User talk:Midnightblueowl/Archive 8

Midnightblueowl, you undo my corrections thanks for your efforts. Could you please explain how it is possible to report in print (Mar 07) the results of autopsy which according to your reference (Khlevniuk) was carried out two and half month later? Maybe he found additional autopsy? Also I am not sure which of corrections was not referenced correctly? Please elaborate. --Armenius vambery (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Armenius vamber: Thanks for your message. I appreciate that you appear to be new to Wikipedia, and I apologise if my undoing of your edits might seem off-putting at first. It is best if you take this issue to Talk:Joseph Stalin, where it can be discussed by a broader array of other interested editors, rather than here on my user talk page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you think this image could work as an alternative? LittleJerry (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but what is the copyright status on that image? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we have a consensus now with the main image? LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: I think so, but it is probably best that we wait until an uninvolved editor comes along and decides to close the RfC. If one of us closes it then there may be concerns raised about the impartiality of the closure. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Please let me know why you continue to delete my contribution from the page? What still needs to be explained? --Armenius vambery (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I was sorry to see the FA fail. I thought it was clearly FA ready. Too bad that nobody could be bothered to revisit their statements. Lack of reviewers seems to be killing FAR. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ·maunus. Yes, it is unfortunate, although that's just the way it goes. I'll re-nominate the article at some point in future. I won't complain about lack of reviewers as I'm probably just as guilty; I tend to focus very much on content addition and don't do anywhere near as much reviewing as I perhaps should. If only there were more hours in the day. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is to let you know that the

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

Hello Midnightblueowl,

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

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

Hi Midnightblueowl. I just wanted to ask why you reverted my edits on the National Front article. As you've already gathered, I am new to Wikipedia so I do need to understand problems like these that might arise!! PlatinumHeron (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:Original research

and thus would be inappropriate. Generally speaking, whatever we add to an article needs to be sourced explicitly to a Reliable Source, ideally something written by a professional academic specialist and published in a peer-reviewed outlet; where such scholarly sources are lacking, mainstream media outlets (particularly the more 'respectable' sort) are usually to be used. I hope that that clears things up a little, and beyond that I'd just like to say welcome to Wikipedia! It can be frustrating navigating around all the rules and regulations but once you become familiar with them then editing gets pretty easy (at least in my opinion). 11:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@

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

]

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

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

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

Thanks for going above and beyond on this—I was hoping for a quick readthrough of one subsection, but your edits and comments made a big overall improvement. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, Usernameunique. When it comes to coverage of British archaeology at Wikipedia, I've mostly worked on late prehistory rather than the early middle ages, but I think that the need to provide greater background information is always necessary when discussing a particular site or monument. It's more time consuming for editors, but definitely helps to improve readers' understanding. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this edit; I looked but had missed the earlier link. Unschool 04:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, User:Unschool. It first appears in the third paragraph of the "Presidency of South Africa: 1994–99". Personally I don't have much of a problem with duplinking, but the regulations do stipulate against them and they should be upheld, especially on an FA like the Mandela article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Midnightblueowl. I recently nominated

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator and thanks for your message. I am interested, but have not got a great deal of time at present. If I find time in the next few weeks, I'll take a look. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk) 00:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I must say, you do very good work here on WP. Well done, keep it up :) Pleasure to read you're articles! --TIAYN (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)--TIAYN (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your kind comment, TIAYN. I'm glad that my efforts aren't a total waste of time! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Midnightblueowl, I'd like to invite you to

Thanks :bloodofox:, I'd certainly be interested. Good work on setting the WikiProject up! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hi,

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

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

Dear User Midnightblueowl, could you please advice whether the article Nikolai Bukharin could be nominated to Featured articles? I have provided good quality images. For me it has good references to the solid academic books from reliable authors and overall tells an interesting story. Thanks. --Armenius vambery (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Armenius vambery and thanks for your message. At the moment, the Bukharin article is really in no position to be nominated at FAC; indeed, it would almost certainly fail at GAN in its current state. Large chunks of the article are un-referenced; while some academic sources are used, their application is highly sporadic. For an article to become GA rated, everything in the main body of the article has to be properly cited. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clear. I will try to energize people on the corresponding Talk page. --Armenius vambery (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Midnightblueowl. Re Burgess, do you wish to return to this review? The nomination currently has seven supports and has completed its image and sources checks, so it's down to you, basically. I'm very grateful for your comments thus far, but if you haven't the time for more, that's fine; perhaps you would leave a note to that effect for the coordinators. Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton; my apologies for the delay. This had spilled my mind as I became preoccupied by other things on Wikipedia. Will hope over and take another look now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

).

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

Giving space

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

And especially in an RFC, it seems you keep trying to judge and determine the outcome. Backing off a little might allow a compromise to emerge that is more neutral than any that you or I might think of. I assume that you called an RFC, not merely to prove yourself right, but with openness to learning something new and to listen to neutral voices? Clean Copy^talk 05:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Clean Copy: Thanks for your message and I'm sorry to hear that you feel my comments at the RfC are too combative. I've always tried to make sure that I make my point in a courteous way and that I avoid any form of personal attack. However, it is nevertheless the case that, if another editor makes a point that I believe is fallacious, then I am going to highlight what I see as its flaws (as I would expect them to do for my points too). If an editor's ideas are robust then they will withstand any critique I can give. If they are not robust then they should be exposed as such. I've been editing Wikipedia for donkey's years now, and I've focused largely on religious and political topics which generate much controversy, doing what is necessary to get them up to GA and then FA standard. In these situations, there are always editors who want to promote emic or highly pro- and anti- claims about the topic in question, there are always editors who don't seem to care what the RS actually say, and there are always editors (particularly on an RfC, where uninvolved editors are brought in) who know nothing about the topic to start with and may be arriving with a range of misconceptions. For this reason, I have found that a firm hand is almost always needed in guiding the article towards following what the RS written by professional academics actually say. That doesn't mean turning an article into my own little fiefdom, but it also doesn't mean letting the article become a free-for-all where everyone's opinion, however fringe or contra to Wikipedia policy, is accorded equal weight and acted upon. If my memory serves me correctly, you are the first individual to ever express any sort of concern about how I respond to others on an RfC. I appreciate your frankness and I'll take your comments on board, but honestly I don't think that there is anything wrong with my approach. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Clean Copy: PS, (and I apologise for the mini-essay!), but looking at the RfC on the Theosophy page, there are only three editors whom I have actually responded to (yourself, Chris Troutman, and Pincrete), so I'm not really sure that it's fair or even strictly accurate to say that I "argued with every post that expressed a view not in accordance with your own". The simple fact is that I didn't. You also state that "Backing off a little might allow a compromise to emerge" but as far as I can see, I am the only editor who has thus far actually tried to put forward a compromise solution ([3]). You also say that I "keep trying to judge and determine the outcome", but frankly the outcome should be obvious to everyone: there is a very, very clear consensus in favour of calling Theosophy a "religion" in the lede. Only one editor has opposed this proposal, and their argument made absolutely no reference to any Wikipedia policy and completely dismissed what the RS say as being irrelevant. So, this being the case, I feel that your comment to me was perhaps a little more strongly worded than was needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one independent editor did propose a compromise solution: to use the phrase "esoteric religious movement" rather than "religion" and "occult movement" separately. The editor asked those active in the discussion to respond to this suggestion; I have done so, and perhaps you'd like to, as well. Clean Copy^talk 21:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, they did do that, but only after I had suggested "esoteric religion" as a compromise. Pincrete's suggestion is simply a slight prose alteration of my original compromise solution. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being that Pimcrete's suggestion IMHO actually integrates all the considerations mentioned in the discussion. Clean Copy^talk 01:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Caillou Pettis

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

Churchill, Borkum, and the First World War

Hi, I see you made this edit. Please see Talk:Winston_Churchill#Invasion_of_Borkum.3F for some problems arising from it. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of National Front (UK)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nomader -- Nomader (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Your GA nomination of National Front (UK)

The article

good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:National Front (UK) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nomader -- Nomader (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Your GA nomination of National Front (UK)

The article National Front (UK) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:National Front (UK) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nomader -- Nomader (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the

today's featured article for July 28, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 28, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Orphaned non-free image File:God of the Witches.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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

).

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

Edit summaries

Hi,

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

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

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

Thanks, MrDemeanour (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Images of Joseph Stalin

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

If a copyright claim is raised for an image later on, it can dealt with then. However, trying to preempt the risk by removing good-faith contributions which do not raise immediate alarm bells is counterproductive and detracts from the overall quality of the article. Thank you for your attention regarding this matter. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emiya1980 and thanks for your message. I don't mind holding off from removing images without consensus in future. My actions in this regard have been formed by the experience of getting Vladimir Lenin to FAC. There we had lots of great images but at FAC they were strongly scrutinised and most of them had to be removed. I fear the same with this article and just wanted to pre-empt such a scenario. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madiba 100 award

	Madiba 100 award
	Awarded for bringing Nelson Mandela to today's featured article, on his 100th birthday. Your work with important articles such as this one is invaluable to Wikipedia. Happy Birthday Madiba! Onceinawhile (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could you review Gordon Hillman?

Hi - I saw that you have edited some pages on Institute of Archaeology staff. If you have a moment - no rush - I'd be glad if you could take a look at the page for archaeobotanist Gordon Hillman, which I have much expanded. I think you'd find the article interesting anyhow. Would be glad of any edits, also suggestions for further content - I can easily add that. Thanks! Mark Nesbitt (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marknesbitt: Oh I had no idea that Hillman had passed away. That's sad. I'll try and take a look at some point in the next week or so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - yes he will be much missed. I did send some notes on the funeral and my eulogy to some folk who could not be there. If you'd like these do email me via my my UCL address (on the IoA hon staff page)Mark Nesbitt (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reversing changes on the Nelson Mandela Page

I see that you've reversed changes that were made by user:Mohau on the Nelson Mandela page. I would like to let you know that this past Saturday we were doing an editathon at the Nelson Mandela Foundation to celebrate his centenary and the Nelson Mandela Foundation archivists were the ones who asked user:Mohau to correct the errors that you reversed, since they are newbies and they can't edit the page. Bobbyshabangu _talk 17:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbyshabangu: Thanks for letting me know. Happy to discuss the issue further on the article talk page, which is probably the better location in which to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I was actually satisfied with the responses you gave on the article talk page. Bobbyshabangu _talk 07:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dion Fortune

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

Thanks for the heads up, Josh! Will check that out on iPlayer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rhodes James

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

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

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Bahar Mustafa race row

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

talk) 16:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Your GA nomination of Bahar Mustafa race row

The article

talk) 19:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Your GA nomination of Bahar Mustafa race row

The article

talk) 16:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

about Stalin

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

Thanks for your message, Boeing720. I'll keep an eye out for the book. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, man

It shouldn't even be allowed to oppose an article at FAC based only on aesthetic disagreements over stylistic choices. This is exactly why I don't do FA's. You are doing well, keep it up.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maunus: Thanks for the message. I think that Wikipedia is long going to face this problem. I've read articles at FAC that used language far more floral than anything I have written, and they have passed without raising any eyebrows; it all comes down to who the readers/reviewers are and what their personal preferences may be. There will always be those who want the prose as sparse and spartan as it can possibly be; those who want a great deal more verbiage; and those (like) myself, who probably sit in the middle. Of course, I think that there are times when prose can really do with being scaled back, but I also think that a well placed "however", "nevertheless", or "in order to" enlivens the text and engages the reader. In the incident that you are referring to, what frustrated me was less the content of the comments themselves (which I am always grateful to receive), but the somewhat condescending manner in which they were delivered. The editor themselves does not apparently see it like that, and I don't want to make a big deal out of it, but I hope that they might be more cautious in how they interact with fellow editors in future. It can be easy to rub people up the wrong way even when one does not intend to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no professional outlets for scholarly writing that micromanage published texts in this way. Articles are accepted or rejected on the merits of their content, clarity and intelligibility - only after acceptance do copyeditors start working, and their suggestions for changes are exactly suggestions with final say being up to the author and editor in chief. That is how it should be here as well. I recently had an experience with a copyeditor who rewrote my text completely including changing the argument, I rejected 90% of their proposed changes and the editor agreed and assigned a different copy editor. Integrity of content should always be the main parameter to evaluate. And yes it was clearly condescending in the way they phrased their own arbitrary preferences as a kind of fact that you "need to learn". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a similar experience IRL to the one that you described and I certainly think that some professional or semi-professional copy-editors can get over-zealous. I've also done a bit of copy-editing myself over the years and have always thought that the best rule of thumb was to try and ensure clarity without masking or removing the author's own unique style of writing. Personally I think the fact that different individuals write in different ways is a plus, not a minus. It helps to keep things interesting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, especially in a collaborative encyclopedia the strength of which is exactly our diversity of knowledges and styles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has always been my big concern with FAC (and GAN, and hell, DYK too)... too little emphasis on the content and too much emphasis on the "style" of the text. It is very rare that any article at FAC or GAN gets reviewed on the content - source reviews at FAC tend to be very superficial and have gotten even more so in the last five years or so. Even in a source review - most of the emphasis is on how the references are formatted rather than whether the sources are reliable and whether the article acurately reflects the scholarship. Reviews such as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heathenry (new religious movement)/archive2 are unfortunately, rare. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a big part of the problem is the issue of time and the fact that we are all volunteers. As volunteers, we all tend to focus on the things that interest us, and not many of us are going to be very interested in spending our free time checking references against academic literature and such like. I'm as guilty of this as anyone; I focus very heavily on content addition and very, very little on reviewing. For a while now I've thought that Wikipedia should seriously consider employing a small number of full-time editors who could devote themselves specifically to these thankless tasks, allowing the volunteers to perhaps devote more time to adding content. If we had a team of three or four people whose job it was to read through every FAC, the whole process would be considerably speeded up. In such a scenario, an FAC could potentially take only a matter of days, rather than the several months it often does today. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-right

Your massive edits to this controversial article are much too much to be taken in at one time. I have reverted them, and I suggest you discuss on the talk page what major changes you intend to make, and get a consensus for those changes before you make them. In the meantime, please stop editing the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Thanks for your message; currently composing my piece for the Talk Page now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: It'd be great if you could take a look at my comment on the Talk page; I'd like to see what you think of my initial proposal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Burial in Anglo-Saxon England

Hello,

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

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

Herbert Marcuse

Hello, Midnightblueowl. I am currently involved in a dispute at the

talk) 03:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Your GA nomination of Desmond Tutu

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

talk) 20:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Your close of your own RfC on "Talk:Alt-right"

Although I think your close came to the correct conclusion about consensus, it's not considered a good thing to close an RfC you yourself started and expressed an opinion in. In fact, even people who merely expressed an opinion in an RfC should not close the discussion. RfCs should be closed by an uninvolved party, either an admin or an experienced editor, not by anyone who was involved in the RfC itself. I don't think you need to open it up again unless someone complains about the close, in which case you should immediately unclose it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) In general, this is true, but when you're closing an RFC in favor of the opposite opinion to that which you expressed, I'd say it's a legitimate invocation of IAR, as it saves everyone time and trouble. If someone objects to this it wouldn't hurt to reverse the closure, but that someone would be being somewhat pedantic to do so. Vanamonde (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Fair enough, but the WP:RfC page does stipulate that "There are several ways in which RfCs end: 1. The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the rfc template." I felt that the consensus had become obvious fairly quickly; it wasn't the view I held to, but it was a clear consensus nonetheless. I might be mistaken, but I don't think that I did anything that was discouraged at the WP:RfC page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A withdrawal is not the same thing as a closure. You closed with an evaluation of what the consensus was, while a withdrawal just says that the question is moot. However, Vanamonde93 makes a fair point above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Desmond Tutu

The article

talk) 05:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Godfrey Mwakikagile

Nyerere, in which you quote Godfrey Mwakikagile

, and you know your subject very well. 18 September 2018

Hi @Dave1959: and thank you for your message. I don't really have time to work on the Mwakikagile article right now but I can see that a lot of hard work has already gone into that article, so well done. I'll try and pop along to the article's Talk Page to give some suggestions on how to sort out the referencing system in the next few days. If I forget, do remind me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Dave

Tintin

Thanks for all the great articles on Tintin albums you have written, I really enjoy reading them! Do you plan to get the one remaining album, Flight 714 to Sydney, to GA too, and make them all a good topic? Forunaga (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, if that has been left out then I must get around to doing that too. Thanks for the reminder, Forunaga. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly look forward to it, the series of Tintin articles you have written is really appreciated! Forunaga (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:William Price 1884.JPG

Thanks for uploading

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

).

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

Ithikkara Pakki

Could you please create an article for

British India, a Robin Hood-esque highwayman and savior of the poor. He along with Kayamkulam Kochunni are the most popular bandits of Kerala and legends on them are part of the local folklore. Not much of any information is available, but there are few. 2405:204:D08C:B7BF:1D28:9E23:AB57:C59 (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Weastern esotericism

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

The

Hello. I see that you have capitalized "the" several times in your recent edits to

MOS:THEMUSIC, the t should be lowercase. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Hrodvarsson:. Hmm, that doesn't look right to me but fair enough. The policy says what the policy says. I'll revert those edits. Thanks for the heads up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Israel Regardie.jpg

talk) 22:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell‎

Hi,

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

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

In a second attempt, I made a separate disambiguation file: W.I.T.C.H. (disambiguation). That was not for long. The same user modified it to a redirect, which is worthless, as there is nothing .... . The only way, to circumvent this 'AGF'-editing under formal pretext, I see, is to rename the article to 'W.I.T.C.H. Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell‎'. Your opinion? Yours AVS (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Avernarius: Thanks for letting me know; I'll take a look at the disambiguation page and see if we can sort this out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Joseph Stalin

The article Joseph Stalin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joseph Stalin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Johnson's parents' nationality

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

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

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

File:Joseph Jacobs.jpg

talk) 18:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Shrub's Wood Long Barrow

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Midnightblueowl. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin

Using the same cite twice in a row is generally discouraged. Ideally, a cite should support every bit of text between it and the previous cite. LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LittleJerry, I appreciate your point. I'm wondering if we even need to mention the cannibalism issue at this juncture, to be honest. We do need to get the word count down a little bit and I don't think that the cannibalism is particularly pertinent to a biographical article about Stalin per se. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not you--it's him

Midnightblueowl, I see that Beyond My Ken is giving you trouble on the alt-right page. I would invite you not to take his behavior personally. Beyond My Ken is an uncooperative, quarrelsome editor who demands that others abide by the rules of Wikipedia while he refuses to abide by some of them himself. To put it mildly, he does not play well with others in the sandbox. It's not you--it's him. SunCrow (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, SunCrow. I already had that impression; I don't know why Wikipedia tolerates such incivility, to be frank. There are a small number of editors who flout the rules constantly but seem to have enough friends to protect them from sanctions. It's sad and is a major flaw in the way that Wikipedia is presently run. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder,

WP:1RR

restriction.

This edit and these edits are an unambiguous violation, since they took place less than 24 hours apart. I suggest you self-revert. --Aquillion (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saturnalia

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to all!

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2019!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit about the single Interlude at Morrissey

Here's my edit summary concerning your recent revert [4]. Don't try to sell that the only single he has ever released as a proper colloboration with another singer, is a trivial information. Your way of acting was no more no less wp:vandalism. Valboo (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be unreferenced information in an article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Julliberrie's Grave

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3E1I5S8B9RF7 -- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Your GA nomination of Julliberrie's Grave

The article Julliberrie's Grave you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Julliberrie's Grave for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3E1I5S8B9RF7 -- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks

Good to hear from you, Midnightblueowl, when you Thanked that edit, hope all is well! For more on this, I had just discussed it with an impartial editor, our friend Curly Turkey here. Happy holidays and take care, —Prhartcom♥ 18:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Prhartcom; Hope you have a good festive season! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]