User talk:Midnightblueowl/Archive 3#Precious

File:中國工農紅軍軍旗.svg

Hello and nice to meet you. Regarding of the national flag of the Chinese Soviet Republic, I doubt the historical accuracy of the hammer and axe flag. This has been a long discussion about the flag until we found the official source from the website of CCP. The law in 1934 and more information can be seen at commons:File talk:National_Flag_of_Chinese_Soviet_Republic.svg. The image is based on [http://www.xztc.edu.cn/mzd/photo/tu/191311.jpg]. Basically the previous flag is based on the army flag of Chinese Worker and Peasants' Red Army, which the designation of military unit usually wrote on the left in a white stripe. It's a tradition for Chinese Army to write there unit names on flags like that (the NRA also kept this tradition), but it is unusual to use it on a national flag.

-- Ericmetro (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

: Thank you! Sorry that I forget to mention the article with the flag. : ) I suggest we could use :File:中國工農紅軍軍旗.svg (with the description of "Flag of the Chinese Worker and Peasants Red Army"). Actually because of the short-lived history of Chinese Soviet Republic, the CSR flag was little known among Chinese people. However the Chinese Red Army flag is frequently seen in art works about Mao in China ([http://a2.att.hudong.com/87/72/01300000358882123960726987885.jpg][http://www.tianzhilou.com/whg/zthc/ypzz/img/attachement/jpg/site42/2010-06-10/6291920504872779978.jpg][http://yuanli.scnu.edu.cn/Data/%E7%AC%AC%E5%85%AD%E7%AB%A0/2/%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%87/P0602001%20%E9%80%9A%E5%BE%80%E7%A4%BE%E4%BC%9A%E4%B8%BB%E4%B9%89%E9%81%93%E8%B7%AF%E7%9A%84%E8%89%B0%E8%BE%9B%EF%BC%9A%E7%A7%8B%E6%94%B6%E8%B5%B7%E4%B9%89.jpg]), maybe that flag fits better. --Ericmetro (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

::First I would thank you for your contribution in the article! :) Yes most art work about Mao with the Red Army flag are about the Nanchang and Autumn Harvest Uprisings in 1927 or the Long March, I agree with you that it could be better used in other sections.

::Well, actually the hammer and axe flag seems to be a little bit fictitious, as we can hardly find any source for the flag. In my opinion the creator of the flag might have seen art works about CSR with the red army flag, and took it as the national flag of CSR, but its design was based on the Red Army flag and the white stripes is usually the location where army unit write its name. As we have official document in 1934 about the flag with globe so I guess we'd better use that flag if we have to.

::However maybe we can use the historical photo of Mao in CSR period: [http://www.xztc.edu.cn/mzd/photo/tu/191311.jpg]? This image is definitely in Public Domain and can be uploaded to Commons if we'd like to. The origional description can be seen here: [http://www.xztc.edu.cn/mzd/photo/mxiangp.htm], translated as "Mao Zedong in Chinese Soviet Republic in 1933". --Ericmetro (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:::By the way, I'm not sure if the Red Army flag is still used in the Chinese civil war in 1947. The Chinese red army is dissolved on 25th, Aug. 1937 with the new name Eighth Route Army and New Fourth Army and it seems there's no flag for communist army during Chinese civil war until late 1948 (Source: [http://news.xinhuanet.com/theory/2007-07/25/content_6426024.htm]). --Ericmetro (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

::::Thank you! Then I think we will use the Chinese Red Army flag instead. Well may I know if you think it fits better in the "The Nanchang and Autumn Harvest Uprisings" section? That section seems mentioned red army mostly and the flag seems to be commonly known being used in that period. Best wishes --Ericmetro (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

::::Well to my knowledge it seems the soviet zones at that period don't have their own flag. The red army flag is viewed related to the early uprising and long march in China. There's also another CSR army flag (:File:Chinese Soviet Republic flag4.jpg), found in the same document in 1934, although it can be seen in some paintings ([http://www.lqezb.gov.cn/ewebeditor/uploadfile/20110514081923984.jpg]), but [http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2007-07/18/xinsrc_5420704180959718269149.jpg] is more common.

::::Therefore my suggestion is maybe we can use the flag in the uprising section. Move "Mao in 1931" in where the Jiangxi Soviet flag was and find a better image depicts the Long March.--Ericmetro (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

For the GA review, much appreciated :) Mark Arsten (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

{{talkback|Talk:Margaret McKenna/GA1|ts=01:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)}}

Guerillero | My Talk 01:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I started looking over it and I think the version looks good so far. I'm really excited by the work you've done and to see this one coming together. My attention span is for @#(*#@ today, unfortunately, thanks to a sinus infection, so I apologize that my edits are jumping all over the page.

One thing that I'd be interested to do is reduce some of the miscellaneous material in the second half of the article: the list of television shows that mention NM, the lengthy detail about a few benefit concerts on his behalf, etc. Some sections on controversies like Lockerbie and the Blood Diamond movie also seem a little long compared to the more significant events of NM's life (surely he made more significant speeches during his presidency than the one about the Lockerbie bomber.) The Ayob controversy also seems to me to get undue space in the article (half as much as his presidency), as does the close accounting of recent health scares. So I'm hoping to come at this one with a knife in the next few days, but don't worry, I won't go too crazy, and I'll keep a record of my work on the talk page so it can be easily reverted if you or others disagree.

Thanks again for your work on this one, and for getting me moving on it, too... Khazar2 (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

:Okay, I've been taking the knife to the fatty second half of the article and have succeeded in cutting 8kb so far of the article's original 75kb. I'd love to get this down to about 60kb total if that's possible; that's still slightly over what WP:PAGESIZE recommends, but Mandela's a giant figure who deserves some leeway. If you disagree with any of my cuts, though, I won't be at all offended if you revert me.

:I also have been gradually reviewing your improvement of the early sections, and it looks to me like excellent work. Thanks so much for taking on the research on this one.

:My next goals for the article are to replace the remaining dead links (not strictly necessary for GA, but something a lot of reviewers balk at) and to cut down the Ismail Ayob section down to a reasonable size. I'll keep you posted... -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

::I'm going to spend some time today and tomorrow archiving the article's many citations. Feel free still to cut any you like, though; I'm just doing them all at the same time rather than evaluating each individually. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. At Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Magdalene_laundries you gave a neutral !vote, pending a shortening of the blurb. I have suggested a shorter version.

Cheers,

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I am also candidating at WP:GAN (Utsuro-bune) and I saw your article there. If you like, I gonna proof-read your article. My own one needs a review, too. What do you think? Regards; --Nephiliskos (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

:Thank you so much for help! Today I finally got enough time to proof-read your article (vacation day, wohoo!^^). Any upcoming question will be set here, if that's ok. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)PS: Some things can be found here.

I may try and get to it this week, but this weekend I'll be out of town. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Alright. Just a quick comment though, I'm worried that there are too many sections for the overall length of the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. About section 2b: You are right, the yajikita-page is not that good, so I deleted it. The other sources cover the informations likewise well. About the first section: since I'm German, my English is certainly not perfect enough for the best academic pronouncements. Would you mind if you could sweep over? Meanwhile I will evaluate your article. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Midnightblueowl, there's a discussion about the title of the above article and as you made the last move I thought you might like to voice your opinion. Nev1 (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I was doing some copyediting at Tintin in the Land of the Soviets, and I noticed it employed an unusual citation style. Since you're using {{tl|cite book}} already, might a suggest converting the inline cites to {{tl|sfn}}? {{sfn|Thompson|1991|p=24}} accomplishes the same thing as Thompson 1991. p. 24. while requiring less typing, causing less clutter, maintaining greater consistency, and is less prone to human error. I'd change them myself, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes—some people take offence at changes to citation style. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Many Crowley pics are being put up for deletion, and hopefully you can lend a hand in explaining why they should be kept. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aleister_Crowley,_old_and_with_pipe.jpg#File:Aleister_Crowley.2C_old_and_with_pipe.jpg here is the discussion.]. Please alert anyone else who may have information about this, or may have an interest in the conversation. And the Crowley page itself seems to be under nobody's supervision or close watch, although I haven't gone into detail on it. And I hope things go well for you and yours. Thanks! Aleister Wilson 10:23 27 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Farm-Fresh eye.png You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Contemporary Paganism#Moved without discussion. {{#if:Your input would be very much appreciated.|Your input would be very much appreciated.}} —Sowlos 23:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neo-pagans. Since you had some involvement with the Neo-pagans redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —Sowlos 13:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As you reviewed the article (that I wrote for the most part), I would be grateful if you could give me more specific advice on how to improve the problems of content and presentation you found in the lead and in the text.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

:Thank you for your kind reply. I must say I read the article review before contacting you. The problems for me are: 1. the structure of the lead, as the article is complex and the content fragmented. 2. The issue of format, as I am not familiar with its use in WK. I understand it means something like the language style and the lay out or presentation of material. As far as Janus is concerned the info is classic scholarship and I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to write something in the format of Etymology of Wicca.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

::Thanks for your reply. I already made some improvements to format and expanded lead somewhat.Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

{{talkback|Sowlos|Talk:Etymology of Wicca#Scholar X said.2C asserted.2C noted|ts=22:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)}}

 —Sowlos  22:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Funny thing: I was planning on sending some wikilove your way for all the effort you put into improving Paganism articles. I don't want you to get the wrong impression. v_v My post at Talk:Etymology of Wicca was only directed at covering all the angles of that one issue.

As for the article, I hope to convert those three web citations to ISBNed counterparts soon. They're good sources but, but user-friendly webpages are volatile resources.  —Sowlos  02:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I have no Knowledge or expertise in this area whatsoever but in the Thembu article it says 'In the ethnic theory underpinning apartheid, the Transkei was regarded as the "homeland" of the Xhosa people. As a result, the Thembu people are often misidentified as being Xhosa.' Unibond (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks for getting back to me :-) Unibond (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

i pefereered and even more strongly prefer the aricle to be *less* anti-fidel. For sources for critique, which I do not want to pursue, and reasons why, see my latest entry in link in title of this.

regards.

Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

the title says it all. chill, man! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I just want to point out that it's quality, not quantity, of edits that determines whether they should be reverted. Did Prhartcom or my own edits degrade the article in any way? Were they any any way controversial? If not, then reverting them en masse is completely out of line. It is not required to discuss such changes on the talk page unless they are potentially controversial. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

:I really doubt that moving the plot synopsis to the first paragraph is against Wikipedia "ethos" or guidelines—a quick look through a number of literature and theatre FAs shows any number of examples of just that. If you do have a problem with it, maybe the three of us should discuss it on the article's talk page. Most of the changes that were reverted, however, were technical ones (like {{tl|lang}} templates and infobox parameters)—reverting them clearly degrades the article. Prhartcom has been following along with changes I was making to the leads of Tintin articles recently along the lines of what I thought readers would be most expecting, and what would be easiest to understand to the largest audience, which is why I chose to use phrasing like "Xth volume of" rather than "Xth comics album of" ("volume is instantly understandable; "comics album" is insider jargon, and could mean a number of things to an outsider). Similarly, the details of serialization are unlikely to be of prime interest to most readers, which is why I chose to boot them to the second paragraph (especially since serialization never happened in English; it makes that detail remote from English readers, who are, after all, the readers of this article).

:Anyways, I hope we can solve this in a way that ends up benefiting the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

::Good day to you, Midnightblueowl, hope you are well! I extend an olive branch, and I wanted you to know I made some minor fixes to this article, that you may have already noticed. I believe this article is truly in excellent shape! As well, I am wondering if you are interested in getting any other Tintin articles to GA? You have the experience. If so, feel free to lead on, I will follow. —Prhartcom (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

:::I saw your reply, good to hear from you! I do not have the experience that you have getting articles to GA, but I believe I have the ability to get it done. I am mostly a copyeditor, a data organizer, a researcher, and sometimes a writer. Please do make any suggestions or delegations to me on where to start in the Tintin articles getting the next one to GA or pass along your thoughts anytime. —Prhartcom (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

::::Just a quick apology, Midnightblueowl, for referring to you (and Curly Turkey) as "gentlemen"! —Prhartcom (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

:::::One more quick word: THANKS for the Half-Barnstar! Only the second star I have ever received. —Prhartcom (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate!

Posted header sentence - with link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Midnightblueowl - on my facebook page [lqac waz - for historical resons - I have my real name declared there - laqc waz= Manoj Pandey [me] w vowels dropped; reversed and rot13ed...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk • contribs) 16:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

to remove this section while moving the image? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Mandela&curid=21492751&diff=548136773&oldid=548136389] Don't have much time to look at it now, but wanted to make sure it was on purpose. Thanks for continuing work on this one! I'm getting really excited about taking it to GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

:Cool. I was just confused by the edit summary and wanted to make sure those paragraphs hadn't dropped out on accident. Looking more closely, though, I see that you covered the same material above. Keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

quoting from my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manojpandeyanarchocommunist :

"Actually what I say clumsily below was said wonderfully by user:midnightblueowl - in fact thats my favourite quote now re wikipedia! hell, one of my favourite quotes on anything!

" 'Ah, but there's that pesky U.S.-centrism of Wikipedia peeping through again :p....'

- by Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)'

" [this was in talk:fidel last week but cant find it now so posting from offline copy...]"

cheers, comrade!:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk • contribs) 21:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

love the way you so subtly make your point: tht's why I downloaded a text copy off the fidel talkpage last week!

:) ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've been reviewing Luo Yigu and there are a couple of points to clarify, please. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks for responding so promptly on the GAN. I think all images must have a US PD license included. The Mao Zedong image seems to have acquired some odd license templates since I looked at it earlier? Will you manage a slight re-wording to the section I highlighted (when I've looked at it again I don't necessarily think my suggestion works either). SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

:{{like}} -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

...seems about ready for nomination, IMHO. What do you think? I did some tweaking throughout; nothing serious, but feel free to revert what you disagree with. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I made the following changes:

1. Expanded lead (with help of user Cynwolf).

2. Reformatted text where possible.

3. Deleted not strictly relevant material and partly rewritten paragraph "Origin, history and legends".

When you have the time, could you please have a glance?Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

:Thank you for your reply. While I understand your comments I feel the article is ok as it is.

:You say the introduction is not detailed enough, unfortunately fail to explain what you think is not highlighted there...

:On the rest well, if a reader has difficulty in understanding the language of/in the instances you have made, then: 1. he probably will never read this article, 2. nor can what I have to say attract his interest in any way.

:As for the name of scholars, I do not get what you mean: it is obvious that Roman religion is a highly specialistic topic, such as Wicca is hehe, and an editor of WK is supposed/requested to use scholarship. Everyone who is interested in Roman religion knows that Capdeville is no obscure scholar, ordinary professor at the Sorbonne for many years. I can append his curriculum (and that of other cited scholars) if this is what you think would be needed/appropriate.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

:Moreover I feel there will always be someone who will come along finding ever new things that are not to his taste and therefore will demote the article with the excuse that it does not comply with one or other WK rule... I will not fall into the trap of running after them.Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

::I object to your absurd, rude expostulations. I edit WK in good faith and to the best of my ability. My English is only proficient at the level shown in my articles. Remember I am no native speaker of English. But it looks many readers here appreciate the job I do: see the high marks in the previous boxes and the many Bs. Janus has also been partly copied by the Latin WK. Then if somebody wishes to revise the language in order to make it clearer and more brilliant according to current British or American literary tastes he is welcome as far as he can do the job without altering the meaning in any way.

::On the other hand I must say I find the instances you mentioned not at all commendable as far as clarity and brilliancy are concerned: I find them long winded, repetitive and confusing. Neither did I find that they give detailed info about the authority of their sources. After reading three times Etymology of Wicca I am still left wondering whether this article deals with a linguistic issue or the history of an Angloamerican modern sect of witches. Well not a very high achievement,... maybe I cannot understand what I read though...or the subject does not interest me enough... But they have been received well by those who decide and this is fine to me as long as nobody asks me to endorse those marks. I could find faults in many articles rated FA or GA about Roman and religious topics and have them demoted with a few remarks, but this not my style, I mind my own business as long as others laeve me alone.Aldrasto11 (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

:::Look, there is no reason to be nasty to Midnightblueowl, who has been nothing but helpful and courteous. If the prose isn't clear, then editors may not be able to discern the intended meaning in order to render it clearly. Collaborative editing requires patience and the willingness to discuss and to understand why other editors may not see what you're saying or have other perspectives on the material. An article has to be accessible to the general reader who will come to it. These readers will include high school and young college students who have no background knowledge in the topic at all. Wikipedia is not, nor is it intended to be, a resource for scholars. A person who knows the topic should be able to read and understand an article readily; if not, the general reader learning about the subject for the first time will be utterly lost. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

::::Well I supposed this is the place where I can come to talk to Midnightblueowl but after finding a comment on my talk page left by Cynwolfe on the issue, here is another!!!

::::Apologies accepted and me I indeed wish to apologize to Midnightblueowl too, for answering a bit too strongly. I understand WK has rules, but one cannot rule people to write in a way or at a level beyond their own ability. This sounded a bit too much for me and also the last remark: why editing WK then? I will try to comply whenver and wherever I can with the suggestions but I wonder whether I have enough energy to do this job. Because as I wrote here above my fear is that it will become a never ending game: I correct one item and then another comes up: I changed the objected to "fall into three categories" and then came the objection to "with the subtraction of the H": please tell me: how else can I express this same fact? This topic is specialistic and cannot be simplified further, other just resort to omission. Look at the article on the Laryngeal theory. It is well written and simplified to the utmost but many people keep lamenting it is too difficult to understand. If one wishes to write something precise and correct one cannot help saying certain things and some people will find all incomprehensible. However I encourage other editors to make precise and detailed claims and suggestions on what they find not understandable in my contributions as far as this is done with respect for my work and it is reasonable. E. g. some of the claims above I find not reasonable, as that on the subtraction of the H, that is very simple and clear in my view. But what I fear is that if one has a problem here, what then on the analysis of the Carmen Saliare? And so and so on...Thank you for reading me and I wish to convey my sincere regret about being too susceptible.Aldrasto11 (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

:::::I do agree with you WK is aimed at a non specialistic public. I think it has discharged its task well and me too I learnt many things through it which other probably would never had known. I took part to this project for personal pleasure but also to put to use some of my abilities and knowledge about the topics I like and on which I have some knowledge about for my education and interest, heritage etc. When I started noticed the articles on ancient Roman religion and related issues in Roman civilization were very lacking. So I contribute on this topic with which I was relatively familiar and informed. Then the task spurred me to read more and learn more. I think now I am able to discern many problems far more clearly. I edited articles on many Roman gods and started the Glossary of ancient Roman religion. I also expanded the articles on the most ancient Latin and Italic monuments: Duenos i., Lapis Niger, Iguvine Tablets. When editing I always keep in mind the principle of giving the reader the opportunity of getting the broadest and most direct as well as most comprehensive knowledge of the topic. In a word to get in touch with the mind and beliefs of the ancient directly. So I do appreciate the importance of conveying the information correctly and accessibly through appropriate use of language. Unfortunately as a foreign speaker of English, as I said on Cynwolfe talkpage already, I cannot muster English style: what I find perfectly clear and clean in my own prose may sound odd, hard to understand or stilted to a native speaker. Even though I have no difficulty in reading English I have difficulty in seeing what is wrong in my own English. My teachers of English told me mastership of style and register is the most difficult thing to acquire for a student...

:::::Things being so I encourage whoever wishes to help to point out explicitly and clearly all the points which are unclear or not well expressed in my contributions, why they think are not well expressed, why they find they cannot understand them and perhaps what would be a better way of expressing them. But preferably one paragraph at a time and once and for all: i.e. when one paragraph is addressed do this comprehensively, avoid coming back later with another new objection on something else previously not noticed other it will get paranoid...Thank you for the attention.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, Your move of the actress from Catherine Bell to Catherine Bell (actress), and creation of a dab page at Catherine Bell, has left a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Catherine_Bell large number of links] (100-250, though some are to talk pages etc and can be ignored) pointing to the disambiguation page, ie broken.

Are you sure that the academic is sufficiently likely to be searched for that the actress is not appropriate as the primary topic? If you are sure of this, then you are responsible for updating those incoming links (as is explained on the message displayed while you did the move). Please fix them - or alternatively move the disambiguation page to Catherine Bell (disambiguation) and revert the actress to the base name. Thanks. PamD 21:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you deleted the {{tl|PROD}} tag on the Evelyn Mase page. It appears you are an experienced editor, so I am trying to assume some good faith here, but I was really shocked when it appears that you simply deleted the tag without discussion, and amid voiced concerns from at least two other edits, including Ukexpat who is a long time respected editor as well. It appears you have a bit of a conflict, in so much that you created this article and over at the AFD assume sort of an ownership-type approach to this. While it is appropriate and acceptable for any editor to remove the tag once they believe they have fixed the article, to go about and simply remove the tag without first editing the page, as well as not discuss the concerns with the editors, the mention at the helpdesk, or on the article talk page appears to be bad form.

For now, there is a AFD which you are aware of and we'll let that process that its course. But I wanted to voice my concern that it appeared your actions were in bad-faith, and had you not been such as positive, long standing contributor, I would have assumed some form of vandalism... But clearly you are a constructive addition to the community... Yet, I couldn't just observe this situation and not bring it to your attention. Take care. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

:That's an absolutely incorrect reading of WP:PROD. Your lecture would be better directed to the editor who mistakenly PRODed this in the first place: "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion... PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected". For a quality article created by an experienced user, obviously opposition is expected, and adding a PROD is silly and insulting. No editing of the page is required to remove the PROD, either. AfD would have been the correct course in a case like this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

::I must apologise if I ever gave the impression of editing in bad faith, Tiggerjay. I had gone to some trouble to starting a page using good, solid references, for an individual who – to my mind – was quite clearly historically notable. This was a continuation of my extensive work over at the Nelson Mandela page. I was therefore astonished to see a {{tl|PROD}} tag placed on there so soon after its creation, before I had even had a chance to built it up. As was permitted by the information contained within that tag, I deleted it and explained my reasoning. To then find it had been taken to AfD within a matter of hours of my deletion shocked me more; I appreciate the work of those editors who do the hard work on deleting non-notable articles, but this just seems... a very strange choice to delete, and particularly with the speed with which it has been done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the reply, and just to be clear, I didn't want it to come off as a lecture :) But rather just keeping good lines of communication open. Sometimes when we are involved in things, we can overlook how other people might view them. I can certainly understand how you were shocked about a PROD/AFD. As someone who has introduced articles in the past, I know how this feels. Even worse so when it happens quickly, and in my case, I was away on a wiki break and come back after action was taken without your input, so I can completely understand were you are coming from. And that is why I was mentioning that I was sharing from good faith, and presuming it of you, and just mentioning that it might appear as bad faith, from a certain perspective. This article was brought up to my attention from a request over at the Helpdesk, I had no awareness of it prior to that. Based on the post at the helpdesk, and after looking into it, my initial review is that it is not notable because of notinherited. I have made my thoughts clear over at AfD, as well as other editors. Not that it is a !vote by any means, but so far the AfD is at best no-consensus, showing that there is at least question in the community on if this article is notable, primarily hinging on WP:NOTINHERITED. Although I do see after my AfD post that Khazar2 made a great idea that might be an improvement which is a merge/move into a new article. The information you provided is good, well sourced and verifiable; it just don't seem enough to warrant it's own page - but I will defer to the AfD process here.

:::I do want to acknowledge the comments that Khazar2 made, you are absolutely correct as to the letter of the law/policy... And that AfD may have been a better forum for this discussion over a PROD. However, the person who placed it believed that it was uncontroversial -- apparently wrong, but that is okay. Also that while a PROD can be removed by anyone, for any reason, it still doesn't change my impression that the simple removal was not sufficient, even though policy permits it. My perspective is biased from the standpoint that there appears to be good reason to discuss that the article be deleted (ie it was not a frivolous PROD/AfD) and thus, because of that, a bit more rational than a edit summary would be a good idea... But that is just my perspective and why I shared that perspective in good faith... Tiggerjay (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

::::Thanks for your response, and for bringing this issue to me to start with. I agree that it really is important that lines of dialogue are kept open! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

:::::That's fair enough, Tiggerjay, and I apologize for being snippy in my own response. I agree that it's a best practice to respond on the talk page when deprodding. I appreciate your thoughtful comments both here and at the AfD. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am a college student writing a research paper on China's takeover of Tibet, so I came to Mao's page for some information but I don't see anything about Tibet on his page. Why do you think China's takeover of Tibet during Mao's regime is not mentioned in his page? Would you consider adding something about Tibet on his page? Thank you. --Madeintibet59 (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

:Hello there and thank you for contacting me on this issue. I assume that you have done so because you have identified me as one of the primary contributors to the Mao Zedong page. In fact, my work on that page has been chronological, working from Mao's birth onwards, but so far I have only focused on providing well-referenced, accurate information on his early life and events during the civil war; I have not added anything to the period during which he was in political power. For that reason, I am not personally accountable for anything on that page post-1949. I am surprised that it does not mention anything on Tibet/Xizang however, and I certainly intend to rectify that in future. The concept of a "Chinese takeover" of Tibet during Mao's era is however a little problematic; internationally, Tibet was recognised as a region of China rather than an independent country for centuries before Mao and the Communists came along. It did have quite a lot of de facto autonomy however, which results in the popular idea that Tibet was an independent country invaded by the Red Army in the 1950s, which is something that – though not strictly historically accurate – is popularised by the contemporary Free Tibet movement. There should be other Wikipedia pages which deal with the issue in greater depth. I wish you well on your research paper, all the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the issues which you saw. --TIAYN (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

::+ thanks for GAR ing its... my next assignment is fixing the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan... --TIAYN (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

{{doi|10.1080/01438300208567194}} contains a review; have you got access to it? If not, email me, and I'll send you a PDF. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

:[http://business.highbeam.com/62005/article-1G1-90251918/magic-witchcraft-and-otherworld-anthropology Another one]. I can't access this, but loads of Wikipedians can, and they may be able to help. You can also sign up for a free trial. J Milburn (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

::I'm watching with interest- one of my on-going projects is Nietzsche and Asian Thought, and I'd certainly be interested in writing articles on more of the texts I read... J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

:::That looks pretty interesting. I've found it rather difficult to produce articles devoted to academic anthologies (see Modern Paganism in World Cultures or Signals of Belief in Early England), and it is definitely easier (in my opinion) to devote an article to a single monograph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

::::I suspect so. I really lost interest with regards to the Japanese section (I don't know much about Japanese philosophy- my interest was in the Indian philosophy), and I've realised that there are an awful lot of reviews I just can't access. I'll probably send it to GAC eventually, but I don't think I'll be able to go all the way to FAC, sadly. J Milburn (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I watched as you nominated Snow White (2001 film) for GA. I considered reviewing it myself, but decided to wait and see what happened. The article seems quite thin on content to me, and of the only five sources there, the one used the most (exclusively in some sections) would be considered a primary source by some, and therefore not extremely reliable. I probably would have failed it. But I do not have lots of experience with GA reviews, having done only 3, although I have had 9 of my own articles promoted. I have usually worked very hard on them and made hundreds of edits for months to get them ready. On this article, it seems that most of your contributions were done in two days time. I don't mean to show disrespect, but I want to know how such a small article with so few sources can be a GA. BollyJeff | talk 00:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

:So if I were reviewing an article like this, I should do some searches to see if I could find any more information before saying it is not comprehensive? What about using primary sources like DVD extras and interviews with directors and producers; how much is too much? I thought that you had used quite a bit in that article. I saw another article up for review right now that says the producer called the film a "hit" in an interview. But no third party sources call it a hit. I guess that would be okay if it was noted that the producer said so, and not represented as a general fact. BollyJeff | talk 18:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the notification. From a quick look at the history it's obvious you've been doing a good job on the Mandela article. I added a See also link to 'List of civil rights leaders', but you indicate the section grows too long when that section is included in the page. Would it be possible to allow the section but to write a hidden note to "please only add very relevant pages"? If it can be limited to six or ten entries it would allow readers to follow the knowledge tree a bit more and still not be topheavy. A category could be added for 'civil rights activists' but I've found, in my own personal experience, that some people never look at categories which, themselves, tend to proliferate, and that a link within a See also section shares the data in a more concise and seemingly more accessible way. And there are no lists of revolutionaries or African politicians, although there is one for South African politicians, which seems relevant. But you decide, and keep up the good work. Randy Kryn 10:58 2 May 2013 (UTC)

{{talkback|Talk:Jainism/GA2|Further_comments|ts=14:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)}}

Mr T^(Talk?) [{{fullurl:User_talk:Mrt3366|action=edit§ion=new&preload=User_talk:Mrt3366/new_section}} ^{(New thread?)}] 14:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A second reviewer has finished reviewing the article, and I believe all the issues he brought up have been addressed. Can you take a look and see if the article is ready to pass? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

:And thank you Midnightblueowl for your constructive efforts on the GA review. History2007 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well done. Etymology of Wicca, which you nominated as a good article, has passed the review, which you can access on the talk page. It will appear on the relevant lists as soon as wikipedia stops glitching at me. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate it may be a bit late for this one, but I've left some comments. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

:And promoted- well done, thoroughly deserved. J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

::Feel free to remove my comment on your other FAC! J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

{{talkback|Talk:Muammar_Gaddafi#Lede_is_not_nice}}

{{talkback|User talk:Prhartcom#FA review of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets}}

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.

:Magic, Witchcraft and the Otherworld (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

::added a link pointing to Phenomenology

:V. Gordon Childe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

::added a link pointing to Functionalism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

:I feel a little silly swapping barnstars, but you deserve this far more than me! -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tintin in America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Little Caesar (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) 11:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Midnightblueowl! First, thank you for your appreciation of my work. I agree with you that depending on how longer is the list of honours of Muammar Gaddafi it should be splitted into a new article, but until now I dont consider that it should be done. Compare how longer is Gaddafi's list with others examples as Mandela or Tito. However, if later the list grows sufficiently to be as longer as the cited examples, it could and should be done. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

:Talk-page stalker comment: at a glance, listing things like "Grand Commander of the Order of the Republic of the Gambia" or an honorary doctorate from Megatrend University seem awfully trivial for a figure of Gaddafi's stature. This page space could surely be better used to add detail and context to other aspects of his life. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

::I think that that's a fair point that you have there, Khazar. Maybe we should take it to Talk:Muammar Gaddafi and discuss it there, where other editors can engage as well ? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Review has begun! ★★RetroLord★★ 11:46, 18 June 2013 (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.

:Finglesham Anglo-Saxon cemetery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

::added links pointing to Æthelberht and Pope Gregory

:Buckland Anglo-Saxon cemetery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

::added a link pointing to Long Hill

:Fordcroft Anglo-Saxon cemetery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

::added a link pointing to South East London

:Polhill Anglo-Saxon cemetery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

::added a link pointing to A26

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=561674923 your edit] to Tintin in America may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just [{{fullurl:Tintin in America|action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+typo+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3ABracketBot%7CBracketBot%5D%5D}} edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}§ion=new my operator's talk page].

:List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of Hergé's comics set in the United States: Les aventures de "Tim" l'écureuil au Far-West {{red|(}}The Adventures of Tim the Squirrel Out West, published in sixteen instalments by the Brussels

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

:Much appreciated ComputerJA! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

::Nice brownie! Ha ha! (Psst. Check out the latest: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_adventures_of_tintin]) —Prhartcom (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Midnightblueowl, got your message, Thank-you also, for the work you're doing at Tintin in America. I am taking a look at it now and can get back to you with any feedback here. And thanks for noticing my work on The Adventures of Tintin; yes I am hard at work on it, bringing it up to quality slowly but surely, and I am positive I'm going to need your objective eye. Please take a critical look at it, look for those tiny flaws I may not be able to objectively see. I am going to add more cited references to the Characters section next and I am wrapping up the To-do list but all other work should be done for now. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason no one's commented is that the page hasn't been transcluded at the the main FPC page. I'd advise sticking at the top of the page with a note about how it wasn't done earlier! J Milburn (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

: Many thanks J, but do you mean the FAC page rather than the FPC page ? I admit that i'm a little confused... Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

::I do, sorry. A user I was talking to got tangled up between FL and FA earlier today, there must be something going around... J Milburn (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

:::Ah gotcha! And many thanks for doing the GA review for Tintin in America J. If I can ever return the favour, give me a shout! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

::::This is good information to know, although it looks like we just got promoted from GAC to FAC! —Prhartcom (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

On another GA. You're on quite a roll! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks Khazar, yes I've been on a bit of a roll lately. I've put up Muammar Gaddafi for GA review – I've spent hours and hours on building that thing up – and think it's probably time for a review. Regarding the latest comment on the Mandela talk page, I have downloaded the papers that they specify (i.e. the ones claiming proof that Mandela was a SACP member), and will hopefully get around to reading them tonight and using them in the article tomorrow. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

::Great, thanks! I imagine that pending evidence this research is widely accepted, it's just worth a sentence or two in the article for now, or perhaps a footnote. But you can balance this better than I, I think, since you've got more familiarity with the sources.

::Y'know, you and I had bleakly talked about how we might be racing against time with that revision, but we had no idea how close to the wire we were really running; regardless of how this health crisis plays out (and there seems to be only one answer now), I'm glad we got this review in a few hours before the explosion of visitors. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

:::Well, on new year's eve 2012, there was a Mandela death scare at the CNN news room (I was with someone who works behind the scenes there) as rumours seemed to be flying that he had passed on. Of course, it wasn't true, but it really got me thinking that he was a very old man who wouldn't be around much longer, and that spurred me on to get hold of some second hand biographies of him and start putting together that article post haste. I did feel that it was a race against time, and I'm beginning to think the same regarding Fidel Castro, which is another page that I hope to send to GA review before the summer is out. If you are at all interested, of course you would be welcome aboard over there, Khazar, although I appreciate that you are very busy with the WikiProject Human Rights pages. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

::::I might take you up on that, thanks! You're right that it would be better to have that in solid shape before a media explosion than after. I have to warn you, though, that I can tell at a glance that my first priority would be to try to cut Castro article to 2/3 of its current length (100kb readable prose!). Hopefully, though, this could be done through the creation of spinoff articles; that way readers who need a detailed treatment can still find it, while readers who need a summary of his life could find it at our main article.

::::It's a bit academic, though, because I'll be up to my eyeballs in the US Bill of Rights for the next three weeks. Maybe after that I'll take a peek in. In either case, can't thank you enough for taking on so many of the big figures of the 20th century. I don't know if you peek at the readership stats as often as I do, but it's amazing how many millions of people are making use of your work: 161,710 this month for Castro alone. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

:::::K, oh I know that the Castro article needs a massive cut-back, particularly from the latter half of the article, which is very word-heavy. However, we should also recognise that he's been alive an awful long time, and throughout that has been continuously active and influential, so he deserves an article that is at least as long as Mandela's. If you are at all interested, I'm hoping of sending V. Gordon Childe over to GAR pretty soon; not related to these big world figures really, but an interesting gent nonetheless. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello dear Midnightblueowl. As I see you have noticed we have some reviews of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets. I have responded to them nearly 100 percent but would appreciate your input where indicated (with the yellow tick mark). Feel free to change any of the changes I have made, as you are the most active editor for this article.

Take a look at Tintin in the Congo and Tintin in America, as I have spent a few hours making improvements to both of those also. Again, feel free to overrule any of my edits if necessary.

I would be grateful for your thoughts and improvements on the current state of the main article, The Adventures of Tintin. There is more to do. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

:Hello, I had been looking forward to hearing from you, thank-you for stopping by my Talk page. I left a response for you there. —Prhartcom (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

::And again. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We were talking earlier about active voice vs. passive voice (please see my last comment there). You agreed we should be careful to avoid it, then you mentioned that you had added some sentences to The Adventures of Tintin. I've just taken a look at your addition. Each of the four sentences you added contains passive voice and needs to be rewritten. Don't misunderstand, I am not condemning, I am hoping this is helpful information to you; I am vowing to learn to avoid passive voice thing also.

Here's what you wrote: "In late 1933, after Wallez 'was forced' from his job following a scandal, Hergé signed an agreement that the company Casterman would take over publication of his stories in book form. The character of Tintin 'was largely based' on Hergé's earlier character, Totor; Hergé described the former as being like Totor's younger brother. 'He was also influenced by his brother, Paul.' The Belgian far right leader Léon Degrelle later claimed that Tintin 'was based on him', although 'this has been dismissed by Tintinologists'; Hergé despised Degrelle ever since the latter used one of his designs without permission in the early 1930s."

Here's what I have rewritten for you: "In late 1933, after Wallez caused a scandal and newspaper management forced him from his job, Hergé signed an agreement that the company Casterman would take over publication of his stories in book form. The look of Hergé's earlier character, Totor, was the inspiration for the character of Tintin; Hergé described Tintin as being like Totor's younger brother. Hergé's brother Paul was also an influence on Tintin’ s look. Belgian far right leader Léon Degrelle later claimed that Hergé based Tintin’s look on himself, although Tintinologists dismiss this claim. Hergé despised Degrelle ever since he used one of his designs without permission in the early 1930s."

Interesting, eh? Sobering, isn't it? About the only thing you got right was, "Hergé despised Degrelle", because you didn't write, "Degrelle 'was despised by' Hergé." And it took a bit of work for me to translate the passive into the active for you. Please lets not add any more passive voice to the article. I have reverted your edit so that you may make improvements in active voice. Again, no offense intended at all. Sound good?

I have noticed that there are times passive voice is OK. We may want the object to receive the action instead of the subject. However, if this is true, I think that we make these exceptions for only one reason: Because otherwise rewriting it so that the subject (the former object) receives the action puts undue emphasis on the subject (the former object). A good example might be, "Tintin was sent on assignment to the Soviet Union." The object, his editors (who did the sending), are missing from the sentence (as they often are in passive voice) and to correct the passive we would need to add them into the sentence and cast them in the staring role, like this: "The editors sent Tintin on assignment to the Soviet Union." (It was better before when we didn't even think about the editors.)

Incidentally (and off the subject), I am pretty sure Léon Degrelle was misunderstood by Tintinologists (or maybe by us who accidently misquote the Tintinologists). Degrelle never meant that he looks like Tintin or that Hergé based Tintin on his look. In his autobiography, Degrelle only meant that he deserves credit for introducing the American-style comic "strip" to Hergé (by mailing him those North American newspapers) and therefore launching BDs in Europe. Hergé even gave that credit to Degrelle years later. —Prhartcom (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

:Midnightblueowl, you are wonderful to work with; thank-you for reacting so calmly. And I am with you—I never thought about this idea of the passive voice either until now; not until this weekend when I was basically going through the list of things one should check when one is conducting a copyedit. Along with checking for spelling and grammar errors, one of the things one should check for is the presence of passive voice, and when I checked, sure enough, it was everywhere in the Tintin articles. I endeavored to fix it in the article that was in the most urgent need of getting that sort of thing done quickly—the one up for FA. The others we must get to as soon as possible.

:Yes, you ask a great question, is there a Wikipedia policy or recommendation? I checked, and yes, it is not one of the five pillars or anything but it is brought up here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Clarity. And there is even a regular article about it here: English passive voice.

:All very interesting. It sounds like it boils down to the fairly simple rule: Don't use passive voice in most situations if you can help it. There are exceptions and there is a time and a place for it. So, now that I've had a chance to think about it, I say that rewriting the sentence in the active voice gives us, the writer, a brave reason to move the POV to the object for a moment, to see things from their point of view. Then maybe back to the Tintin POV, and then back to another sentence, again not from Tintin's view, but casting the object as the subject, and indulging in simple, direct, subject-does-action, but from the POV of the antagonist, or whoever the object happens to be.

:—Prhartcom (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

::{{tps}}: As a former grammar teacher (whose grammar is not always perfect whomself), I'd say passive voice is to be avoided but is better in a small number of situations. For example, I'd consider "after Wallez 'was forced' from his job following a scandal" a superior sentence to ""In late 1933, after Wallez caused a scandal and newspaper management forced him from his job"; it's briefer and gives all the necessary information. Sometimes the subject of the sentence isn't important, and it makes more sense to emphasize the object. Just an outside two cents... -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Midnightblueowl, hope all is well. I found a good online tool for passive voice: http://spellcheck24.net. —Prhartcom (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

{{Talkback|HelenOnline}}

I will be reviewing the Gaddafi article, and hope to get a substantial amount of the content review done in the next few hours. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Midnightblueowl, hope all is well. I'm wondering if I could take you up on your generous offer to please have a look in your reference books for any mention of any produced Tintin documentaries? The main article mentions I, Tintin and the newer (and brilliant) Tintin and I but does not have a valid reference to any of the usual cited source bibliography for these documentaries. (There is no mention in Thompson 1991, Farr 2001, Farr 2007, or Lofficier of any documentary that I can see, and the provided reference to Lofficier isn't right.) Cheers my dears. :-) —Prhartcom (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

:Sorry I haven't done it sooner Prhartcom (it's been a busy weekend), but I shall endeavour to have a look tonight. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

::NP at all. —Prhartcom (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

:::I'm afraid there's nothing in the Herge biographies of Peeters or Assouline either... Or McCarthy... Apostolides doesn't have an index, so I can't identify any references in there I'm afraid... Considering Tintin et moi was only made in 2003, its absence doesn't surprise me, as most of the sources were written earlier than that (even if they were only translated into English later), but the lack of references to Moi, Tintin perplexes me. Sorry I couldn't have been of more help Prhartcom, but if I ever come across any references, you'll be the first to know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

::::I agree, that is perplexing. No mention in Lofficier, at the back sections, surprises me. It looks like we can't say anything about that documentary. No great loss, probably, but it would have been nice for the article. Thanks Midnightblueowl very much for checking your books; let me know if I can do something for you sometime. —Prhartcom (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

:Excellent. This is a proud moment for you Midnightblueowl; excellent work. This is good news; I believe this is a glimpse of what is to come. Thanks also to Curly Turkey; all editors of all of the Tintin articles are to be commended. Cheers! —Prhartcom (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

::Thank you Curly, and thank you Prhartcom for all your help! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You might be wondering what the delay has been with the Gaddafi article; sorry about that. My computer's motherboard failed, so I was without sufficient Internet access to complete the review until today. I am hoping to get it done ASAP now, given the delay. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks for letting me know Theodore! Sorry to hear that you've been having computer problems; I've been there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

::It's been over three weeks since Theodore! started this section, and he has made no edits since. Did you want to continue waiting in the hopes that he returns to the GA review, or would you rather have it put back into the reviewing pool? Please let me know here what you'd prefer. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

:::Hello and thanks for contacting me on this issue BlueMoonset; I'd like to give Theodore! one more week, and if by that time they have not responded, then it can be placed back in the reviewing pool. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

::::You're welcome, Midnightblueowl. One month for a response (from July 18) is very generous; I'll check back on August 18 and see if Theodore! has resumed work. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 4, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director {{user|Raul654}} or one of his delegates ({{user|Dabomb87}}, {{user|Gimmetoo}}, and {{user|Bencherlite}}), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 4, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Tintin in the Land of the Soviets is the first volume of The Adventures of Tintin, the comics series by Belgian cartoonist Hergé. Commissioned by the conservative Belgian newspaper {{lang|fr|Le XXe Siècle}} as anti-communist propaganda for its children's supplement {{lang|fr|Le Petit Vingtième}}, it was serialised weekly from January 1929 to May 1930. The story tells of young Belgian reporter Tintin and his dog Snowy, who are sent to the Soviet Union to report on the policies of Joseph Stalin's Bolshevik government. Tintin's intent to expose the regime's secrets prompts agents from the Soviet secret police, the OGPU, to hunt him down with the intent to kill. Bolstered by publicity stunts including the April Fools' Day publication of a faked OGPU letter confirming Tintin's existence, Land of the Soviets was a commercial success, and appeared in book form shortly after its conclusion. Hergé continued The Adventures of Tintin with Tintin in the Congo, and the series became a defining part of the Franco-Belgian comics tradition. He later came to regret the poorly researched, propagandist debut story, and prevented its republication until 1973; it is the only completed Tintin story not to have appeared in colour. {{TFAFULL|Tintin in the Land of the Soviets}}

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

{{clear}}

Hello dear Midnightblueowl, hope you are well. I'm stopping by to report that I have copyedited your work at Cigars of the Pharaoh, helping you by giving the article a second pair of eyes, and getting it ready for you to submit it for GA, of course. It was some difficult work and I changed quite a bit of your stuff; let me know if any of it hits you the wrong way or just edit it. As always, I do everything I can to respect and preserve the work of the editor whose work I am editing.

I have been working on the List of The Adventures of Tintin characters. I plan to bring it to FA quality, along with The Adventures of Tintin. I will also eventually do all ten of the character articles, as you do all twenty-four of the album articles. I have also, over the past few years actually, been working on ensuring the "plumbing" of the Tintin articles is working: All the categories, redirects, disambiguation pages, and links flow together nicely, correctly, and consistently. Fun to do and still balance real life, eh?

I heard the Internet will be down in "Western Europe" this next week, that sounds really bad, hope it gets well soon. Please stop by and give my work a really viscous second pair of eyes whenever you can. Thanks and cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, an IP living in Antwerp has twice reverted a line from the Hergé article that states he is a "personification of Belgium", which you say is supported by Assouline's text, although you don't give the page number. Would you like to restore it and give the page number? —Prhartcom (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

:Midnightblueowl, I just re-read Cigars; brilliant work! —Prhartcom (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

::Yes, I will always support you in any Tintin project here on Wikipedia, so I will agree to co-nominate Congo to FA with you. However, must we really do that? Is it really so necessary to get another feather in your cap? You already did a fine job getting it to GA. It's a matter of priorities. I would rather you and I instead work together on improving the main article and submitting it and making it deserve its FA. After that, I would like to work with you to improve both list articles and get them both to FA. Can you have a look at/edit the To do list? Thanks for your honest thoughts on this. —Prhartcom (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

::P.S. I am working offline on the Characters section of the main article right now. It will have references mainly to Thompson. —Prhartcom (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

:::Hi Midnightblueowl, As you know I am newly aware of the power of the active voice! I was encouraged by your positive/open mind on this issue. I intend to ensure each Tintin article has been at least analysed for passive voice sentences and checked for possible re-written, improved sentences. I have analysed the following Tintin articles for passive voice and this is where we stand now:

:::Tintin in the Land of the Soviets: Only 3% passive voice. I worked to re-write sentences the week it went to FA review. Success!

:::Tintin in the Congo: About 20% passive voice. I have identified the sentences that need to be checked and re-written if possible. In my opinion, needs attention now.

:::Tintin in America: About 30% passive voice last time I checked, but I see an I.P. has rewritten the entire Synopsis, so I would need to check again. I'd be interested in your review of their changes.

:::Cigars of the Pharaoh: About 3% passive voice. I worked to re-write sentences the week it went to GA review. Success!

:::Also:

:::The Adventures of Tintin: About 20% passive voice. I pledge to do the corrections to this article ASAP.

:::If you wish, I could email you my Word doc of analysis of Tintin in the Congo showing identified passive voice sentences and some suggested fixes; let me know if you'd like. Or let me know if, instead, you'd like me to look into this. I am currently working on Characters section. Cheers!

:::P.S. For example, further down in "Congo" article: "This idea was supported by Tintinologist Jean-Marie Apostolidès." Change to" "Tintinologist Jean-Marie Apostolidès supported this idea." :-) —Prhartcom (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

::::Hi Midnightblueowl. OK! I want you to know I accept and will check into Congo passive-2-active task. I will put aside the tasks I was working on. Will you please check into America Synopsis? I have not read it since it changed nor re-checked it for passive style. Please review (I used Word). Cheers! —Prhartcom (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

::::P.S. I know! It is such a blow, this passive voice thing. But I realize now no writing exists in my future without recognising this little fact. I am trying to learn to look at it as an advantage to writing style. Active voice would say: "Tintin does so-and-so.", then active voice would say it from the other camera angle shot: "Villain does so-and-so!" Much better than always from the point of view of Tintin and things passively happening to him. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

:::::It is OK with me (poor things, they tried) IF you have a go at some passive-2-active after the revert, otherwise, no fair. :-) —Prhartcom (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

::::::I saw your revert (very good edit summary) so I assume you accept my challenge!

::::::I will give you my secret: Copy/paste the entire article into Word (yes, that's right). You have to go to Options/Proofing and ensure it is set to spell checks, grammar checks, and style checks (that's the passive voice check!) —Prhartcom (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

:::::::It's done; Congo now has only about 3% passive voice. Success!

:::::::I re-checked America, and it needs your improvement pretty badly; it's currently about 30% passive voice. —Prhartcom (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Midnightblueowl, I saw your message to me. Please go here: User talk:Midnightblueowl/Voice. —Prhartcom (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

:Hi Midnightblueowl! I see some activity over at America! I will check it out later, I actually have to get on a plane now (1 week vaca!) but I congratulate you so far!! Encouragement vibes your way. :-) I will be checking all your edits there later to see which of the identified phrases were considered/corrected so I encourage you further. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

:P.S. You can say to me, "no I don't want to do that; you do it" if you have to; I'm OK with it. I'm happy to follow you, because I believe you know how to improve the Tintin articles. It's mutual respect. Cheers. :-) —Prhartcom (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

25px An article that you have been involved in editing, Settings in The Adventures of Tintin, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going {{ #if:Talk:List of The Adventures of Tintin locations |here|to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article}}, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. —Prhartcom (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you be interested in trying to bring Etymology of witch up to GA? Following the discussion at Talk:Modern paganism#Magic and witchcraft section, I've added it to my list.  —Sowlos  07:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

:Hello there Sowlos, and thank you for contacting me on this issue. I'd be willing to help out on any attempt to pull this article up to GA, but I fear that I do not have the necessary expertise or access to the necessary sources to actually do the work myself. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

::You might be the great Midnightblueowl, but I wasn't asking you to do the work for me. :D
I'm planning on collecting sources for an improvement drive on the article soon. You've shown interest and knowledge in the etymology of a related word (not to mention good writing), so I thought I'd reach out on this.  —Sowlos  11:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey MBO, I hope you don't mind, but I pulled the WP Human rights tags from Castro, Mao, and Gaddafi per the criteria up at WP Human rights. I'm worried that tagging political figures who aren't primarily known for work on human rights issues (i.e., Mandela, Jimmy Carter) or for running afoul of international human rights law (i.e., Charles Taylor, Milošević), is going to end up with almost all head-of-state articles being absorbed into WP Human rights. If you feel strongly about this, though, I realize it's a minor point, and I won't edit-war on it if you revert me. Thanks again for your work on these three big 'uns. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

:Hello there Khazar! No I'm not offended at all, your reasoning is sound! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Noam Chomsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loyola University (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) 11:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Cigars of the Pharaoh you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 20px 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 GA bot, on behalf of Brigade Piron -- {{User-multi

|doc=yes

|User=Brigade Piron

|1=t

}} 10:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning for reversing my recent edit. The Holodomor took place in 1922-23, while this story was published in 1920. However, the article gives the impression that grain rationing/confiscation was a myth perpetrated by the author, and not supported by events in the Soviet Union at the time of publication. The grain confiscation policy of Prodrazvyorstka had been in place (in certain regions) for several years, prior to 1920. It was introduced all over Soviet Russia on January 11, 1919.

The article's synopsis states that Tintin learns that all the Soviet grain is being exported abroad for propaganda purposes, leaving the people starving, and that the government plans to "organise an expedition against the kulaks, the rich peasants, and force them at gunpoint to give us their corn." That is an accurate description of the Holodomor. It is unlikely that Hergé was remarkably prescient. Rather, the events he described in the story were likely based on Prodrazvyorstka, which then later metastasized into the Holodomor. It is inaccurate to portray that portion of the Tintin story as a figment of the author's (poorly informed) imagination.

One could simply remove the references to bread/grain rationing, if the only objective of this article is to paint the author as an ill-informed propagandist. However, it would be more accurate (and more in the nature of a respectable encyclopedia) to state the factual aspects of the story side-by-side with the fictional elements. I don't believe that the inclusion of these facts borders on POV. Gulbenk (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

:Thank you for your prompt response to my post. I am not the least bit concerned about having my edit deleted. It is through that process (usually) that we develop better articles.

:I am still concerned with the tone of the Tintin article. To say that the rationing/confiscation of grain was fictional in 1920 is an historical inaccuracy. While it might play into the intended narrative of the article, it should not be left as a statement of fact. If a 'tintinologist" has failed to make the connection, other reliable sources can be found to support the point. The statement that certain specific events such as those described in the tintin story were taking place in the Soviet Union at the time of the story's publication, supported by reliable references, is not original research and does not violate any Wikipedia policy that I am aware of. On the contrary, that information would contribute to a more informative and balanced article, which is what we all strive for here. Gulbenk (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at the comment I added to the talk page of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets : it seems almost beyond doubt you suffered from a typo, but I would hate having to correct the page without your consent. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The article Cigars of the Pharaoh you nominated as a good article has passed 20px; see Talk:Cigars of the Pharaoh for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Brigade Piron -- {{User-multi

|doc=yes

|User=Brigade Piron

|1=t

}} 07:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem! If you ever need another related article reviewed, I'd be happy to undertake them. It was one of the best sourced articles I've seen, even before the review process which is very unusual! By the way, if you're planning to work on The Blue Lotus to get it to GA standard (you seem to be working in chronological order) let me know - I'd be happy to help in any way I can with the writing on it, particularly on any of the historical side. With very best wishes Brigade Piron (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Occupy (Chomsky book) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 20px 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 GA bot, on behalf of FeydHuxtable -- {{User-multi

|doc=yes

|User=FeydHuxtable

|1=t

}} 20:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

{{clear}}