--
Jionpedia
✉ 19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
2013 was one hell of a year. While it gave us some great movies ( The Lunchbox, Kai Po Che!, Lootera, Bhaag Milkha Bhaag etc.) and some record-breaking blockbusters ( Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani, Chennai Express, Dhoom 3), it also gave us some really sad moments (the deaths of Pran, Paul Walker, Nelson Mandela, Farooque Sheikh, re-crimilisation of homosexuality, typhoons and cycolones like Phailin and Haiyan). Nevertheless, I ain't gonna miss 2013, so have a happy 2014 ahead! Yours truly, -- Jionpedia ✉ 19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Since you did the review for Geology Hall, I'm wondering if you'd be interested in picking up the stalled review of Daniel S. Schanck Observatory a 19th-century astronomical observatory at Rutgers. The reviewer started the review, I disagreed with some of their hamhanded suggestions, and then they went off for two weeks. If you're able to dedicate a little time to pick it up and bring it through to completion, I'd be much obliged.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 20:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
This greeting goes out to all those I have worked with this year - it has been a pleasure. I enjoyed working with you on so many DYKs this year, and two Good Articles - something that would have been unthinkable for me a year ago. I have to say the highlight for me this year was seeing
Paris, possibly my favourite city in the world, being listed as a GA, something which I think it's safe to say I could not have been done without your help on the article. Hopefully we can work together again in 2014, and I wish you all the best in whatever projects you might have up your sleeve. To another good year!
Gilderien
Chat|
List of good deeds 21:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
| |
Hello Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Hi, wish you a very happy new year. Do comment on this when you find time. — Vensatry (Ping me) 10:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Soham — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.
Gracias for the template and Happy 2014! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Pratyya
(Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.
-- Pratyya (Hello!) 13:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The request for clarification has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Request for clarification (December 2013).
For the Arbitration Committee,
-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Appreciated, thankyou, Happy New Year.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I want to do my first GAN review. Will you show me the ropes? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 19:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Wappocomo (Romney, West Virginia)/GA1! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Done!! I've finished the review and Passed it. Thanks for all your encouragement! Can you walk me through how to wrap this up? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, those steps are done, too. I feel good about the review and understand the process now. The walkaway is that I feel more invested in article quality. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 17:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, dear Doctor! I'm not sure if English novelists of the first half of the 20th century are your thing, but if you care to look in at the peer review of Walpole it will be good to see you. I have raised the question of an info-box there, on which you may have views, and your thoughts on anything else will be gladly received too, as I need hardly say. Tim riley ( talk) 20:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year Tim! Me an opinion on an infobox?... never!! Hehe I'll look within a day or two there's an intergalactic article at FA I've been asked to look at first!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
| |
Hello Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Frze > talk 20:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Thanks for the IMDB tip. As for Beaudine I'll try and have a go at it over the next few weeks along with the other stuff. Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 22:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I have summarised the soundtrack reception into a single digestible para, I'll now tend to the critical reception in the format of Skyfall and lastly the lead section. Soham 04:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Glad to hear it, I thought for a moment you were doing a Prashant!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Blo, I pointed out some issues, can you please take a look at them? Soham 03:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, over to Aymatth..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi DB, can you please share your opinion here?
Happy New Year, 2014 | |
From
Amandajm (
talk) 09:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Bellini began work on a rather large
"Dejeuner sur l'herbe" but having set up the models and commenced the painting, he soon found that he was in no fit state to continue it. |
Hi, the article is currently undergoing a source review. Since it uses a number of books authored by south Indians, I'm a bit confused about the usage of their names in refs. First name should be initials or the actual names? — Vensatry (Ping me) 09:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Surnames should always be first I think. Like Char, N.V.V.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Great example! I formatted all book sources only using this tool yet there seems to be some discrepancies. — Vensatry (Ping me) 11:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, google often messes up the metadata and it should be checked really on world cat to ensure it's correct!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate receiving your thanks for this edit. Your user page is fantastic! Lots of good information in there. -- Jreferee ( talk) 17:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I just remembered, I had come to your talk page requesting your opinion for this section however, I think you might have missed it above. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Eeks I don't know, personally I wouldn't have started the article for another few months as names can change before release.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding your questions about People Magazine, it most certainly is NOT a reliable source at all. Gossip sources like that, Us Weekly, OK! magazine, Star Magazine, Daily Mail, In Touch, More magazine, Perez Hilton, Huffington Post, PopCrush, etc. are known for frequently fabricating information. I highly discourage using those as sources in any article. You'd be much better off with things like Rolling Stone, Forbes, Vanity Fair, Vogue, Billboard, USA Today, Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, and MTV. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 19:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
XXSNUGGUMSXX, I am aware of what we generally consider "reliable" sources. But for a term like "sex symbol" which is generally used more in those sorts of gossipy sources and books than in other more "conservative" sources I hardly think you can denounce a mention in People magazine as such as "not reliable". I'd consider People a more reliable and more neutral source than something like Askmen.com... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, I've often seen sources like the ones I listed describe people as "sexy". Things like People really can't be taken seriously due to frequent fabrications and often poorly supporting their claims, including one's sex appeal. Calling it "reliable" is like saying coyotes are vegetarians. I see how Askmen can be perceived as biased, though. That site is mainly relationship/sex advice, and my guess is that the people they list as having high levels of sex appeal are based on public opinion. Still, avoid using sources like People under any circumstance. Much of what they say is merely marketing. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 20:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I am finishing up on a DYK (never would have been able to without knowing about google books :) ) and I know you don't do DYK anymore, but I wondered if you, or any talk page stalkers could think of a hook, I'm at a bit of a loss. The article is Càrn Eige.-- Gilderien Chat| What I've done 19:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That panorama image bugs me, it looks like the clouds have been labelled rather than mountains!...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes I know Caponer, I've been silently watching its progress and Ammodramus identified something I was also concerned about with the length and concision of the lead, now clearly addressed. Article certainly looks GA standard and Rosie's done a great review and you've done a great job in writing it and answering. A text book example of a productive and satisfactory article and review. Keep up the great work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know Caponer we still don't accept recently passed GAs for DYKs so it wouldn't qualify.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Just stumbled across W.A. & A.C. Churchman. Thought you might enjoy re-lighting this five year-old dog end? Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll look later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beerest 2 talk 18:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
I (Vensatry), hereby award Dr. Blofeld the "Guidance Barnstar" for his constant support and encouragement towards promoting Tiruchirappalli to FA status. — Vensatry (Ping me) 08:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC) |
Hey Blofeld, I have received lot of harassing notes, tweets and post on wikipedia as well as Facebook and Now Twitter. That user is abusing me, threatening me on my talk page and on other social media platforms. I suspect and even confident that user is no one but, one of these hindi film editors, with whom i had fights. Pls, can you help as that IP adress is constantly harassing me and posting abusive messages. Would you give that IP to a checkuser so, at least we can know the country.— Prashant 08:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
If somebody is harassing you off or on wiki, report them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you still working on these? If not, will tidy to remove the redlinks. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I am, yes, but it's been Christmas and New Year. I created a 1924 article the other day and intended continuing this week and I've also invited Lord Cornwallis to help out.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. As you have written a number of articles about athletes and written a lot about Spain, I was wondering if you could assist me in location newspaper sources for Oriol Sellarès Martínez. Thank you. -- LauraHale ( talk) 17:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
He seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ali Mohammad Khilji.
Notifying you due to your prior investigation of related case.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 17:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes Cirt it does look suspicious but I don't think there's much point me commenting there until the checkuser has the results!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't think I've seen any of his, actually. (Including Dr. Strangelove, I'm ashamed to admit.)
I did read 2001: A Space Odyssey, though. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 19:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vanessa:Her Love Story, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Montgomery ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The article Mana Mana Beach Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Stuartyeates (
talk) 13:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The article Givors canal you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Givors canal for comments about the article. Well done! Soham 14:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Congrats on the GA! As for Queally, can you upload a photo to show off her orangutan-colour eyes? LOL -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Perhaps Cate or Kate would oblige me on that one hehe! She really is a great looking woman. Not with the bob haircut though, she looks too much like Kris Jenner then!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld, Gareth E Kegg nominated your article for DYK back in early December. The nomination was reviewed on December 28 and some issues were found; Gareth was notified on his talk page that day, and hasn't done anything to address these issues; the notification was archived last Friday. As a courtesy, I'm letting you know that the nomination exists, and is likely to be closed if no action is taken.
Do you want to follow up on the nomination? Please let me know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Blofeld. In Mullum Malarum, there is a reliable source that gives an English translated review (unofficial though) of Ananda Vikatan's Tamil review of the film (ref 22). Are translated reviews allowed on Wiki, regardless of how official they are? Kailash29792 ( talk) 07:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course, provided that it is what we'd consider a reliable source and not a blog.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Happy New Year, and great work on the Dorchester article. I've added a bit, but have also queried the use of the logo at the top of the page on the Talk page. Perhaps you might have a view on this? Ericoides ( talk) 11:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's an awesome page. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 22:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Dr. Blofeld. I noticed that you have written many articles about Danish composers, and also that you have reviewed some classical music related articles for GA. I have expanded the article about Frederik Magle and nominated it for GA, and I was wondering if perhaps you would be interested in reviewing it? I would be very grateful. With kind regards, -- Danmuz ( talk) 13:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Good work User:Danmuz, but I'm afraid in looking at it I might be too critical of it so I'll have to pass. I'm not convinced it is a sound enough biographical account at the moment for GA myself, 2000-present doesn't really seem that well covered, but don't let that deter you..♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Moved it. Looks like a cool place. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 02:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I started work on vedettes yesterday; trying to increase the number of women's biographies on wikipedia and all that. They are an interesting group! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 04:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure, will work on some of those Argentine movies; maybe in conjunction with the vedettes or maybe after. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 02:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I looked at es:Categoría:Películas de la Argentina and there are a lot of films on the es wiki without an en wiki presence! Not all of them have references but some do. Need to find a good online gbook with Argentine film/director/actor names. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, put it that way (..."systematic bias covering old Argentine movies...") and I'm in! LOL. On top of that, I looked at the category 'films by director' and --as usual-- women are so under-represented. Will look at all this again after I get home from work tonight. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 21:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
On 14 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moten Swing, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1932 jazz standard " Moten Swing" was an important development in the move towards a freer form of orchestral jazz and the development of swing music? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moten Swing. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 16:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey Doc, I have an FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blue's Clues/archive4) up currently, but I'm afraid that it will fail because nobody's reviewing it. I dunno if it's me, but that happens a lot! :) Would you mind taking the time to look at it? Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Torchy Blane in Chinatown, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tom Kennedy and Howard Jackson ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
By director made it easy. Nice template and the added images really make a difference! I moved the articles with the second word in caps. Gotta run now but I'll look at adding cast, etc. after work. If there are other PD posters/pics can you upload them? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I took the article to FAC twice, in 2008 and 2012. The first attempt failed through a number of assorted minor issues, such as an image that took an age to clear through OTRS. The second FAC didn't get much traffic, and while no-one opposed it, it only gained one support in its month on the FAC page. I've barely been on-wiki in the past few months, but I'd gladly take on board any suggestions you have to improve the article further. Oldelpaso ( talk) 19:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Good Dr, I was just admiring your edits to the Benjamin Ogle Tayloe House in D.C., and I was wondering if you would be able to quickly review Valley View (Romney, West Virginia) and provide any edits or suggestions. I've nominated it for GA review, and while it hasn't yet been selected, I wanted to continue to refine it in the meantime. Any guidance you could provide would be of the greatest help! Thanks again! -- Caponer ( talk) 01:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Muhammad Boudiaf.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your request for an expansion of Akademisk Forlag, I'd better move the reply from my talk page here: "It is a subsidiary of Lindhardt og Ringhof (part of Egmont Group) so I think it is best covered there since very little information seems to be available. I therefore propose that you create that article instead and I will try to expand it.[[".
Another thing, now that I am disturbing you anyway: I would like to start transferring the lists of Listed buildings in Denmark (by municipality) that are found on Danish Wikipedia to English Wikipedia – little by little, when a reasonably high number of listed buildings in that municipality are covered. As an example see this sandbox "dummy" with listed buildings in Roskilde Municipality (note that it is only half-finished). However, I am uncertain if this is the right way to do it. Compare the Danish version which uses a template-based approach. So my question is: Is it okay to create the lists the way I started it or is there a better way to do so which whould be preferred (such as with templates)? Ramblersen ( talk) 16:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
How dare you! The project has been completed... all we have left is to delete the cruft. PhnomPencil ( talk) 20:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC) (Cambodia)
Thank you! Yoninah ( talk) 16:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I baked four cupcakes and this one is yours for being such a positive GA mentor, with thanks for sorting things out. Rosiestep ( talk) 19:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC) |
Just to let you know that Sammyjankis has started the GA nomination for Christopher Nolan. Cheers, have a nice day! -- Loeba (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dr B. Sorry, didn't see your post earlier - it got buried by people being dicks. Yes, will look at these if I get time. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your wonderful barnstar i love it! Nice to know that someone appreciates my work! Cheers! Bine Mai 22:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Dr. Blofeld! If you remember, I promised to help you find some information on the city of Chust. Here's what I've found:
Source: the Uzbek Soviet Encyclopedia. (Zufarov, Komiljon, ed (1979). "Chust". Oʻzbek sovet ensiklopediyasi. Volume 12. Toshkent. Pages 593-594)
I hope this helps. Nataev ( talk) 11:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's some more information:
Source: the National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan. (2000-2005. Murodilla Haydarov (author). "Chust". Oʻzbekiston milliy ensiklopediyasi. Toshkent)
Let me know if you have any questions. Nataev ( talk) 11:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That looks promising @ Nataev:, go ahead and add what you can and I'll try to add more!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed a talk page discussion a while ago you had with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz about him constantly calling reliable sources gossip and deleting references based off his opinion of "gossipy". There is an issue with several editors (I'm thinking sockpuppets) with the Bradley Cooper and Suki Waterhouse articles. I tried adding to their personal lives with 3 reliable sources but near edit warred with these editors all calling it "gossipy" and deleting it. Wondering if you could weigh in on this. Thanks. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to it. Yes Hullaballoo is obsessed with removing all personal life info which isn't a marriage and he's wrong to do so, especially if it's a long term relationship. You wouldn't remove mention of Goldie Hawn as gossip in Kurt Russell's article for instance... I'll look in later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld, I assure you, the edit you thanked me for was made while the article was still in its infancy within my user space :) -- Caponer ( talk) 22:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
When I click the thank button, it's rarely for one specific edit, it is intended as a thanks for creating the article. I do it all the time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. Can you do me a favor and make sure I took care of everything with this one? It's the first time I reviewed a GAN and failed the article. Thanks. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Rosiestep: Absolutely fine. You might though post some suggestions at the nominator to improve like, eh, actually provide some information about the films...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Yup, left message on Lem's talkpage. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean about Mogadishu. Cleaning up the refs, though, isn't off-putting to me so I'll try and work on them before the weekend. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for rolling up your sleeves and helping with the reorganisation of this article. I think there's a good structure in place now that can be built on. Eric Corbett 18:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I've got a couple more sources on the way, and I think this could be turned into a very plausible GA candidate. What do you think? Eric Corbett 22:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for taking the initiative and your copyediting yesterday. I was wondering whether to get her biography or not, the 1992 version is 79p on Amazon. The autobiography from her daughter might also provide some valuable information. I think though that there should be enough sources online to make it a worthy GA candidate. Blyton is one of the world's most popular authors and I think it would certainly be worth doing do.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I loved her books as a kid, especially The Famous Five. My sister and I used to get quite excited about collecting all 21 books. For some reason it's the Finniston farm and the spoiled little American brat Junior which most sticks in my mind. I also had all 38 I think it was of the Just William books. It's funny that in the 1950s and 1960s she was heavily criticized for infecting children's literary diets, these days I'm sure most teachers and parents would be glad if their kids read a single book... It would be good if at some stage one of us could get hold of some biographies but I certainly think we can find enough to make it a GA anyway. I wonder if Tim riley or Brian Boulton would be interested in helping.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, sounds promising. That autobiography from her daughter Imogen I think would also be of much value and probably has quite a few interesting anecdotes and quotes. I'll do the best I can in the meantime, once you get the books I think some of the society and ODNB sources could be replaced to balance the sources out a bit but it's a start.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I took a look earlier to see how it was, what a piece of shit. Almost entirely about her criticism and personal life and nothing about her work except a short list. Embarrassing that an author of her status took 13 years to start to be written on wikipedia... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for a very comprehensive GA review. Do let me know when you need anything reviewed--I hope I can do as good a job reviewing your work as you've done with mine--I'm proud of where the article is at after the work that's been put into it with the help of your attention and ideas, as well as the assistance offered by Eric Corbett. In the next few months, I'm going to get NBTS read for FAC (I have a few articles in queue for FAC), so I started a peer review to give a few ideas on what could bring the article up to FA quality. I think after our GA review collaboration, it's most of the way there, but if you have some additional thoughts, the peer review is located here: Wikipedia:Peer review/New Brunswick Theological Seminary/archive1. I appreciate all your help.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 20:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
So it turns out you were creating Gibraltar-related content two years before anyone had even thought of Gibraltarpedia... Brilliant! Hope you're doing well. -- Gibmetal 77 talk 2 me 12:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Gibmetal77: Yes, I know! What's happening with Gibraltarpedia at the moment? Activity from Victuallers seems to have died down. What's the current situation with the tags on buildings? I might create a few articles later in the week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Yuck, looks like you should just wipe the slate clean and start from scratch. Can't say politicians really grab my interest I'm afraid.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Copenhagen is now GA. Thanks for your help. Coverage of Danish cities is really progressing.-- Ipigott ( talk) 14:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Another core article and capital city passes. You put a great deal of outstanding work into it!! What next, Esjberg?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I have a few articles to get through first though, go ahead and start on Esbjerg!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
AWB's fine. I haven't used it in a while just because I've been slowing down a bit. I'll take a look at those Ghanaian things and see what can be done. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 03:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC) OK - that amount of substitution looks like it might be beyond AWB's purview. I can think of a way to do it, but it'll require a lot more time than I have now. Perhaps I'll take a look at it again this weekend and see if I can't come up with something. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 06:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I don't mean to keep crying to you for assistance lol but since the situation seemed eerily similar to the one on Bradley Coopers page, I was wondering if you wouldnt mind giving your two cents at Nicholas Hoults talk page where an IP user basically says even reliable sources are gossip until it comes from the persons own mouth. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
You can cry to me Lady Lotus, I have plenty of tissues LOL!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if I can interest you in a peer review of the article on Ralph Richardson? Quite understand if not, and there is absolutely no hurry at all even if you are interested. If you do look in, please run an eye over the short list of questions at the top of the peer review page, on which I'd be grateful for colleagues' thoughts. – Tim riley ( talk) 20:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Can't believe how many countries don't have the breakdown. I'll try to work on them after the weekend. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 05:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
We can use Category:Geography by country as a go-by. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You're receiving this message because you are a major contributor to {{ Infobox dam}}. You opinion on this cleanup proposal is very much appreciated. Best regards, Reh man 14:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I used to be a WP editor many years ago. ;) Shahid • Talk2me 15:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
My priority is going to be Enid Blyton. Eric Corbett 19:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes I think it's important to get a good structure in place to build on which we now just about have with Blyton. Hopefully you can find more in those biographies to add some flesh to the prose and build on what I've started. I have already written a bit about the Noddy pantomime and her illness. I'm not convinced that Audie Murphy would be ready for FA even after the rough editing, I hope Maile doesn't see this urgent need to promote it asap as given time I think we can improve it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah there's something wrong with it isn't it, it should be wikipedia paying us to write and pay for the books we need in doing so!! I hope at some stage they'll at least start funding a scheme for wikipedians and give them something towards the books that they need to improve articles. I'm aware that some of the chapters have something but it's hardly on the scale and as easy to access and request as it should be. Hopefully you can replace some of the society sources, way too many citations to it, but it was really needed to set it in the right direction and draw up the "bones".. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not willing to edit it if people like that turn up and try to impede progress! He's at least reverted himself now though anyway. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Dr. Blofeld. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Colin Welch, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ColonelHenry ( talk) 04:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
You recently improved my mood considerably by approving a beloved piece of music to GA. I was bold and requested Peer review/Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172. You know the article best ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's rather good. I'm not an expert though in classical music article for FA though, perhaps Voc and Kleinzach would be of more use to you at the review!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thx for reminding me – I've been distracted by Brighton and Hove stuff recently! I will have some time this week to make pre-FAC improvements. I'll let you know when I've got as far as I can. Cheers, Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Blo, can you please tweak this article for prose and MOS? I am having a hard-time because of time constraints. You'll get more info at Talk:Tooh (song)/GA1. Thanks. Soham 09:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Honestly mate I've got too many articles needing sorting out right now to give this my full attention. I'm trying to keep things as simple as possible as the moment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I took the time to expand the article. I think it looks a lot better now. Nataev ( talk) 11:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, in a notable people section.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Please have a look at WP:CWW, relative to this edit; I've corrected it by adding the Copied template to the article talk page. [13] I also would encourage you in the future to engage the article talk page before undertaking such large changes; the article was being worked on for FAC readiness, and another article was on the main page, and few of the article's talk page watchers had any way of knowing what you had set about to do. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
@ SandyGeorgia: I'm afraid to say that you're wrong on this, see User talk:Eric Corbett#FYI and Talk:Audie Murphy. Eric and I had actually extensively discussed it with the article creator before I moved it, and the intention was to balance out the article as Eric and I agreed it wasn't even close to FA. We advised him against FAC, I'm surprised that you would think it was near future candidate. I had intended working on the article and balancing it out until I was disrupted, and your further response here has proved to me that I've done the right thing in staying away from it. For the record I strongly disagree with Maile's entire cutting of the section, and if you search the history you'll see I didn't do that, my intention was to cut it down and build a film career in balance. There is no rule against splitting a very long section of an article and then working away at whittling it down to a more manageable size and that was my intention.. I'm sorry I even took a look at it now, I really am... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Eric, Maile66 is well-intentioned but inexperienced, I have watched for months as he has tried his hardest and kept good cheer no matter what has happened in there, and every Tom, Dick and Harry (including quite a few less than competent writers and several outright disruptive editors) have made that article slow going. I suggested, Eric, that he might bring you in only now because I've observed over more than a few months now that the disruptive forces seem to have disappeared, and hoped you could help him make some progress ... I did not suggest the article was ready, as I lodged quite a few comments about problems that needed to be addressed on talk. Anyway, if you're interested, let's continue please on article talk; I made it clear to Maile66 that I think you're the only one now who can help guide him on that article, and I do admire how hard and for how long he has kept trying, and been much nicer in the process than most of us would be. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
My intention was to do a little trimming and then add the film career and trim that down a bit and balance it out. Then the work on copyediting and proper preparation work for FAC could begin. Until that happens it's never going to pass FAC. I could get what needs to be done within a few hours, but if I'm going to be scolded for things like this I'm staying well away from it. Perhaps if you ask anybody in future about it Maile you might say that there might be people objecting to what they do. I don't know, common sense warned me to stay away from it, and it was right... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Dr. B - great re-ordering. Looks excellent. Now hurry it on to Tim at GA before some copyright wallah queries my use of the Survey of London plans and elevations. They add greatly to the article, but I'm sure they're not pukkah! All the very best. KJP1 ( talk) 23:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
@ KJP1:. Tomorrow I'll take one last look for any possible scraps before nomming don't worry!! Lead also needs a bit of work to summarize the article which I'll sort out. Cardiff Castle next right :-] ? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes I think Castell Coch up to GA first would be good. Can Cardiff Castle be improved further to you think? An FA on it of course would be a great achievement, and I was born of course within a half a mile of it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Will try getting all I can and posting them here. We hope ( talk) 19:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Mat ty. 007 19:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I've opened a review page and left some informal comments you may like to look at before I wade into the formal review after the weekend. Tim riley ( talk) 22:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
To receive a barnstar from you is a real honor! When I was getting the old photos of the north and south sides, I was struck by how little the south side has changed in so many years. Not long ago, I went back to where I grew up via Google Street View and at first, had a hard time realizing where I was because so many of the homes on the street have changed so much. Please feel free to call on me at any time if you think I can help. Thanks again! We hope ( talk) 22:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
"29. Tower House, Melbury Road, plans. Redrawn by F. A. Evans from plans in the possession of the R.I.B.A. 146
30. Tower House, Melbury Road, elevations and sections. Redrawn by F. A. Evans from plans in the possession of the R.I.B.A 147"
Hey, thanks! I'll split all the chinese films by year then maybe will expand on the older films. As for the older films in the 1950s, I don't think there is a official list of films that I could find. Stormedelf ( talk) 08:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
--
Jionpedia
✉ 19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
2013 was one hell of a year. While it gave us some great movies ( The Lunchbox, Kai Po Che!, Lootera, Bhaag Milkha Bhaag etc.) and some record-breaking blockbusters ( Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani, Chennai Express, Dhoom 3), it also gave us some really sad moments (the deaths of Pran, Paul Walker, Nelson Mandela, Farooque Sheikh, re-crimilisation of homosexuality, typhoons and cycolones like Phailin and Haiyan). Nevertheless, I ain't gonna miss 2013, so have a happy 2014 ahead! Yours truly, -- Jionpedia ✉ 19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Since you did the review for Geology Hall, I'm wondering if you'd be interested in picking up the stalled review of Daniel S. Schanck Observatory a 19th-century astronomical observatory at Rutgers. The reviewer started the review, I disagreed with some of their hamhanded suggestions, and then they went off for two weeks. If you're able to dedicate a little time to pick it up and bring it through to completion, I'd be much obliged.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 20:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
This greeting goes out to all those I have worked with this year - it has been a pleasure. I enjoyed working with you on so many DYKs this year, and two Good Articles - something that would have been unthinkable for me a year ago. I have to say the highlight for me this year was seeing
Paris, possibly my favourite city in the world, being listed as a GA, something which I think it's safe to say I could not have been done without your help on the article. Hopefully we can work together again in 2014, and I wish you all the best in whatever projects you might have up your sleeve. To another good year!
Gilderien
Chat|
List of good deeds 21:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
| |
Hello Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Hi, wish you a very happy new year. Do comment on this when you find time. — Vensatry (Ping me) 10:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Soham — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.
Gracias for the template and Happy 2014! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Pratyya
(Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.
-- Pratyya (Hello!) 13:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The request for clarification has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Request for clarification (December 2013).
For the Arbitration Committee,
-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Appreciated, thankyou, Happy New Year.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I want to do my first GAN review. Will you show me the ropes? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 19:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Wappocomo (Romney, West Virginia)/GA1! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Done!! I've finished the review and Passed it. Thanks for all your encouragement! Can you walk me through how to wrap this up? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, those steps are done, too. I feel good about the review and understand the process now. The walkaway is that I feel more invested in article quality. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 17:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, dear Doctor! I'm not sure if English novelists of the first half of the 20th century are your thing, but if you care to look in at the peer review of Walpole it will be good to see you. I have raised the question of an info-box there, on which you may have views, and your thoughts on anything else will be gladly received too, as I need hardly say. Tim riley ( talk) 20:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year Tim! Me an opinion on an infobox?... never!! Hehe I'll look within a day or two there's an intergalactic article at FA I've been asked to look at first!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
| |
Hello Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Frze > talk 20:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Thanks for the IMDB tip. As for Beaudine I'll try and have a go at it over the next few weeks along with the other stuff. Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 22:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I have summarised the soundtrack reception into a single digestible para, I'll now tend to the critical reception in the format of Skyfall and lastly the lead section. Soham 04:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Glad to hear it, I thought for a moment you were doing a Prashant!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Blo, I pointed out some issues, can you please take a look at them? Soham 03:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, over to Aymatth..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi DB, can you please share your opinion here?
Happy New Year, 2014 | |
From
Amandajm (
talk) 09:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Bellini began work on a rather large
"Dejeuner sur l'herbe" but having set up the models and commenced the painting, he soon found that he was in no fit state to continue it. |
Hi, the article is currently undergoing a source review. Since it uses a number of books authored by south Indians, I'm a bit confused about the usage of their names in refs. First name should be initials or the actual names? — Vensatry (Ping me) 09:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Surnames should always be first I think. Like Char, N.V.V.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Great example! I formatted all book sources only using this tool yet there seems to be some discrepancies. — Vensatry (Ping me) 11:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, google often messes up the metadata and it should be checked really on world cat to ensure it's correct!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate receiving your thanks for this edit. Your user page is fantastic! Lots of good information in there. -- Jreferee ( talk) 17:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I just remembered, I had come to your talk page requesting your opinion for this section however, I think you might have missed it above. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Eeks I don't know, personally I wouldn't have started the article for another few months as names can change before release.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding your questions about People Magazine, it most certainly is NOT a reliable source at all. Gossip sources like that, Us Weekly, OK! magazine, Star Magazine, Daily Mail, In Touch, More magazine, Perez Hilton, Huffington Post, PopCrush, etc. are known for frequently fabricating information. I highly discourage using those as sources in any article. You'd be much better off with things like Rolling Stone, Forbes, Vanity Fair, Vogue, Billboard, USA Today, Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, and MTV. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 19:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
XXSNUGGUMSXX, I am aware of what we generally consider "reliable" sources. But for a term like "sex symbol" which is generally used more in those sorts of gossipy sources and books than in other more "conservative" sources I hardly think you can denounce a mention in People magazine as such as "not reliable". I'd consider People a more reliable and more neutral source than something like Askmen.com... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, I've often seen sources like the ones I listed describe people as "sexy". Things like People really can't be taken seriously due to frequent fabrications and often poorly supporting their claims, including one's sex appeal. Calling it "reliable" is like saying coyotes are vegetarians. I see how Askmen can be perceived as biased, though. That site is mainly relationship/sex advice, and my guess is that the people they list as having high levels of sex appeal are based on public opinion. Still, avoid using sources like People under any circumstance. Much of what they say is merely marketing. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 20:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I am finishing up on a DYK (never would have been able to without knowing about google books :) ) and I know you don't do DYK anymore, but I wondered if you, or any talk page stalkers could think of a hook, I'm at a bit of a loss. The article is Càrn Eige.-- Gilderien Chat| What I've done 19:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That panorama image bugs me, it looks like the clouds have been labelled rather than mountains!...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes I know Caponer, I've been silently watching its progress and Ammodramus identified something I was also concerned about with the length and concision of the lead, now clearly addressed. Article certainly looks GA standard and Rosie's done a great review and you've done a great job in writing it and answering. A text book example of a productive and satisfactory article and review. Keep up the great work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know Caponer we still don't accept recently passed GAs for DYKs so it wouldn't qualify.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Just stumbled across W.A. & A.C. Churchman. Thought you might enjoy re-lighting this five year-old dog end? Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll look later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beerest 2 talk 18:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
I (Vensatry), hereby award Dr. Blofeld the "Guidance Barnstar" for his constant support and encouragement towards promoting Tiruchirappalli to FA status. — Vensatry (Ping me) 08:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC) |
Hey Blofeld, I have received lot of harassing notes, tweets and post on wikipedia as well as Facebook and Now Twitter. That user is abusing me, threatening me on my talk page and on other social media platforms. I suspect and even confident that user is no one but, one of these hindi film editors, with whom i had fights. Pls, can you help as that IP adress is constantly harassing me and posting abusive messages. Would you give that IP to a checkuser so, at least we can know the country.— Prashant 08:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
If somebody is harassing you off or on wiki, report them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you still working on these? If not, will tidy to remove the redlinks. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I am, yes, but it's been Christmas and New Year. I created a 1924 article the other day and intended continuing this week and I've also invited Lord Cornwallis to help out.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. As you have written a number of articles about athletes and written a lot about Spain, I was wondering if you could assist me in location newspaper sources for Oriol Sellarès Martínez. Thank you. -- LauraHale ( talk) 17:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
He seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ali Mohammad Khilji.
Notifying you due to your prior investigation of related case.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 17:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes Cirt it does look suspicious but I don't think there's much point me commenting there until the checkuser has the results!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't think I've seen any of his, actually. (Including Dr. Strangelove, I'm ashamed to admit.)
I did read 2001: A Space Odyssey, though. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 19:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vanessa:Her Love Story, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Montgomery ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The article Mana Mana Beach Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Stuartyeates (
talk) 13:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The article Givors canal you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Givors canal for comments about the article. Well done! Soham 14:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Congrats on the GA! As for Queally, can you upload a photo to show off her orangutan-colour eyes? LOL -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Perhaps Cate or Kate would oblige me on that one hehe! She really is a great looking woman. Not with the bob haircut though, she looks too much like Kris Jenner then!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld, Gareth E Kegg nominated your article for DYK back in early December. The nomination was reviewed on December 28 and some issues were found; Gareth was notified on his talk page that day, and hasn't done anything to address these issues; the notification was archived last Friday. As a courtesy, I'm letting you know that the nomination exists, and is likely to be closed if no action is taken.
Do you want to follow up on the nomination? Please let me know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Blofeld. In Mullum Malarum, there is a reliable source that gives an English translated review (unofficial though) of Ananda Vikatan's Tamil review of the film (ref 22). Are translated reviews allowed on Wiki, regardless of how official they are? Kailash29792 ( talk) 07:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course, provided that it is what we'd consider a reliable source and not a blog.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Happy New Year, and great work on the Dorchester article. I've added a bit, but have also queried the use of the logo at the top of the page on the Talk page. Perhaps you might have a view on this? Ericoides ( talk) 11:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's an awesome page. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 22:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Dr. Blofeld. I noticed that you have written many articles about Danish composers, and also that you have reviewed some classical music related articles for GA. I have expanded the article about Frederik Magle and nominated it for GA, and I was wondering if perhaps you would be interested in reviewing it? I would be very grateful. With kind regards, -- Danmuz ( talk) 13:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Good work User:Danmuz, but I'm afraid in looking at it I might be too critical of it so I'll have to pass. I'm not convinced it is a sound enough biographical account at the moment for GA myself, 2000-present doesn't really seem that well covered, but don't let that deter you..♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Moved it. Looks like a cool place. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 02:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I started work on vedettes yesterday; trying to increase the number of women's biographies on wikipedia and all that. They are an interesting group! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 04:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure, will work on some of those Argentine movies; maybe in conjunction with the vedettes or maybe after. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 02:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I looked at es:Categoría:Películas de la Argentina and there are a lot of films on the es wiki without an en wiki presence! Not all of them have references but some do. Need to find a good online gbook with Argentine film/director/actor names. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, put it that way (..."systematic bias covering old Argentine movies...") and I'm in! LOL. On top of that, I looked at the category 'films by director' and --as usual-- women are so under-represented. Will look at all this again after I get home from work tonight. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 21:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
On 14 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moten Swing, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1932 jazz standard " Moten Swing" was an important development in the move towards a freer form of orchestral jazz and the development of swing music? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moten Swing. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 16:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey Doc, I have an FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blue's Clues/archive4) up currently, but I'm afraid that it will fail because nobody's reviewing it. I dunno if it's me, but that happens a lot! :) Would you mind taking the time to look at it? Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Torchy Blane in Chinatown, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tom Kennedy and Howard Jackson ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
By director made it easy. Nice template and the added images really make a difference! I moved the articles with the second word in caps. Gotta run now but I'll look at adding cast, etc. after work. If there are other PD posters/pics can you upload them? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I took the article to FAC twice, in 2008 and 2012. The first attempt failed through a number of assorted minor issues, such as an image that took an age to clear through OTRS. The second FAC didn't get much traffic, and while no-one opposed it, it only gained one support in its month on the FAC page. I've barely been on-wiki in the past few months, but I'd gladly take on board any suggestions you have to improve the article further. Oldelpaso ( talk) 19:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Good Dr, I was just admiring your edits to the Benjamin Ogle Tayloe House in D.C., and I was wondering if you would be able to quickly review Valley View (Romney, West Virginia) and provide any edits or suggestions. I've nominated it for GA review, and while it hasn't yet been selected, I wanted to continue to refine it in the meantime. Any guidance you could provide would be of the greatest help! Thanks again! -- Caponer ( talk) 01:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Muhammad Boudiaf.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your request for an expansion of Akademisk Forlag, I'd better move the reply from my talk page here: "It is a subsidiary of Lindhardt og Ringhof (part of Egmont Group) so I think it is best covered there since very little information seems to be available. I therefore propose that you create that article instead and I will try to expand it.[[".
Another thing, now that I am disturbing you anyway: I would like to start transferring the lists of Listed buildings in Denmark (by municipality) that are found on Danish Wikipedia to English Wikipedia – little by little, when a reasonably high number of listed buildings in that municipality are covered. As an example see this sandbox "dummy" with listed buildings in Roskilde Municipality (note that it is only half-finished). However, I am uncertain if this is the right way to do it. Compare the Danish version which uses a template-based approach. So my question is: Is it okay to create the lists the way I started it or is there a better way to do so which whould be preferred (such as with templates)? Ramblersen ( talk) 16:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
How dare you! The project has been completed... all we have left is to delete the cruft. PhnomPencil ( talk) 20:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC) (Cambodia)
Thank you! Yoninah ( talk) 16:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I baked four cupcakes and this one is yours for being such a positive GA mentor, with thanks for sorting things out. Rosiestep ( talk) 19:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC) |
Just to let you know that Sammyjankis has started the GA nomination for Christopher Nolan. Cheers, have a nice day! -- Loeba (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dr B. Sorry, didn't see your post earlier - it got buried by people being dicks. Yes, will look at these if I get time. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your wonderful barnstar i love it! Nice to know that someone appreciates my work! Cheers! Bine Mai 22:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Dr. Blofeld! If you remember, I promised to help you find some information on the city of Chust. Here's what I've found:
Source: the Uzbek Soviet Encyclopedia. (Zufarov, Komiljon, ed (1979). "Chust". Oʻzbek sovet ensiklopediyasi. Volume 12. Toshkent. Pages 593-594)
I hope this helps. Nataev ( talk) 11:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's some more information:
Source: the National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan. (2000-2005. Murodilla Haydarov (author). "Chust". Oʻzbekiston milliy ensiklopediyasi. Toshkent)
Let me know if you have any questions. Nataev ( talk) 11:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That looks promising @ Nataev:, go ahead and add what you can and I'll try to add more!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed a talk page discussion a while ago you had with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz about him constantly calling reliable sources gossip and deleting references based off his opinion of "gossipy". There is an issue with several editors (I'm thinking sockpuppets) with the Bradley Cooper and Suki Waterhouse articles. I tried adding to their personal lives with 3 reliable sources but near edit warred with these editors all calling it "gossipy" and deleting it. Wondering if you could weigh in on this. Thanks. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to it. Yes Hullaballoo is obsessed with removing all personal life info which isn't a marriage and he's wrong to do so, especially if it's a long term relationship. You wouldn't remove mention of Goldie Hawn as gossip in Kurt Russell's article for instance... I'll look in later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld, I assure you, the edit you thanked me for was made while the article was still in its infancy within my user space :) -- Caponer ( talk) 22:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
When I click the thank button, it's rarely for one specific edit, it is intended as a thanks for creating the article. I do it all the time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. Can you do me a favor and make sure I took care of everything with this one? It's the first time I reviewed a GAN and failed the article. Thanks. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Rosiestep: Absolutely fine. You might though post some suggestions at the nominator to improve like, eh, actually provide some information about the films...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Yup, left message on Lem's talkpage. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean about Mogadishu. Cleaning up the refs, though, isn't off-putting to me so I'll try and work on them before the weekend. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for rolling up your sleeves and helping with the reorganisation of this article. I think there's a good structure in place now that can be built on. Eric Corbett 18:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I've got a couple more sources on the way, and I think this could be turned into a very plausible GA candidate. What do you think? Eric Corbett 22:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for taking the initiative and your copyediting yesterday. I was wondering whether to get her biography or not, the 1992 version is 79p on Amazon. The autobiography from her daughter might also provide some valuable information. I think though that there should be enough sources online to make it a worthy GA candidate. Blyton is one of the world's most popular authors and I think it would certainly be worth doing do.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I loved her books as a kid, especially The Famous Five. My sister and I used to get quite excited about collecting all 21 books. For some reason it's the Finniston farm and the spoiled little American brat Junior which most sticks in my mind. I also had all 38 I think it was of the Just William books. It's funny that in the 1950s and 1960s she was heavily criticized for infecting children's literary diets, these days I'm sure most teachers and parents would be glad if their kids read a single book... It would be good if at some stage one of us could get hold of some biographies but I certainly think we can find enough to make it a GA anyway. I wonder if Tim riley or Brian Boulton would be interested in helping.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, sounds promising. That autobiography from her daughter Imogen I think would also be of much value and probably has quite a few interesting anecdotes and quotes. I'll do the best I can in the meantime, once you get the books I think some of the society and ODNB sources could be replaced to balance the sources out a bit but it's a start.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I took a look earlier to see how it was, what a piece of shit. Almost entirely about her criticism and personal life and nothing about her work except a short list. Embarrassing that an author of her status took 13 years to start to be written on wikipedia... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for a very comprehensive GA review. Do let me know when you need anything reviewed--I hope I can do as good a job reviewing your work as you've done with mine--I'm proud of where the article is at after the work that's been put into it with the help of your attention and ideas, as well as the assistance offered by Eric Corbett. In the next few months, I'm going to get NBTS read for FAC (I have a few articles in queue for FAC), so I started a peer review to give a few ideas on what could bring the article up to FA quality. I think after our GA review collaboration, it's most of the way there, but if you have some additional thoughts, the peer review is located here: Wikipedia:Peer review/New Brunswick Theological Seminary/archive1. I appreciate all your help.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 20:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
So it turns out you were creating Gibraltar-related content two years before anyone had even thought of Gibraltarpedia... Brilliant! Hope you're doing well. -- Gibmetal 77 talk 2 me 12:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Gibmetal77: Yes, I know! What's happening with Gibraltarpedia at the moment? Activity from Victuallers seems to have died down. What's the current situation with the tags on buildings? I might create a few articles later in the week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Yuck, looks like you should just wipe the slate clean and start from scratch. Can't say politicians really grab my interest I'm afraid.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Copenhagen is now GA. Thanks for your help. Coverage of Danish cities is really progressing.-- Ipigott ( talk) 14:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Another core article and capital city passes. You put a great deal of outstanding work into it!! What next, Esjberg?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I have a few articles to get through first though, go ahead and start on Esbjerg!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
AWB's fine. I haven't used it in a while just because I've been slowing down a bit. I'll take a look at those Ghanaian things and see what can be done. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 03:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC) OK - that amount of substitution looks like it might be beyond AWB's purview. I can think of a way to do it, but it'll require a lot more time than I have now. Perhaps I'll take a look at it again this weekend and see if I can't come up with something. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 06:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I don't mean to keep crying to you for assistance lol but since the situation seemed eerily similar to the one on Bradley Coopers page, I was wondering if you wouldnt mind giving your two cents at Nicholas Hoults talk page where an IP user basically says even reliable sources are gossip until it comes from the persons own mouth. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
You can cry to me Lady Lotus, I have plenty of tissues LOL!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if I can interest you in a peer review of the article on Ralph Richardson? Quite understand if not, and there is absolutely no hurry at all even if you are interested. If you do look in, please run an eye over the short list of questions at the top of the peer review page, on which I'd be grateful for colleagues' thoughts. – Tim riley ( talk) 20:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Can't believe how many countries don't have the breakdown. I'll try to work on them after the weekend. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 05:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
We can use Category:Geography by country as a go-by. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You're receiving this message because you are a major contributor to {{ Infobox dam}}. You opinion on this cleanup proposal is very much appreciated. Best regards, Reh man 14:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I used to be a WP editor many years ago. ;) Shahid • Talk2me 15:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
My priority is going to be Enid Blyton. Eric Corbett 19:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes I think it's important to get a good structure in place to build on which we now just about have with Blyton. Hopefully you can find more in those biographies to add some flesh to the prose and build on what I've started. I have already written a bit about the Noddy pantomime and her illness. I'm not convinced that Audie Murphy would be ready for FA even after the rough editing, I hope Maile doesn't see this urgent need to promote it asap as given time I think we can improve it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah there's something wrong with it isn't it, it should be wikipedia paying us to write and pay for the books we need in doing so!! I hope at some stage they'll at least start funding a scheme for wikipedians and give them something towards the books that they need to improve articles. I'm aware that some of the chapters have something but it's hardly on the scale and as easy to access and request as it should be. Hopefully you can replace some of the society sources, way too many citations to it, but it was really needed to set it in the right direction and draw up the "bones".. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not willing to edit it if people like that turn up and try to impede progress! He's at least reverted himself now though anyway. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Dr. Blofeld. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Colin Welch, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ColonelHenry ( talk) 04:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
You recently improved my mood considerably by approving a beloved piece of music to GA. I was bold and requested Peer review/Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172. You know the article best ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's rather good. I'm not an expert though in classical music article for FA though, perhaps Voc and Kleinzach would be of more use to you at the review!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thx for reminding me – I've been distracted by Brighton and Hove stuff recently! I will have some time this week to make pre-FAC improvements. I'll let you know when I've got as far as I can. Cheers, Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Blo, can you please tweak this article for prose and MOS? I am having a hard-time because of time constraints. You'll get more info at Talk:Tooh (song)/GA1. Thanks. Soham 09:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Honestly mate I've got too many articles needing sorting out right now to give this my full attention. I'm trying to keep things as simple as possible as the moment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I took the time to expand the article. I think it looks a lot better now. Nataev ( talk) 11:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, in a notable people section.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Please have a look at WP:CWW, relative to this edit; I've corrected it by adding the Copied template to the article talk page. [13] I also would encourage you in the future to engage the article talk page before undertaking such large changes; the article was being worked on for FAC readiness, and another article was on the main page, and few of the article's talk page watchers had any way of knowing what you had set about to do. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
@ SandyGeorgia: I'm afraid to say that you're wrong on this, see User talk:Eric Corbett#FYI and Talk:Audie Murphy. Eric and I had actually extensively discussed it with the article creator before I moved it, and the intention was to balance out the article as Eric and I agreed it wasn't even close to FA. We advised him against FAC, I'm surprised that you would think it was near future candidate. I had intended working on the article and balancing it out until I was disrupted, and your further response here has proved to me that I've done the right thing in staying away from it. For the record I strongly disagree with Maile's entire cutting of the section, and if you search the history you'll see I didn't do that, my intention was to cut it down and build a film career in balance. There is no rule against splitting a very long section of an article and then working away at whittling it down to a more manageable size and that was my intention.. I'm sorry I even took a look at it now, I really am... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Eric, Maile66 is well-intentioned but inexperienced, I have watched for months as he has tried his hardest and kept good cheer no matter what has happened in there, and every Tom, Dick and Harry (including quite a few less than competent writers and several outright disruptive editors) have made that article slow going. I suggested, Eric, that he might bring you in only now because I've observed over more than a few months now that the disruptive forces seem to have disappeared, and hoped you could help him make some progress ... I did not suggest the article was ready, as I lodged quite a few comments about problems that needed to be addressed on talk. Anyway, if you're interested, let's continue please on article talk; I made it clear to Maile66 that I think you're the only one now who can help guide him on that article, and I do admire how hard and for how long he has kept trying, and been much nicer in the process than most of us would be. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
My intention was to do a little trimming and then add the film career and trim that down a bit and balance it out. Then the work on copyediting and proper preparation work for FAC could begin. Until that happens it's never going to pass FAC. I could get what needs to be done within a few hours, but if I'm going to be scolded for things like this I'm staying well away from it. Perhaps if you ask anybody in future about it Maile you might say that there might be people objecting to what they do. I don't know, common sense warned me to stay away from it, and it was right... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Dr. B - great re-ordering. Looks excellent. Now hurry it on to Tim at GA before some copyright wallah queries my use of the Survey of London plans and elevations. They add greatly to the article, but I'm sure they're not pukkah! All the very best. KJP1 ( talk) 23:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
@ KJP1:. Tomorrow I'll take one last look for any possible scraps before nomming don't worry!! Lead also needs a bit of work to summarize the article which I'll sort out. Cardiff Castle next right :-] ? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes I think Castell Coch up to GA first would be good. Can Cardiff Castle be improved further to you think? An FA on it of course would be a great achievement, and I was born of course within a half a mile of it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Will try getting all I can and posting them here. We hope ( talk) 19:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Mat ty. 007 19:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I've opened a review page and left some informal comments you may like to look at before I wade into the formal review after the weekend. Tim riley ( talk) 22:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
To receive a barnstar from you is a real honor! When I was getting the old photos of the north and south sides, I was struck by how little the south side has changed in so many years. Not long ago, I went back to where I grew up via Google Street View and at first, had a hard time realizing where I was because so many of the homes on the street have changed so much. Please feel free to call on me at any time if you think I can help. Thanks again! We hope ( talk) 22:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
"29. Tower House, Melbury Road, plans. Redrawn by F. A. Evans from plans in the possession of the R.I.B.A. 146
30. Tower House, Melbury Road, elevations and sections. Redrawn by F. A. Evans from plans in the possession of the R.I.B.A 147"
Hey, thanks! I'll split all the chinese films by year then maybe will expand on the older films. As for the older films in the 1950s, I don't think there is a official list of films that I could find. Stormedelf ( talk) 08:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)