User talk:Midnightblueowl/Archive 9

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the Referendum Party, "a minor British political party which stood in the 1997 general election. A single-issue party, it was devoted solely to Euroscepticism. After it dissolved, many of its candidates switched to the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which subsequently helped to force UK membership of the European Union as a major domestic political issue and resulted in the 2016 referendum on the topic, - an interesting slice of history for those wishing to understand the current situation that the UK finds itself in."! In 2017 and still. - If you click on "March", you get me my most recent travel pics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you today for Smythe's Megalith, "about one of the Medway Megaliths, a series of Early Neolithic chambered tombs located in Kent, Southeast England that are part of the world's oldest tradition of stone construction"! Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted an edit by Hvile I Kaos to the Order of Nine Angles article (as you did) and added a section to the O9A Talk page about the edit. As I asked on the talk page, does the reference I have given there qualify as a reliable source according to Wikipedia criteria? Pavane7 (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I thought this might interest you, if you hadn't already seen it. It seems there's press coverage from the "discovery" and the recent revelation, so probably notable! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@J Milburn: Many thanks, I hadn't seen this. There are quite a lot of these modern circles around the place, but I'm surprised that any were specifically mistaken for prehistoric examples! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Maybe "out of leadership" doesn't work. But "out of office" doesn't seem right either, as he held a seat in Parliament throughout the 1930s. pbp 20:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi User:Purplebackpack89. I'm certainly not precious about retaining "out of office" but "out of leadership" doesn't read correctly, to my mind. Best take it to the Churchill talk page, perhaps? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Out of office is correct. In British terms, being an MP is not an "office" - being part of the government is. Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, just wondering why you deleted the sentence on presentism out of hand? I understand you felt aggrieved at some of the previous wording being ‘prose’ but why delete the accusations of presentism and the sources cited? Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Strange, I’ve also just noticed you deleted another source, the one cited in reference to Churchill’s popularity in the U.K. and wider western world which must be retained because the assertion is a major claim. Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Roland Of Yew. First, it should be noted that we don't really need citations in the lead to state things which are otherwise supported in the main body of the article. (I actually think that we could get rid of the other citations in there at present, although that can perhaps wait till the main body of the article is in better shape). Certainly, we don't need to be adding new citations in there, hence why I removed the recently added one. Second, the lead is really only there for essential information. That includes a brief summary of Churchill's legacy, i.e. why some people celebrate him, and others criticise him. Adding additional detail beyond that is just not necessary at that juncture of the article. It probably would be warranted in the main body of the text; thus I would have no objection to mentioning concerns about 'presentism' to the "Reputation and legacy" section, but I don't see any reason to include them in the lead. Take a look at FA-rated 20th century political biography articles at Vladimir Lenin and Nelson Mandela. There, we mention both the praise and criticism that they have received, but don't then feature counter-criticism. Accordingly, there is no need for counter-criticism here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I completely understand your points, thanks. Subsequently, I recommend we remove the word 'reputation' from the section and stick with 'Legacy' as exampled by the Lenin article.Roland Of Yew (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Smythe's Megalith 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) 20:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this is to let you know that the above article will appear as Today's Featured Article on March 29, 2019. The blurb to be used can be found here. You are free to edit the blurb, and may want to watchlist that page, as well as WP:ERRORS in case there are queries about it on the day it runs, as well as the previous day. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to post on my talk. Thanks for building quality content!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

MBO, that blurb is waaay too long. The one I wrote is in my Sandbox/3, but you're welcome to do your own, if you pare it down. This will be the only blurb this month without an image ... or will it? Can you think of a free image to run with it? - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Dank: I'm more than happy to see it cut down further; feel free to use yours from the Sandbox, or mix and match them as you see fit. As for the image, I don't think that there's any image that is clearly appropriate. We could have an image like File:EU15-1995 European Union map.svg, of the EU as it stood in the mid-1990s? It's not perfect, but it is free. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll go ask David Levy on his talk page, I already started a conversation there about this month's images. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Any issues with the blurb? - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Looks great to me. Well done, Dank. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks ... it's the lead that's great, my work is adequate :) And while I'm here, you've made some really great choices in subject matter in what you bring to FAC ... thanks for giving us some needed variety and cultural perspective at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article Smythe's Megalith you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Smythe's Megalith 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) 20:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

An article that you have been involved in editing—Germaine Kieckens—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Muzilon (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, it appears this edit by you is inconsistent with List of leaders of the Soviet Union. Could you look into this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.27.196 (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jacket's Field 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article Jacket's Field Long Barrow you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Jacket's Field 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Sorry but I spent a long time yesterday making edits to this article. The only controversial ones have been reverted to the way they were. The rest are grammatical. Please don't waste several hours' editing. If you must, address them one-by-one.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please look- every edit is grammatical. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=885967465&oldid=885965595 NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. If those are only grammatical changes I don't have a problem with them, but please don't make any further changes to the tone of the wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I won't. I do know my grammar and I believe that by reviewing the changes you'll agree that I have improved the article. For utmost clarity, I have posted on the talk page a link to see these changes. I made the original edits one-by-one as I am of the view that that is the correct way to do so. The only issue arose when these individual edits were reverted as a group, so perfectly sound edits, including typo corrections and tiny mistakes, were restored as they had been caught in the crossfire. There are grammatical improvements to be made and when you're trying to go through an article it's very frustrating to have to cope with 15 edits all being reverted at once, as you lose track of where you are. So the natural inclination is simply to restore, finish and then review one-by-one. Appreciate not getting into a row- thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's fair enough. I've been in your shoes before. It's never a pleasant experience to have all of your edits reverted, regardless if most of them are copy-edits, all because some of them are controversial. Apologies if I was overzealous in my revert; I was in the wrong. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. In retrospect I think that part of the issue here was that I was having a discussion as to the tone of the article on the talk page, while making mostly grammatical edits at the same time. I did make a couple of changes that affected the tone but they were marked as such. I might have given the impression that I had an agenda and I accept that I could have managed that better. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your efforts. I did try to help. Tricky article to edit! If you'd like to discuss any of the grammatical changes I made I'd be happy to. Perhaps you could reinstate them post-ban? NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I realise you wrote most of the copy so the following grammatical changes I believe improve it. Perhaps you'll reinstate them when this has blown over? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=886030455&oldid=886030167

NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey Rastafari is probably the oldest article on my watchlist, and I saw your cleanup. No dispute with most of it but you did delete a ref - the Stephen Glazier book. Thought I'd check with you here rather than cluttering article talk as I suspect you had a reason. Simonm223 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Simonm223 and thanks for your message. I was in the process of formatting it so that it would fit in with the rest of the citations! Just give me a minute and it'll be done. All the best. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ok, cool, thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that the Marjorie Cameron article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 23, 2019. 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/April 23, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the article about "an American artist, actor, and occultist who was active in and around California in the period of the Beat Generation and the subsequent 60s counterculture. Cameron was a follower of the British occultist Aleister Crowley, the wife of the rocket scientist Jack Parsons, and a good friend of underground film-maker Kenneth Anger. She was involved in an array of sex magic rituals, experimented widely with hallucinogenic drugs, and made a wide range of apocalyptic predictions involving UFOs, comets, and Mexico conquering the US."! - I have Der kleine Tag on the same page ;) - 23 April, the most peaceful day, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be an active fellow ,so can you explain what barnstars are ? 2601:CA:8200:34A:8B8:F7AC:B0E6:CC9C (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

(watching:) WP:Barnstars or tokens of appreciation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shrub's Wood 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Midnightblueowl. I recently nominated Freud and Philosophy at WP:GAN. I wondered whether you might be interested in reviewing the article, or if not reviewing it, then maybe making some comments on it? I understand if you are too busy or not interested. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator, thanks for your message. I don't really have time at the moment as I'm presently involved in some other GAN and FAC bits but if I get a chance I will take a look! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article was failed by J Milburn. I have rewritten it significantly since then. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Midnightblueowl. I feel a little embarrassed to leave multiple messages on your talk page, but I am dealing with disruptive editing at Herbert Marcuse and a related article - Eros and Civilization - and I wondered if you might want to comment on what has been going on at those articles? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Great work on articles including Green Party of England and Wales. How did you access the Jon Burchell book? I'd like to do some more of my own research into things like how they changed their branding on things like their choice of shade of green since ecology party days.

Thanks GregKaye 09:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Greg and thanks for your message. The Burchell source is a research article in a peer-reviewed journal rather than a book. Most university libraries should have an online subscription although I appreciate that only a minority have access to such things. Public libraries might also have access but you'd need to check up on that. There are of course other ways to obtain access to academic articles but I would not necessarily recommend them. Hope that helps! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I accept that it is widely used of him by reliable sources. However, 1) it is a pejorative term 2) reliable sources tend to be hostile to him 3) it is not a term he used, I should think 4) he was not a member of organisations described as such. He was not as clearly left wing as the entrist organisations like Militant. Perhaps a compromise is to use the term socialist or put it in quotation marks. Jontel (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is it a pejorative term, however? Or is it simply a term that is sometimes used pejoratively? Most political terms ("fascist", "socialist", "liberal" etc) can be used pejoratively but that does not mean that they are intrinsically pejorative. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree that fascists, socialists and liberals can self-identify as such, as well as these being used negatively. However, I do think that hard left is used only by those on the right in a negative way. Those who are so described would call themselves as socialists, or as the Labour left or as on the left of the Labour Party. I think that 'hard right' is also only used negatively. Jontel (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please don't make edits like this which restore errors into an article. Thanks a lot. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article Shrub's Wood Long Barrow you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Shrub's Wood 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Schazjmd. Hopefully the article can be brought up to FA status in future, to join the Coldrum Long Barrow and Smythe's Megalith articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey, back in November as part of your update to Mikhail Gorbachev you wrote that he was appointed Secretary of the Central Committee in November 1974 and cited Taubman (Diff). Was this a typo? I don't have access to the source, but everything else I've seen states Gorbachev was appointed in November 1978.

I also went ahead and removed a line you added at the same time that Gorbachev was the youngest man to hold that Secretaryship (also cited to Taubman). Even if he was appointed in 1974, a lot of Stalin-era figures were given the role younger. Thanks in advance! --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi RaiderAspect and thanks for your message. I haven't got the Taubman source to hang right now, but it's possible I made an error. I'll try and look into it and get back to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi RaiderAspect; I've looked into it and this is my silly mistake. I will correct it in the article. I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The current hatnote is not needed, per WP:NAMB. Neither the title nor any of the redirects is ambiguous with Heathen. There are, however, redirects like Germanic Heathenry that are ambiguous with Germanic paganism. That is why I changed the hatnote. I believe I was correct. Srnec (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Srnec: It is still probably worth raising the proposed change at the Talk Page first. This is an FA, after all. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that the Smythe's Megalith article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 6, 2019. 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/June 6, 2019.—Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Are you going to add the full references to the split articles? I can help, but I've been sort of waiting for the person responsible for the split (you) to do it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Finnusertop: Yes I certainly should do that, shouldn't I. Will do so now. Thanks for the reminder. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for mistake. Thanks for correction. Best, Mick gold (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem, Mick, have a good week! Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would like to add contemporary views to the article on rastafari as i feel the article quite outdated and missing some key points and modern literature quotes. The articles is in dispute of a number Rastafarian organizations and i would like to work with you on adding a contemporary element Ras Shilo (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ras Shilo:. Hello there and thanks for your message. The best place to discuss proposed additions to the Rastafari article is the page Talk:Rastafari. That's the space at Wikipedia set aside for interested editors to discuss alterations and improvements to the article. I'm more than happy to discuss this issue further, and I agree that it is important that the article reflects Rastafari as it exists in the present day rather than just presenting it as it existed in the 1930s. However, bear in mind that Wikipedia relies on WP:Reliable Sources, and in this context that usually means peer-reviewed books and articles written by academics and scholars (including academics and scholars who are themselves Rastas or sympathetic to Rastafari) rather than the writings of practitioners with no scholarly background. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've made some edits to the Linguistic Theory section; a friend of mine who is a doctoral student in linguistics looked it over and said it looks pretty good. I'll keep the "needs attention" banner up for now, but I think it's safe to say that the section is not an obstacle to reaching GA status. As for the Philosophy section, I agree with User:Chiswick Chap that a few more sentences is all it needs; for the section to match the height of the adjacent Szabó quote would probably suffice. Vrrajkum (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Good work. It sounds as if the "needs attention" banner is reaching its sell-by date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Midnightblueowl: Re: "working-class", Noam's father worked in a sweatshop upon immigrating to the US:

More broadly, a 'middle class' did not really exist in the US prior to FDR's New Deal; at the time of Noam's birth, Americans were pretty much either ownership class (i.e., rich) or working class. Furthermore, I would argue that, given his political positions, Noam would not even view the 'middle class' as a discrete social stratum, and would instead divide contemporary capitalist societies into the aforementioned 'owners' and 'workers' (of which he would obviously be the latter -- e.g., in the Personal life section it's mentioned that Noam considers himself a "worker" despite being financially well-off).

I believe the language "working-class" should be included in the lede because it gives context for Noam's fervent championing of workers' rights and opposition to the exploitation of workers under capitalism (and therefore capitalism itself). Vrrajkum (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message, Vrrajkum. I'd be happy with you re-inserting "working-class" back into the lede, but it is probably important that we stick a cited sentence into the actual main body. Using the source you posted above, for instance, we could go with "Chomsky described his family background as "mostly working class", with his father initially working in a sweatshop." Something like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Midnightblueowl: Would you be able to weigh in here or on any of the recent changes to the article? Vrrajkum (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Vrrajkum: Thanks for the heads up, I'll try and get to this later in the week. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also, would you mind temporarily allowing emailing you via Wikipedia? Czar sent me some (copyrighted) secondary sources that we could use to expand the Israeli–Palestinian conflict section, but my focus for the time being will be on the Philosophy, Reception and influence#In academia, and Linguistic theory sections (as well as general polishing & copy editing), so I would appreciate if you could take care of expanding the I/P section. Vrrajkum (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Midnightblueowl: These are the sources: 1 2

It looks like Noam views the U.S. as being inextricable from the conflict, so if you think the I/P section should just be dropped altogether or merged into the U.S. Foreign Policy section I'll leave that decision to you. Vrrajkum (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I seriously doubt that anyone has ever deserved this more:

Vrrajkum (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! However, it wouldn't have made it to GA without your hard work. Well done, Vrrajkum. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Faulkner's Circle. According to CopyPatrol the article you wrote has a 95% match with another article on wikipedia Are you aware of this? https://api.ithenticate.com/en_us/dv/0425?o=47242026&lang=en_us Thomas Westerlaken (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Coffin Stone 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 Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

This would now be a case for ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I tend to concur, though I'm loath to start a second AN/I case myself in as many days. However there's definitely a pattern of tendentious behaviour across a broad swath of political articles here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add Cancel culture to the list - edit warring to just before the bright-line, insisting on consensus supporting them, just on another page they didn't link to. I'm losing patience with the amount of WP:GREENCHEESE here and I'm logging off for the day but yeah, feel free to ping me if this hits WP:AN/I and I'll put in my 2 cents. Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article Coffin Stone you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Coffin Stone 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 Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Serial Number 54129. Well done again on all the hrard work you put into the article. It's editors like you that are a real asset to Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fir Clump Stone Circle 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) 15:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Midnightblueowl,

Could you kindly put into words your opinion here, why this picture

can't/can be placed into the article about the band, since the name "Hair Peace Salon" of the band actually came from this?^[1]

Thank you and have a nice day! -- pr12402, 9 July 2019

I'm sorry but I don't really understand quite what you're asking me to do and why. Is there something I'm missing? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article Fir Clump Stone Circle you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Fir Clump Stone Circle 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) 20:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

We already have consensus on Alternet, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Feel free to use a better source instead if you think the content is valid. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Thanks for the message, Guy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cultural racism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Race (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Good to see you reverting that guy! (Yes, guy, obviously.) Special:Contributions/24.177.36.227 Ah, these vile vandals, what are we going to do about this one (been going on for a while)? How are you, old friend? I was just re-reading Tintin in Tibet and quite enjoying our work on it, in those days. I see you are truly loving it here at Wikipedia, and I salute you! Brava bravissima! I have dropped off of Wikipedia lately, save the occasional edit. Ah, RL. That is why I sigh and envy you. I wish you well, Midnightblueowl ! Cheers, —Prhartcom♥ 03:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Prhartcom and thanks for your message. It's a funny coincidence that you sent your message as only yesterday I thought that I must get around to building up Flight 714 to Sydney and started making some notes toward it. I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to say I was "truly loving it here at Wikipedia" (oftentimes it is downright infuriating) but it is fair to say that I truly believe in its importance. But I totally understand why you've drawn back a little; I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find time for Wikipedia given RL concerns. I'm not the daily editor I used to be. All the best! Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Have you put some kind of lock that I can't see on this article? I tried to fix some things like removing the Wikilinks to pages that don't exist and the reference to Holland having a degree in Latin (he doesn't - his degree is in English only) and I can't get an edit to go through at all?

Also, I would argue that Holland not being a Muslim is irrelevant - the way it's written, it comes across as a judgment on his fitness to look at the history of Islam and a historian's personal religion doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not they can examine any subject in their work. And the section on the unrelated TV show with a Muslim character also seems unnecessary and irrelevant to me.

I'm glad you kept a lot of the information I had added; the article had previously skewed very negative and covered almost entirely criticism of Holland and the broadcast without including those who defended it. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lilipo25 and thanks for your message. No, I have not locked the article; only an administer would be able to do so. As for the other points, let's take them to the article Talk Page. That way a wider range of interested people could get involved, should they wish to. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article White Horse Stone 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) 11:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article English Defence League 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 David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello- I just wanted to let you know that I have done a partial revert ([1]) of your overall good changes here ([2]). Thanks for your work on the article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Falkner's Circle 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) 10:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article English Defence League 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:English Defence League for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article White Horse Stone you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:White Horse Stone for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I really admire you work. In particular I was looking at Joseph Stalin and would love to be able to emulate its quality, particularly with the way you source information back to pages in text books. I would like to know what your writing process is like. With Stalin, for example, there are so many books written about him. Did you read through them all and take notes on each? How did you know what details were important to capture when you started? How did you decide what books to read? That seems like an awful lot of work and time. If you could share a high level overview of what your research and editing process is, that would be helpful to me. Thank you. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi TarkusAB and thanks for your message. Basically, I read - a lot! And I take copious notes. So, with the case of the Stalin article, I borrowed a few of the main biographies on Stalin from the library and read through them, making a note of every fact that I thought might be pertinent for Wikipedia (and making sure to note the appropriate page numbers). Often I read various biographies or other books on the same subject in tandem (i.e. I read the first three chapters of one biography, then the first three chapters of another, and then go back to read the next few chapters of the first biography). That needn't be the only way to do it, but I find that it ensures that, when I make my early edits on a particular article, they don't get criticised (or even reverted) for relying exclusively on a single source.

As a general rule of thumb, I think that if a certain fact appears in at least one biography then it is probably worth adding to Wikipedia. Of course, there's always a level of subjectivity in deciding what is worth including and what is not: one thing I think is important is to always include information on what various different people/groups think of a particular individual and/or concept. That way diverse opinions and perspectives are reflected in the article, all appropriately sourced to Reliable Sources. That's why, in the fourth paragraph of articles like Stalin, Nelson Mandela, Robert Mugabe, Winston Churchill etc I've always tried to ensure that the reader is presented with a range of views.

Once the main meat of the article is in place (i.e. I've read and summarised the main biographies and/or textbooks) then I start going through more focused sources, such as peer-reviewed articles, chapters in edited volumes, and that sort of thing, to add detail. I then like to take the article through the GAN and FAC processes, although getting an article all the way to FA status can take several years. Things get a little bit more tricky when there aren't actually any 'introductory' studies on which to draw. A case in point might be cultural racism, an article I have recently been working on. There is no single Introduction to Cultural Racism book or anything like that, so I've had to piece together the article from peer-reviewed articles in various journals and a few pages here and there in books on racism more broadly.

It is true that this is an awful lot of work, as you say. Many, many, many hours of work. But, I believe (and I hope) that it is worth it. Not only does it advance my own personal knowledge about particular subjects that I am interested in, but it should also provide a useful and informative source for others, including those who may not be so fortunate as I in having access to libraries (those in rural areas, poor countries etc). I also think that the process I use (which I have honed and improved over the years) ensures that a decent quality article is produced. Sometimes free web sources are the only ones available and thus are appropriate (and I have brought articles up to FA status using only web sources) but for major topics, such as biographies of political leaders, really we should go to the biographies and specialist academic literature. I think it's embarrassing for Wikipedia to have major, important articles like Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan so reliant on free web sources when there are much better quality sources out there. It makes the whole project look amateurish, and that is something that I hope to combat.

Anyway, I hope that learning a little more about my process proves to be of some help to you - happy editing! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, yes this is very helpful.

Most of my experience has been with video game GAs, and sources are relatively few and short so my approach has always been to read completely through everything and take generous notes. I've been trying to bring the same approach to biographies and history articles but it felt...maybe too ambitious. I too believe that the work is worth it and makes information readily available and easily digestible for those that seek it.

Also do you edit the article as you read? I was considering taking all the notes of book A, reading and taking notes on book B, then organizing the notes by subject (Early life, career, personal life, etc.), and writing a first draft of the article from there. Then filling in details with other books and published articles. I don't think I have it in me to read 5-6 books on a subject, but I think I could manage 2 and then filling in details and missing points with other books and sources. Not sure if that's good enough for FA. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I very rarely edit directly as I read. Rather, when I read I make notes in a notebook and then later, when I have time, edit the article from my notes, only turning directly to the original source material as and when I need to. (The only exception to that is when I'm using PDFs or web sources rather than printed texts). Often I start putting together my proposed text in my sandbox first, before moving it into the article. That way I can get my referenced text into a fairly decent shape before bringing it to the article, thus minimising the likelihood that it will face hostility from editors who have a firm sense of WP:OWNERSHIP over the article. To be honest, I've found the latter to be one of the biggest problems here at Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Fascinating. Thanks for your insight, I truly appreciate it. Your work here does not go unnoticed. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article Falkner's Circle you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Falkner's Circle 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) 15:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Midnightblueowl. I am reviewing your article Rastafari (there should be an automated message, but I'm letting you know directly). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rastafari 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 Freeknowledgecreator -- Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just letting you know I responded to your last set of comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article Rastafari you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Rastafari 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 Freeknowledgecreator -- Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello MBO. I notice that you are getting quite involved in the Stonewall page, and it is generating quite a lot of controversy, especially with the current discussion about trans rights taking place in British society. Could I make a request of you to please seek consensus on the Talk page rather than simply reverting good faith edits made by others. I don't particularly want to get involved in the editing of this page, but I am concerned that the discussion being had in the edit history will be counterproductive, and given the topic, I think it would be wise to seek consensus about it. Thanks. --Jwslubbock (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jwslubbock and thanks for your comment. I'd like to see the article receive protection from disruptive IPs engaged in vandalism; beyond that I am of course more than happy to engage with anyone acting in good faith on the Talk Page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Reversion of your edits that are factually incorrect and misleading is not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoeloe (talk • contribs) 15:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply, Midnightblueowl. With the discussion happening on the edit history, it's quite hard to see what the arguments being put forth are. From a brief perusal, it seems you are arguing that Stonewall, when it was founded, was not specifically to advocate for trans people and so it's inaccurate to say LGBT. What I would suggest is opening a new section on the talk page laying out your argument and asking other editors to explain why they disagree or not. --Jwslubbock (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hoeloe. I know this is an emotive topic, but I would ask you to also please contribute to the discussion on the talk page, laying out your arguments, and try to assume good faith of other editors.--Jwslubbock (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Midnightblueowl. I don't know whether you are still following Talk:English Defence League/GA1 or not, but I left some comments there in response to a request for another opinion from the article reviewer. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article English Defence League you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:English Defence League 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 David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well done for attaining GA status. I hope I helped in some way. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi MBO, it's been a while. I wonder if I might persuade you to have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carlos Castillo Armas/archive1? You passed the article at GA. It's had two supports and a source review, but has languished for lack of attention. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Vanamonde93:, many thanks for your message. I'm trying to take a Wikibreak for a while and am not totally sure when (if ever) I'll resume editing in the quantity I formally did, but if I can, I'll take a look at this next week. All the best with it in the meantime! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

No worries if you can't; AustralianRupert just offered some comments, so it's not going to be failed immediately. I'm sorry to hear that you're going to be less active, and I hope to see you return to full activity some day. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

A small thank-you for your substantial work on this article, itself a small part of your tremendous body of work on Wikipedia. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your kind comment, Reidgreg. It's always nice to come across those who see some benefit to what I do here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that the Coldrum Long Barrow article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 18, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing or replacing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 18, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply