre.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 17:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bromley H.G. Wells mural.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 16:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Map of Avebury.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Kelly ^hi! 20:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Flag Fen centre and sheep.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Flag Fen trackway part (2).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Flag Fen roundhouse door (2).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Antony's Meltdown at the Southbank.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kelly ^hi! 21:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Agatha Christie books.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Kelly ^hi! 21:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Seven Crystal Balls 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Seven Crystal Balls you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Seven Crystal Balls 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	In recognition of your work for The Seven Crystal Balls. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for undertaking the review and for the award, Ssven2! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you ready with it? — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I am broadly finished with it for the present, although will let Prhartcom take a look before sending it off to GAN. I wonder if it should perhaps contain information on the foundation and development of Tintin magazine, or whether that would be superfluous in this instance ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Midnightblueowl, I will take a look at it this weekend (you're the fifth editor I have promised some of my weekend to but this this will be a pleasure). I expect it to be in good shape as always. The Tintin magazine article certainly needs expansion from the reliable sources we have; I will let you know later how the weight re: the magazine looks for Sun, but I believe the treatment you gave for The Seven Crystal Balls for this was the right amount. I see the article has a sentence on Charles Wiener who Ssven2 said Farr mentioned; that's good. BTW, I suppose we are encroaching on you a bit, sorry, but I am working on an article for the Carreidas 160 to be followed by an improvement of Flight 714 and I know Ssven2 has finished The Castafiore Emerald which I plan to add the other sources to and he is also working on The Calculus Affair. Cheers for now; I will let you know in two days when I am finished with Sun, and congrats again on another accomplishment. Prhartcom (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush at all on my behalf, so don't feel that you must get it done at the weekend if you have other commitments; it really can wait. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, this is your statement always. Thank-you. I may take you up on that or I may look anyway. Prhartcom (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Prhartcom: any thought on sending Prisoners to GAN ? As always, no rush! Hope you had a good weekend, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Midnightblueowl; you should be my first choice, but I have been doing some work for others (including an editor whom the two of us are submitting a FAC together as well as editor Ssven2 who has an enormous article up for FAC). I will finish up with those and try to look at it later this evening. I see the other prolific work you are doing but haven't read them yet (I assume Black Gold will mention the false start it had). I also had prepared some text for Emerald offline that I had been planning to insert but got delayed. And I have my eye on Flight 714. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly no rush; good luck with the other projects! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am finished with my editing for now. However, the article features hardly any research from Phillipe Goddin who, being a fellow countryman, has always been the premiere expert on the subject of Tintin. This is a problem. Could you please consider going back and reading Goddin 2009 pages 157–183 and adding some references from there. Prhartcom (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - thanks for the feedback Prhartcom! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every time one of the reference books mentions a fact mentioned by another reference book, both/all three/etc. should be there in the citation. We also need mention of his work exhaustion/playing hooky: probably one sentence, probably right before "To lessen his workload". There are many other tidbits I came across in the sources that are not in the article but I believe your sense of balance on what to add and what to omit has been fairly good (most days). ;-) Prhartcom (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty please, can we not give Apostolidès' psychoanalysis undue weight by giving it an image caption? Please let's just keep it in the text. You know I will defend his statements in the article to the end of the earth. Prhartcom (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not personally convinced by Apostolidès' claims by any means, but truthfully, I'm not sure that it is Wikipedia:Undue weight by including this image. After all, it is just an image; it is not as if Apostolidès' suggestion is being propagated in the lede, or repeated again and again, or anything like that. Further, it is an aesthetically nice image, working well in the article itself, and also conveys visual information regarding Hergé's own visual style, for instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the image is beautiful, wonderful job adding that. I asked for a different caption. Of course we're not convinced by his claims, neither is he; it was all just an exercise for him. I'm convinced that the creator of the image did not have such motivations. I may change it myself then if you don't get around to it. I owe you the honor of running it by you first. Prhartcom (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the caption being changed; do you have any suggestions for alternatives ? Perhaps something along the lines of "The dream sequence has attracted critical attention" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done; quite a few corrections and improvements were made. Prhartcom (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Museum of Witchcraft and Magic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castletown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Red Rackham's Treasure 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) 17:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the best for Red Rackham's Treasure's GA. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ssven2; I hope to be able to help you with The Castafiore Emerald in the coming days. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Red Rackham's Treasure you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Red Rackham's Treasure 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) 22:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Land of Black Gold (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chatterbox

Talbot Mundy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Western Front

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Prisoners of the Sun 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Prisoners of the Sun you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Prisoners of the Sun 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time! After all that burning the midnight oil, you may need to avoid this... but it tastes so good.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Crisco 1492! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Prisoners of the Sun to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work!  — ₳aron 21:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ₳aron! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Land of Black Gold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Methuen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Addington Long Barrow 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 Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't seen it. No hurry, of course! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message Josh; as it was I was completely unaware that anyone had posted on the peer review yet, so I appreciate you letting me know. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fidel Castro 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 Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Addington Long Barrow you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Addington Long Barrow 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 Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed find it interesting, it's a lovely article and a good read. I hope that the next time I'm accused of being a misogynist you might consider coming to my aid? ;-) Eric Corbett 20:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your edit to N Griffin with this comment

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=652226445&oldid=652219874

open to discussion

Govindaharihari (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Govindaharihari; looking over the edit, I understand why you made the reversion. Although I have quite a bit of experience with articles about politicians (i.e. Ken Livingstone, Nelson Mandela, Evo Morales), I'm not a specialist on the British far-right and thus don't have ready access to academic studies on the subject, in which I am confident one would find an analysis of Griffin's personal ideological position. I think it is important that we do describe Griffin's ideological position in the lede, but I agree that without a firm reference then it probably would not be appropriate. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you, I did a search and Griffin's primary ideology wasn't described as what is contained in wikipedia's white nationalist article. Good luck to you Govindaharihari (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Midnightblueowl. Can you please leave Flight 714 to me? I see you are tinkering with it, however, I have been working on it in my sandbox here (although external issues have prevented me from finishing it in a timely manner). If you didn't hear, I completed this article while constructing the sandbox Flight 714 article, but then learned that it cannot exist and must be merged with my sandbox article. I will have it up eventually, I just need some time. Thanks for understanding. And good work on the latest Tintin articles; I have seen you working on them but haven't read them yet; I will edit them for you if you wish; feel free to let me know when you believe they are ready. As always, best wishes and cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Prhartcom; yes I am just tinkering and pottering with various Tintin articles at present, hoping to get as much done as possible before my time constraints get a lot tighter in a month or so. I wasn't aware that you had a Flight 714 sandbox going (I vaguely mentioning you saying that you wanted to work on that article though), so I'll avoid putting much into that article right now. Do you have copies of McCarthy and Apostolides ? I wasn't sure if you did, but I could add information from those to the Flight 714 article in the meantime. Anyway, good luck! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have them. Yes, as those two are the hardest to do, you are welcome to do them. When I finally get the article up I will have to incorporate that. When I finish the article, of course I will need you to edit my work before I submit it. Glad to hear you have some free time; that is what I don't have at the moment, but naturally I take time where necessary. Wish me luck, and Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a quick update from me: I am still busy and still have almost no time for Wikipedia so I must put off this task even further, but I see you are doing well on all the other articles; I haven't had time to read them but will soon. Best wishes and talk to you later. Prhartcom (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl, you can also add a few references to him being mentioned in film or television. Here is a book on Shah Rukh Khan which states that in of his films, Hey Ram, his character was an employee of Wheeler. Page 111 of the book. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 15:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssven2; thank you very much for that, it's very interesting and I had no idea about it. Unfortunately the book isn't accessible where I am (perhaps access to it on Google Books differs depending on where in the world one is), so do you know the page number on which this information is included ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is on Page 111 of the book. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I'll look into integrating it into the Wheeler article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into the situation and found that unfortunately, this information cannot be used with the supplied reference. The book itself consists of a collection of Wikipedia articles on the same subject bunched together, and it is against Wikipedia policy to cite itself as a reference. It just wouldn't count as a reliable source. But thanks for the suggestion anyway, Ssven2. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. I have found this book instead. Page number 271. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 15:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ssven2; I was adding the information and then realised that you had already done so! (And your wording was better than mine). Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tintin and Alph-Art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transcript (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greek religion has been nominated for merging with Template:Ancient Greek religion navbox. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boris Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Party line

Tintin and the Picaros (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Methuen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas Charles Lethbridge 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 Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference that might interest you. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ssven2! I hadn't seen this. Maybe information from it could be incorporated into The Shooting Star article ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Added using this source as The Hindu states it was happening. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boris Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Bryant

Victor Henry Anderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aura

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias ^talk 12:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Fidel Castro to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work!  — ₳aron 19:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review this article ₳aron; it is appreciated - as is the barnstar! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fidel Castro you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fidel Castro 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 Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dorset Ooser page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For bringing the Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro to GA. Well done! — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Thomas Charles Lethbridge 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:Thomas Charles Lethbridge for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed Lethbridge in the Archaeology and archaeologists section, but if you think he'd fit better elsewhere then feel free to move him. Eric Corbett 17:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to inform you that Enthiran is promoted. My first FA success! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Ssven2; well done! Regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Thomas Charles Lethbridge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas Charles Lethbridge 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 Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:German Reich has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GermanJoe (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dorset Ooser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get anywhere with deadfamilies.com, I think you should consider cutting that information and resubmitting to FAC. It would still be a very high quality article, and I for one would expect to support it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a difficult one, Mike - I feel that the article would lose a lot of quite important detail (all of the biographical detail, really), were that source to be removed. I think that I'll probably leave it a year or so and then maybe see what happens. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to do anything about it myself, but ... you know, if it's not an RS, we really should go ahead and remove it. If you try it again in a year, you know people will just look at the old FAC and ask the same question again. I think you should grit your teeth, accept that it's not an RS, and go ahead with removing it, and get yourself another bronze star. I know it hurts to cut out material you spent a lot of time on, but I think it's the right thing to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rafael Correa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page We're Not Gonna Take It (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Margaret Murray may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the [[The Blitz|Blitz]] of London by moving to Cambridge, where she volunteered for a group (probably either the [[Army Bureau of Current Affairs]] or [[Royal Army Educational Corps|The
• : {{cite book| title=Imagining the Pagan Past: Gods and Goddesses in Literature and History Since the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dorset Ooser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marlborough (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Margaret Murray 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) 22:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Margaret Murray you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Margaret Murray 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) 23:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dorset Ooser 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) 22:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Midnightblueowl, hope you are well. Interesting news about the Hergé Foundation (Moulinsart) came out yesterday. Read the section "Rights issue" in that article. This is bad news for Nick and Fanny Rodwell (whom the Tintin community has never much liked). I will keep watching for further developments. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect. The fact is, you should be following the references already existing on the page. The edits and attitudes you have suggested go in direct conflict with already existing references such as the following:

"Aylott, Nicholas; Magnus Blomgren; Torbjorn Bergman (18 February 2013). Political Parties in Multi-Level Polities: The Nordic Countries Compared. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 2009. ISBN 978-0230243736."

Sumarising UKIP as being a "moderate Right Wing party".

You have provided no impartial or reasoned reference to label UKIP as being a "radical right populist" party. As for your claim about "a very clear consensus among political scientists that that is exactly what ("radical right") they are. I await a reference or example of such. Even the BBC, staunch haters of UKIP refer to them as a "right wing party", so I feel your own opinion is influencing what you are posting with regards to the party.

You go on to reference UKIP as being of "civil nationalism". Do you mean 'Civic Nationalism'?

You make note of a "anti-immigration rhetoric". UKIP aren't "anti-immigrant". They are anti-unlimited open door immigration. So please don't conflate the two. Steven Woolfe, UKIP's immigration spokesperson has on multiple occasions highlighted UKIP's stance on immigration, however you don't seem to be aware of this and so I shall provide you with a link to enlighten you... [[1]]

I'm not sure I understand the "social conservative policies" line as more and more UKIP policies have been announced as being a mixture of social conservatism, social progressivism and even some policies such as stances toward the NHS and state owned businesses have a flavour of socialism. This attempted thrusting of politically misleading rhetoric upon UKIP such as "radical" or "extreme" is getting tiresome and does not match reality so I will edit it wherever I see it and continue to do so.

It's ironic that you accuse me of pushing my own opinions and interpretations of the party, when you haven't provided any references to justify your own opinions which I must say, outside the EU and USA press doesn't have any relevance in reality.

I have removed unreferenced, unverified or inaccurate data. You seem quite comfortable with negative unreferenced information being added, but when it is removed you take issue and claim people are adding their own opinions? Baffling. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2015 (GMT)

Dear RoverTheBendInSussex. I'm sorry that you feel that my edits to the UKIP article have in some way been disruptive. However, you make accusations against me such as "You seem quite comfortable with negative unreferenced information being added" which are utterly, entirely untrue and derogatory, so in some respects I am unsure how precisely I should respond. As you note on your own user page, you are a self-professed supporter of UKIP, and that's fine – I welcome the perspective and input of UKIP members and supporters at the UKIP page, and you yourself have certainly made some constructive edits there. However, UKIP sources (and the WP:Original research of UKIP supporters themselves) are not necessarily WP:Reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, whereas the publications of academics in peer-reviewed outlets are. That is why in almost all of my edits I have emphasised the inclusion of information taken from such sources. In doing so, I am trying to improve the quality of the article, and note that most editors have been supportive, and indeed protective of most of my inclusions. I don't have the time to go through and respond to each and every one of the points that you raise, but hope that you will accept my declaration that I am honestly not motivated by a malicious anti-UKIP bias but simply wish to improve this article with reference to all academic sources. 11:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, thank you for the reference to the Aylott, Blomgren, and Bergman book, but having searched through the volume on Google Books I can find no reference to UKIP at all within it; your statement that this mention can be found on p. 2009 is erroneous, given that the book is not even that long. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dorset Ooser you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dorset Ooser 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) 19:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see the point of a merger, but non-Western esoteric traditions do exist (Tantra and other Buddhist traditions, for example), so if a merger takes place, it should be to the wider-scoped article. Also: this concerns two well-established articles. Not a good candidate for the quick-merge scenario described in WP:Merge, which gives the example of two stubs on the same theme. Let's discuss possible alternatives, however! HGilbert (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HGilbert; thanks for your message. I can see why you reverted the change, although I do take a different perspective and will probably follow it up with a proposed merger in the next few days. As for the main argument against the merger, I respectively disagree: the use of the term "esotericism" in reference to Asian religious traditions like Tantra, Vajrayana, and Sufism is not particularly common in academic discourse, and in each case is not precise either. (In fact it's more common within some esoteric traditions themselves, which seek to project a universalist view about 'universal spiritual truths' and the like). Furthermore, academics like Antoine Faivre and Wouter Hanegraaff have been very clear in stating that there is no esotericism other than Western esotericism; that it is a purely Western phenomenon and that it cannot exist in other cultural contexts unless it has been imported into them from the West. Anyway, we can discuss this further when I propose the merger, hopefully. Have a good weekend! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow; I didn't realize how strongly Faivre and Hanegraaf have positioned themselves on this. Do you know where they have written this, by any chance?

Have a good weekend, yourself! HGilbert (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgilbert: For Faivre, see pages 6 and 17 of Access to Western Esotericism (I can be so precise because I added that to the Western esotericism article only yesterday) and for Hanegraaff... well I'll have to get back to you on that as I can't find my copies of his work at this moment in time. They're probably somewhere at the bottom of one of my various piles of books. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but Faivre hems this assertion in with so many conditions, and mentions explicitly enough possible exceptions or borderline situations, that this is a very weak linchpin. Indeed, in his "Introduction" to Modern Esoteric Spirituality Faivre gives way and starts referring to "Western esotericism", indicating that he needs to specify this as a type.

Anyway, there are a host of reliable sources on Buddhist esotericism,books, e.g. Indian Esoteric Buddhism and I'm afraid that this plethora must far outweigh Faivre, who is not an expert on Buddhism (nor is Hanegraaf). HGilbert (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgilbert: I don't deny that "esotericism" is sometimes used in other contexts (including to refer to certain forms of Buddhism) but I would maintain that in these contexts it is a distinct phenomena from Western esotericism. These are different things that just have the same (Western) word applied to them. Thus, while I can appreciate your reasoning for opposing a merger between "Esotericism" and "Western esotericism" I do still believe that we have to do something radical with the "Esotericism" page; for instance, perhaps it would work better as a disambiguation page ? As it stands it appears to be claiming that there is a universal esotericism that is identifiable in different cultural and historical contexts while (from a scholarly perspective) this simply isn't the case. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mick Aston 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) 19:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You had to wait seven months for someone to tick off this fabulous article at GA? Oh my goodness. Patience of a saint. Anyway, it was great and I'm sorry I don't have more feedback except to say congratulations. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that seven months is my punishment for writing long articles about politicians in small, obscure Latin American countries to start with, :p ! But on a more serious note, thank you very much for your review hamiltonstone; I hope that you enjoyed reading the article and learned some interesting things in the process. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mick Aston you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mick Aston 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) 19:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. It's been quite a while. Do let me know if there's any Tintin article ready for GAN. I'll be happy to review it. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 10:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssven2; hope that everything's good with you! I'll make a few extra additions to Land of Black Gold later today and then nominate it for GA tonight; does that sound acceptable? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sounds good. My exams went well. They have finished just day before yesterday. I am having my semester break now. Land of Black Gold looks good at first glance. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 10:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi to both of you; just checking to see if you noticed the Tintin news I added above a few weeks ago. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Prhartcom: Ah yes, the "Rights issue" with the Tintin fan clubs and Fanny Rodwell (formerly Vlamynck). That's indeed big news. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So rarely does any actual news occur in l'monde de Tintin. We're basically history buffs. Prhartcom (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Land of Black Gold 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Land of Black Gold you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Land of Black Gold 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hoodening, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know exactly how to put my comments into your other two reviews and so I hope it is not confusing. If it is, just ignore them. I do not write articles or edit if I am too close to the parties involved so I would rather just supply sources. I supplied a bunch for Maurice's article which needs work, and I told him not to edit it anymore. But I do not feel as if I can edit it as am too close to the source. Your article is well written and I wish you well with FA status. SusunW (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, SusunW, they are much appreciated. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. If nothing else, the gully queen pieces will give you background and context. SusunW (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe you misunderstood my first comment in the review. I truly think you have done a masterful job in keeping it neutral and trying to respect where Dwayne may have been in the journey of life. I only gave you those articles because someone had asked if there were articles that specifically stated sex and gender. More important than those two in my mind were the one about Dwayne's House and the two about Gully Queens. Everyone (okay, well most people anyway) in Jamaica knows what that means, but since neither you nor the reviewer did, I thought you might want to add a bit of background to the article to clarify for other readers. SusunW (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes I did misunderstand that first comment; thanks for clearing things up. Again; thanks for your comments. If you felt able to offer support for the article receiving FA status then that would be appreciated but there is certainly no pressure on you to do so. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for the protection to come off UKIP and then immediately instituted changes which not only do not have consensus but have been disputed is disruptive. Please use the talk page to get agreement BEFORE you make any more changes. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snowded. Truthfully, I am a little upset and off-put by the characterisation of my recent contributions to the UK Independence Party page as "disruptive edits". While I can admit that one of my edits might be construed as being a tad controversial given that I had not secured consensus on said additions, the majority were clearly in no way disruptive. I mean, look in more depth at what these edits actually were: correcting a punctuation error, removing the totally unsourced claim that UKIP were "British nationalists" (which has already been discussed on the talk page), and adding additional information from reliable academic sources discussing UKIP. On the whole, this was constructive stuff, and I maintain that that I was being bold, not disruptive. Given that this is the case, I feel that your mass revert of all of my 11 July edits was a really rather disproportionate and extreme response, particularly taking in mind the many constructive contributions that I have made to the article in the past (for instance, by incorporating all of the Ford and Goodwin references). If you had reverted say, one or two of my edits, that would have been understandable, but I really don’t think that a mass revert of the sort that you undertook added anything at all. Anyway, I hope that this particular disagreement can be put behind us and we can both get on with improving the quality of the article in question. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the page was protected to force consensus before editing. You made changes which you knew full well were contested and for which there was no consensus as soon as the page was released. Black Kite, who is an experienced admin concurred if you read the comments. I know a few admins who would not just have commented but would have given you a warning block. If you had just made uncontroversial edits and ones for which there was consensus, not just a vote, then a mass revert would not have been necessary. You set that up by the actions you tool. It is also problematic when you suggest that there is a majority for an edit as you did subsequently. Wikipedia is not a democracy and as a relatively experienced editor you should not be encouraging a group of SPA and/or UKIP focused editors in arguing a case from primary sources. You also lost some good will be that mass series of edits. If I had time I'd hunt around to see if there is any evidence of meat puppetry. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to investigate me for sockpuppetry if you feel the need. I can assure you that you will not find any, however. I don't go in for that sort of shady business. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention sock puppetry, I think there is some meat puppetry and I would expect you as an experienced editor to be aware of that possibility and not encourage new editors from a UKIP background to engage in voting. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I thought meat puppetry to be a synonym for sockpuppetry, when (as I now know) they are clearly not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a couple of requests for you regarding your frequent edit requests:

• Please do not use {{edit protected}} until there is consensus for a change. Apart from extremely trivial changes, please consider waiting a day or two for other editors to comment first.
• Could you use a unique heading for each section? This ensures that the section anchors work as intended.

Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing Martin. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a play with the image pages- {{Non-free use rationale}} should only be used for non-free images, while {{Information}} should be used for free images. I've also switched the licensing info. While they're definitely PD in the US, there is quite a high bar for claiming that there's no known author; have you checked the original book, for example? In any case, they're definitely free for the English Wikipedia's purposes, but may not be for Commons's. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great Josh - thank you ! I will take a closer look at the original book and see if any authors are specified. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I have updated the information on those three images. It seems that they were all produced by the same photographer, or at least all by the same photography shop (H. B. Collis). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to determine whether they're PD in the UK, we would need to find out when Collis died. This page has some details about him, but not a death date (though the page's author may be interested to hear about these photos). If he died before (but not in) 1945, his work would be PD- given that the latest records on that (incomplete!) page show him active before 1920, and given that he would have been in his eighties in 1944, it seems plausible though not certain that this is PD in the UK. We can either make further efforts to seek out a death date or just stick with the "PD in the US, maybe not abroad" claim. I've updated the image pages a bit further. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hoodening 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) 11:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hoodening you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hoodening 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) 21:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it: I left you some comments on the Crowley PR. No rush- I just know people miss these things sometimes. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh; I actually began working through them about an hour or so ago ! I've had a busy week with very little Wiki time but I hope to make my way through the rest of your comments by the end of the week. All the best! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; so you did. That was badly-timed... Josh Milburn (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Michell (writer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Newbury, Naturalism and Ian Cameron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your personal lifestyle, but please do not think sexual orientation issues must be featured in a small article on Germanic neopaganism. Pagan opinions on masturbation, heterosexual sexual positions, cross-dressing, bestiality, and necrophilia also do not belong in the article. --ThorLives (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the article talk page,

PROPER PLACE FOR MATERIAL ON SEX AND RELIGION

For editors wishing to discuss sexual issues and religion, please post here:

Religion and sexuality Wikipedia is massive. There is room for everyone.

--ThorLives (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've initiated an RFC. Let's get other editors' opinions in on this, lest we just end up messaging each other back and forth without progressing anywhere. I don't want to see pertinent and important issues swept under the rug simply because one editor doesn't think them particularly relevant, but that being said, I'm certainly open to compromise. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Destination Moon (comics) 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Awarded for your work and patience on Heathenry-related articles. Keep up the good work! :bloodofox: (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is very much appreciated :bloodofox:, thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Order of Nine Angles page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guido von List (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Michael Moynihan, Sigil and David Lane

Alexander Rud Mills (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Frigga

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Destination Moon (comics) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Destination Moon (comics) 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A small thing which I overlooked during the GAR is the publication dates in the infobox (30 March 1950 – 7 September 1950 / 9 April 1952 – 22 October 1952). I don't see the 1952 serialisation being mentioned in the "Publication" section. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 02:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		A vastly improved article

Coolmoon (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Coolmoon; the barnstar is appreciated. Thank you also for supplementing my approach (rooted in the use of academic sources) with your knowledge of the primary source material produced by the Order, which I think has certainly benefited the article as I have expanded it. Kind regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bhlegkorbh. When you change your name, you must also change your mode of operation. Anyway, I must admire your tenacity on this issue. --ThorLives (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, nor was I ever, Bhlegkorbh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you click the history of the Germanic neopaganism page, or whatever it is called now, you will see that all Bhlegkorbh edits now appear under the name Midnightblueowl. Check back in 2014 and before.

But, as I said before, I admire the cunning. Like you, I study warrior religions, and they admire such tricks.

You are a British male, correct? Again, I admire the disinformation trick. I think in a different context, we could be friends. --ThorLives (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]