User:Dr. Blofeld/October 2014

September 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Albacete''' {{lang-es|Provincia de Albacete}}) is a [[Provinces of Spain|province]] of central [[Spain]], in the southern part of the [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Keswick FAC

Just back in London from monthly week in Keswick. Have now dealt with the two outstanding points from FAC, viz, has the Moot Hall got a double interior staircase? (No) And is Keswick School the direct successor to the medieval grammar school? (Yes). I think we can go on to FAC now – what think you? Tangentially, thanks for putting up the article on The Moot Hall, but forgive a quibble: Keswick is not by any means the only town with a Moot Hall. Aldeburgh, to my certain knowledge has one, and I think we should rename the article "The Moot Hall, Keswick". Anyway, that's a separate matter: are we ready for FAC, do you think? Tim riley talk 17:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Yep, quite ready I think, given that it's a small town. Feel free to move The Moot Hall to Keswick and create a dab. I'll try to clear some red links later in the week, currently busy with destubbing Italian and Spanish provinces!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Tom Hanks FLC review request

Hi. Hope you're well. I noticed you had a few of Hanks' films in your great films list and was wondering if you'd be up for reviewing his filmography article (Tom Hanks on screen and stage) that I've nominated for FL? Cowlibob (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks great at first glance, sure will look in in a day or two. Glad you like my list! And thankyou for your work on the accolades of the great films of 2013!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Almazán

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Filmlogo.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Filmlogo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 14:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

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.

Province of Brindisi

added links pointing to Oria and Francavilla

Province of Syracuse

added links pointing to Swabian and Cassibile

Province of Albacete

added a link pointing to Cuenca

Province of Lucca

added a link pointing to Alexander II

Province of Valencia

added a link pointing to Castile

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for suggesting me to improve those lists. I have turned a red link into blue which also appeared in the main page today. Thank you again. Have a nice day :) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jim Carter - Public: Excellent work. keep it up!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Guitar news just in!

[1] Thought this might interest you. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

He's got a lot of time on his hands! :-) I'm currently learning this. Has some very obscure chords in it!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, mmmmmm, nice!! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Fred Gómez Carrasco

Do you have thoughts on how to proceed with this one, Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Gómez Carrasco, as there really aren't other RS? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Meh, let it go I guess.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Andreas Vollenwieder

Hello,

Thanks for your contribution to the Andreas Vollenweider page. I have been doing some work on it over the past few days and I noticed that the text bears some resemblance to that of the biography on his official page [[2]]. Going through the history I noticed a number of reverts by anon IPs who repeatedly re-inserted this text. The last time this happened was on 12 March 2014, just before you made a number of edits to the page. The anon IP edits appear to have two characteristics; they are contain largely promotional language and have no references. At the moment I'm in the process of rectifying both.

I am concerned that an anon IP could revert the work done the page thus far. A semi-protect would prevent that from happening, but I'm wondering when the right time would be to ask for that? Thanks. Karst (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Karst: Thanks for your work on it, I'll put it on my watchlist. It needs a rewrite and sourcing properly anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Hotel Føroyar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hotel Føroyar 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/Hotel Føroyar 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. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Films set in country houses

Category:Films set in country houses, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Another one gone...

Sadly, another great villain gone! - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Must have been his black magic which made him disappear! Hope his coffin isn't full of snakes, let's hope he rests in peace!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Is he the guy who waves his finger and laughs during the jungle dance? I think he says "It's a beauuuuutiful day" or something like that... Cassianto^talk 23:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't remember him saying anything in the film, but that may just be my memory! He's the one that does a lot of dancing, and is seen sitting on the back of the train at the very end of the film. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it's the one I'm thinking of; or am I thinking of the one with prosthetic hand? Oh I don't know, it's still very sad. Cassianto^talk 09:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cassianto: You're thinking of Tee-Hee. Holder had a pretty minor role as a voodoo chief or something, yeah I think he did say something like ""It's a beauuuuutiful day". File:LALDcast.jpg He was the big guy at the back in white. I think he was described as nine feet tall or something in the film LOL.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that one up. Not many left now is there; Drax, I think is still alive, oh, and Zorin of course. Are there any villains from the 60's Bonds still around? Cassianto^talk 11:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Off the top of my head Burt Kwouk and Karin Dor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear old Bert Kwouk, yes of course. Cheers! Cassianto^talk 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Both evil SPECTRE numbered agents of myself!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a few from the '70s still knocking around: Yaphet Kotto, Christopher Lee and Julian Glover are the main ones still going—and still working too! - SchroCat (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh 70s, yeah there's others too like the very sexy Caroline Munro and Michael Lonsdale..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Michael Lonsdale is sexy...? - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Um,, er, no, "the very sexy Caroline Munro" and the legend Michael Lonsdale.. Perhaps those with a fetish for goatees and pianists might dig him though :-) Caroline for me is right up there with the sexiest Bond girls, although none can match Ursula of course..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Teresa Wilms Montt

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Encore Chopin....

Will be front page on his birthday, October 17. Best, --Smerus (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Smerus: Excellent, look forward to seeing it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Questionable AfD

You might like to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lino Bianco. Although the article is currently rather promotional, Bianco has notable credentials in architecture, education and diplomacy.--Ipigott (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC) @Ipigott: I made the appropriate changes, should be kept now, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Waldorf-Astoria NY

I have added some sources to it. Feel free to add more if it isn't enough. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ballet stubs

Do not imagine I have gone barmy, creating ballet stubs by the dozen: it's in preparation for the Wiki-bash at Covent Garden later this month. The idea is to have these stubs available for newbies to work on and expand. Ballet is not altogether my thing, but I'll do what I can, and it's always a pleasure to be in the Royal Opera House. Tim riley talk 10:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I had heard about it and gathered they were for some purpose!! No need to feel embarrassed about stubbing them, a great editor will always stub articles which he feels are to some productive purpose!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

		The Builder Award
		To Dr. Blofeld, thanks for getting involved in the Stub Contest and doing some heavy construction on a whole bunch of integral stubs.....and coming first! Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thanks! It just goes to show how quickly content can be improved when there's something to reward editors for hard work!♦ Dr. Blofeld

Thought you might like a muffin after all that stubbing! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

`

Congratulations on winning the contest and expanding some important stubs into much better articles! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC) @Rosiestep: Lovely thanks! Yeah I think it shows how much can be improved in a short period if there is a motivating factor. Imagine what could be achieved with a wider range of monthly schemes and with a topic of the month on a poorly covered area to attract more interest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Albion Mills, London

Just started having a look! ;) We hope (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Albion Flour Mills Bankside.jpg

File:Fire at Albion Mill - Microcosm of London (1808-1811), 35 - BL.jpg Already at Commons. We hope (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:A bon fire for the poor or the shame of Albion exposed.jpg Especially like this one. We have no article on Fores the illustrator and he did a lot more work than this. We hope (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Albion Mills on Fire Robert Barker.jpg Barker's painting of the fire. We hope (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Have a bit more on Albion Mills to do and some RL errands. Then will get started on more for Fores. ;) We hope (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Just as I arrived at BPL, they shooed me out for site maintenance--will have to see how long that will take. We hope (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:The Baker's Glory broadside 1791.jpg From the Albion Mills fan club. :) We hope (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@We hope: There was me thinking it was just wikipedians who were uncivil!! How kind is that, rejoicing at a major fire as a scene of fun! Another Albion Mills now in Nelstrops Albion Flour Mills!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Conflagration! Or the merry mealmongers.jpg Looks like it was a cause of major celebration! :) We hope (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe you (plural) are missing the significance of these illustrations. They aren't supposed to show that the burning of the mills was a cause for general rejoicing—the "merry mealmongers" etc celebrating are traditional waterwheel-and-windmill millers, and these publications are insinuations that the mill was deliberately destroyed by Luddites to stop it from undercutting traditional workmen, a accusation that was repeated through the first 50 years of the 19th century (often with good reason) whenever a factory, mill or railway had an accident.

Per my comments on the talkpage, I think you may have misplaced the building. The Albion Mills you're writing about here was nowhere near Bermondsey—it was in northern Southwark in Surrey (not part of London in this period, it wasn't included in London until either 1855 or 1889 depending on how you measure it). There's an Albion Street in Bermondsey, but it's named for the Albion Dock (part of the Surrey Commercial Docks), and has nothing to do with the mills. – iridescent 20:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iridescent: "The Albion Mill in Bermondsey was completed in 1786." I know Bermondsey isn't too far away on the south side of the river so it didn't seem an obvious error to me. If you know London like you do though..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Then bluntly, that source is wrong. Bermondsey is only a couple of miles to the east, but psychologically both then and now it may as well have been a different country. In this period, the part of Southwark where Albion Mills was was a Wild West frontier zone, theoretically under the control of the Bishop of Winchester and thus exempt from all the City of London's rules and regulations (see Liberty of the Clink); Bermondsey was a once-fashionable spa town gradually degenerating into a slum of dockside warrens. (Basically, for this period if it's south of the river and east of the modern site of Tower Bridge it's Bermondsey; if it's between Tower Bridge and Waterloo station it's Southwark; if it's west of Waterloo it's Vauxhall.) I do want to reiterate that "Albion Mills, London" is incorrect; aside from Bridge Without (a tiny area around the southern entrance to London Bridge), London was exclusively north of the Thames until 1889, and Southwark, Lambeth, Greenwich etc on the south bank were all parts of Surrey and Kent (which is why Surrey CCC play in Lambeth). – iridescent 21:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine, the source is wrong, I changed it as soon as you said anyway! Glad actually you said about Southwark being in Surrey at one time, just been reading the early history of London. The quality isn't the best though. Greater london has seriously eroded counties like Surrey, Kent and Hampshire with area hasn't it! Trying to imaging all of the districts as villages at one time! Unfortunately you don't contribute any longer do you? The history could really use proper sourcing and rewriting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If I get the chance I'll see what I can do, although I don't have many sources relating to south of the river. The people you want for Georgian Southwark are probably SlimVirgin and Carcharoth. (Normally I'd recommend the relevant WikiProject, but WikiProject London is a case study in how projects die.) The archives of the Port of London Authority are usually a good bet for the history of anything along the river. – iridescent 09:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Actually it was early history I was looking at Londinium and the Saxon period. Very interesting. I realised I knew very little about the origins of London although something in the back of my mind knew it was Roman. A pity that the sourcing isn't great. You can probably spot numerous flaws with it, there's undoubtedly books on the subject which could be used to write an FA quality articles. It's not that bad though and if sourcing was improved with some new content reinforcement and editing could probably be brought up to GA status. Needs a fair bit of work though, probably a lot more than I'm thinking even for GA though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC) This is great! Check out the copper-bottomed woman. :) We hope (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, I thought you meant Kim Kardashian!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe in past lives? :D We hope (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I do!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

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.

Patience Collier

added links pointing to The Avengers and Phoenix Theatre

List of shipwrecks in the Bristol Channel

added a link pointing to Newport

Porthkerry

added a link pointing to Newport

Samuel William Fores

added a link pointing to National Portrait Gallery

William Nelstrop

added a link pointing to Ackworth

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Image

Hi, could you help me out with licensing of the image [[3]]? Am not sure. Thanks Kaayay (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

:))) Kaayay (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

1937 Derby

You can see her leading her horse in here]. It was also the first time that a lady owner had ever won the Derby, so Flo coming second was an added bonus. Giano (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent find on both accounts (finding the notable missing article and the video). Quite important in the gender equality history. I expect Carol to take it to FAC pretty soon :-) I'll look into it tomorrow now to avoid edit conflicts, you or Eric might want to convert to sfn, that's fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I am currently ransacking my study for an old magazine, which has a big article about her. I found it a couple of years ago and set it aside to write a page and then forgot about her until she was catapulted into my mind yesterday. Giano (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I think we were conflicting each other. I'm off now for an hour, so she's all yours. :-) Giano (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I've picked up a fair bit to add I think!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just written a short stub on Florence's sidekick, Norah Wilmot, annd want to use this image [4], do you know if it's possible to use it and how to download it as low resolution etc. I don't really get this technical and licensing stuff. Giano (talk)

Speedy deletion nomination of Korra

A tag has been placed on Korra requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? 01:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You're invited! Litquake Edit-a-thon in San Francisco

You are invited! → Litquake Edit-a-thon ← See you there!

In the area? You're invited to    San Francisco Meetup # 22   Date: October 11, 2014   Time: 1-5 pm   Place: 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105   prev: Meetup 21 - next: Meetup 23 | All SF meetups & events The Edit-a-thon will occur in parallel with Litquake, the San Francisco Bay Area's annual literature festival. Writers from all over the Bay Area and the world will be in town during the nine day festival, so the timing is just right for us to meetup and create/translate/expand/improve articles about literature and writers. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. This event will include new editor training. RSVP →here←. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your encouragement! Huang Jinghai (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

AfD

Dr. Blofeld, I was thinking about beginning an AfD for St. Ives Times & Echo but considering my WP:Before confusion at Hotel Føroyar afd I thought it could be good to ask you to kindly have a look at the article of this local newspaper; if you have time of course. Thanks and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Why should I have a User Name?: Yes, it's notable, thanks for approaching me, happy to source it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you the article is well-sourced now. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Why should I have a User Name?: I found an article in The Times which mentions that in 1987 the St Ives Group was the fastest growing and largest book printer in the UK with 10% of the market and also prints bibles. It acquired Riverside Press for £8.4 million in 1987. I'm not sure though if this is the same as the publishing company responsible for the paper itself. It's probable that it operates under the St Ives Group or they're the same thing. If so then the St Ives Group has wider notability and should have an article in its own right. Perhaps my amigo @Aymatth2: can find something and start that or find something further.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The website given at the article belongs to “The St Ives Printing and Publishing Company.” --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know, but I'm wondering if the St. Ives Group is the mother group or is another name for the company. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• The publicly traded St Ives Group (St Ives PLC – 2013 gross revenue £317 million) is not related in any way to The St Ives Printing and Publishing Company, a small family-owned firm. They could both have articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The St Ives Group especially should!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Keswick

Well, dear Doctor, Keswick made it to FA. I am hugely grateful for your input and your guidance as co-nom throughout. Thank you so much! Tim riley talk 16:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tim riley: A pleasure working with you (finally) Tim!! I'm open to working on other Cumbrian articles in the future should you be interested!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Re:Arsenic and Old Lace

Let me view the trailers at IMDB and TCM to see if they have copyright notices on them. We recently lost a bunch of screenshots of films with Lauren Bacall and Bogie in them. The trailers had to be checked for a FL and they had notices, so they had to go. :( Some people think if they find the trailer at Internet Archive, it means it's in the public domain without a need to check. If there are no notices, I'll start grabbing screenshots. We hope (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, just saw the TCM trailer and it's copyrighted. So the next way to go for photos would be to check Lantern for any film photos printed in the film books and magazines there. We hope (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this File:Jean Adair Josephine Hull Cary Grant Arsenic and Old Lace 1944.jpg is all in photos at Lantern. All of the lobby cards and posters have notices. However, while I was at Lantern, I did see a few new offerings that would probably be of interest to you:

• Their Global Cinema Collection
• FilmIndia magazines
• Paramount Mensajero magazine This is a Spanish-language magazine published by Paramount in New York City, so any photos found should be able to go as US PD not renewed after a copyright renewal search. ;) We hope (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@We hope: That's good, thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Page about Iraqi district

Instead of tagging with PROD or starting AFD, I thought of discussing with you first.

You might not be aware of Al-Hindiya and you had created Al-Hindiya District. Don't you think that you should either redirect any two of these and make 1 article? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: The wider district (which I'd imagine is fairly large) shouldn't be redirected to the city. Both should have decent content, I'll try to find some sources over the next few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Great work with User:Dr. Blofeld/Great films!

EditorMakingEdits (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@EditorMakingEdits: Thanks. A work in progress! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Mills

Sorry, no. DYK totally slipped my mind. I can tonight after work? Let me know. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Ok; tonight. Btw, cool engine pic, right? Check out Teller Reindeer Station. Totally PD so not for DKY, but interesting piece of history, IMO. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Being nice

Apologies for inadvertently removing your edit - I was trying, but obviously failing, to edit using a new tablet. Sorry... Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: Hadn't noticed!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Chopin

@Smerus: Great to see this article on the front page eh? I wonder if Jimbo would consider it an "allegedly" good article....♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

'Allegedly' is probably better than we deserve :-)--Smerus (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you reckon @Ghmyrtle:, Chopin important enough?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Very good, well done everyone, etc. etc. Why ask me? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Aren't you our resident expert on article priority and importance? :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hehe I'm just kidding. Well one article I have worked on is Paris and am mentioned further down here but it's behind the paywall. Not for the right reasons though :-( An article about the montage dispute in Le Monde with the skyscrapers.com POV pushers..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Lol, Ghm! It's the way you tell 'em, You'll have us all in stitches. "These ruddy Poles, coming over ‘ere, nicking all our best tunes! See you down the pub" - yours with the Heroic Polonaise Sauce, Nigel Kennedy. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha! @Smerus: You have anything in mind to develop next? Franz Liszt would be one of course...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ai ai ai! Liszt needs a lot of work....and Ludwig van Beethoven needs a thorough reworking....and between now and Xmas I'm travelling (Slovakia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan) ..... so the next big project for me must wait till 2015......--Smerus (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Smerus: Enjoy your trip! Any chance you could take a camera and photograph as many villages as possible for our articles hehe? Our photograph coverage of all are quite poor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Smerus: Yes, have a good time! I expect you'll be researching some of these guys! Do say hello to our good friend Petro Poroshenko. But do remember to take a very sturdy camera. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear @Dr. Blofeld:, Dear @Martinevans123: , I will take your advice. I got some nice pics, e.g., , during the Maidan a year ago , but hope it will be a bit quieter now. And I will be avoiding places shortly to be part of the Russian Federation. But I hope to get some good shots of (and not be swallowed up by) the mud volcanoes of the Absheron peninsula.--Smerus (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Mud volcanoes? O dea, you might find my volcano base! I have one in deepest darkest Japan and one near the Black Sea!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Email

Hi Dr.Blofeld. LOVE the picture of the evil guy. I saw that you emailed me yesterday. I couldn't really understand what you meant. Could you explain?Amanda Smalls 13:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Amanda Smalls: Ernst Stavro Blofeld? Hehe! "I shall call him mini-me" [added finger]. Thank the great Anna Frodesiak for that one! On her user page of Jimbo's cafe click the stairs. I'm in Jimbo's basement lol! Did you respond to the email, I'll explain?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I never got the ping from you. But no I did not reply. I don't know a lot about whats going on with Jimbo, and I have no idea who Eric is. I just wanted people to be nice and sweet to each other :)Amanda Smalls 15:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Guys, you know, couldn't we, like be awesome to one another?

Jimbo and Eric nice to one another? That would be quite something!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That's where the parallel universe theory comes in! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are they so mean to each other?Amanda Smalls 17:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll let Eric or Jimbo answer that one Amanda! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think Jimbo would talk to me?Amanda Smalls 17:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have under 1000 mainspace edits, have nothing but praise for him, and dislike Eric then probably yeah. ;-) Eh people, am I right !wink! !wink!?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think that Jimbo and Eric should sit down and let each other know how they feel.Amanda Smalls 17:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Like one of those hippy conventions or something and make them both feel the luv for the universe and at spiritual peace with each other you mean? You know, I'm pretty sure that would be a good idea. Jimbo could cram all of his followers into those groovy 60s VW campers and take them all to the convention and make up. Yeah baby, that might work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you being humorous or serious? I mean that they should communicate their feelings. For example, Becca says "I don't like how you took my shirt without asking" and then Sarah says "I understand...etc."Amanda Smalls 17:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I've made my feelings perfectly clear already. Eric Corbett 17:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett:Wait a sec, So you're the Eric that Jimbo doesn't like?Amanda Smalls 17:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and he's the Jimbo I don't like. Eric Corbett 17:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, why don't you like each other?Amanda Smalls 17:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm kidding yes Amanda. Just don't go there!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean go to the convention? Sorry I feel so stupid.Amanda Smalls 17:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, don't go to a Jimbo convention, avoid it at all costs, you might find him talking about your allegedly good content and ask you to leave..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't planning on going anyway. I'm not that into Wikipedia. By the way, What's your favourite colour?Amanda Smalls 17:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Teal/Turquoise but I tend to wear only black or grey!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I like mint green, pink, and purple. And @Eric Corbett: why don't you like each other. Personally I don't see anything wrong with calling someone a naughty word when it's well deserved.Amanda Smalls 17:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you read the earlier part of Jimbo's talk page and his personal attacks on Eric? That says it all..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did. But...forget it. It's probably never going to work out. And Jimbo's talk page will just be wrapped around how much of a douche both Eric and Jimbo are.Amanda Smalls 18:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, it will never work out. My opposition to Jimbo is implacable. Eric Corbett 18:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What a strange coincidence! Teal/turquise is also my favourite colour, but I almost always wear black. Eric Corbett 18:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny that! Amanda, Jimbo could always be replaced with somebody more competent at building an encyclopedia, Mr. Sanger at least seems interested in building content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Just so you don't get the wrong idea, I'm not saying you're a douche Eric, and I'm not saying that Jimbo's one either. I mean that you think Jimbo's a douche and Jimbo thinks you're a douche. You know what I mean?Amanda Smalls 18:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I do, but only one of us is right. Eric Corbett 18:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That's actually really funny Eric!Amanda Smalls 18:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I really can't say much because I don't want to get in trouble here. But why aren't you an Admin Eric?Amanda Smalls 18:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that's a very good question!!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Oh look, guys, guys, I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be about, you know, loving each other.

If he pulls that civility crap during our FA review, he'll wish he never logged on."

Absolutely not Amanda, whatever gave you that idea? If you look at my user page you'll find links to my two failed attempts at RfA. Eric Corbett 18:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha you know Ritchie that's exactly how I was picturing Jimbo in a saffron robe and long beard and hair!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not OrangeMike's dad? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You know what would be great right now?Amanda Smalls 19:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"My new mobile phone will revolutionise the business .... oh wait, it was just here a minute ago...."

Jimbo Wales stepping down as god-king to concentrate on his mobile phone business? Eric Corbett 19:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, he could always make it to British PM... Could you imagine.. He'd dissolve the entire armed forces and send a bunch of doves to Afghanistan instead with messages tied to them reading "Taliban extremists. Let's all be civil instead". As ideal as that might sound, the chances of that happening exactly..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As it's topical to what I've been editing today, he could pop along to Jaywick and say something like "hey, now stop it chaps with that stealing copper wire from each other, inflicting harm with a sledgehammer on old folk and flipping the finger at the Google Streetview camera, why can't you all just get along? What, you have to pay to stay here?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The best thing for Wikipedia's future would be if Jimbo just buggered off. He's well past his sell-buy date. Eric Corbett 19:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Amanda Smalls: Probably best to come back here and avoid talking about Jimbo if you want more friendly banter!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want more friendly banter, you need Martinevans123's "silly banter'o'matic"! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Helpful summary of my glorious wiki editing history to date: [5] (exciting pre-Christmas review). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Jaywick looking much better already Ritch, I'll try to look at it tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I was going to say that a trip to the salon would be great.Amanda Smalls 21:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Jaywick looking better? Have the luftwaffe been over again? Cassianto^talk 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What I don't get is why Jimbo wastes so much energy into attacking Eric and the "toxic personalities who drive away contributors" but clearly can't be bothered to do anything about it. I mean if I was the face of wikipedia and I saw a problem so big that I go on about it every few days and even stand up n public with an overhead projector discussing it to a large audience I'd at least try to meet my objective, otherwise it makes me look false. If he doesn't want anybody to swear at each other, fair enough. But by going on about the problem so much and making no effort to even begin to change the website makes it looks as if a] He enjoys having somebody like Eric to take potshots at as his followers think he really cares about editors b] The problem obviously isn't so great that he'll make any extra effort to propose and push something through. When was the last time exactly that he actively campaigned for reform on wikipedia and was a major influence in some aspect in developing the actual encyclopedia and the way it's run? This above all shows that he's powerless to really do anything, or if he is, then he's giving that impression. It shows that he is indeed long past his sell by date and that he's no longer really in a position to be functioning like this if he can't follow up with what he preaches about. If any foundation member reads this, please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know exactly what he does behind the scenes, maybe he is actively discussing the problems he sees, but I see absolutely nothing to show for it in site change and development. Above all, I care about content and things running as smoothly as possible, but if we're not continuously trying out different things and experimenting in all aspects of the project then how are we going to evolve and really improve? It is very frustrating for an editor like me to not be able to get through to anybody who runs the site and to have no say in how the project is run. It's about time the foundation started showing us more respect on here and trying to improve collaboration, but if anything the divide is growing, and a large part of that is through Jimbo's desperate attempts to cling on to his position and say things which divide everybody.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Orianthi

If I hear "only men should play guitars" again I'm taking the bloody lot of you to the GGTF, see if I don't!

@Ritchie333: You heard of Orianthi? She's like 29 but has the spirit, ability, presence and the coolness of a 60s rockstar, it's like she's a reincarnated legend of something. Richie Sambora's girlfriend. She's even played alongside people like Steve Tyler, Alice Cooper, Steve Vai and was Michael Jackson's lead guitarist etc. Most great guitarists nowadays seem to be Australian LOL.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a personals ad, Blofeld. Do you want help with the article, or are you trying to fix me for a date? :-P If it's the former, SNUGGUMS is good for female pop culture BLPs. If it's the latter, I don't think Mrs 333 would take kindly to that, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

WTF LOL?? I'm just impressed by her that's all, given that a lot of well known musicians nowadays are not exactly comparable to some of the classic legends... When I watch her I get the true spirit of rock n roll which I got from people like Hendrix etc. What part of that equated to "Ritchie, you should commit adultery and chase this girl" LOL?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm just pulling your leg, that's all. If kick ass female guitarists are your thing, check out some Bonnie Raitt live. I may have a closer look at the article later. Anyway, with Eric around, Wikipedia's only got room for one misogynist. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Check out Ana Vidovic! She'd be worth dating! :-) I wasn't asking you to look at the Orianthi article, I'm not interested in that, but to check her out musically (as opposed to dating her!)Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh man, I wish I'd just said "er thanks, but our band's already got a guitarist" and left it at that! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, well you could have always said, female guitarist?? How absurd. Only men should play guitars. Of course that's what a certain somebody would have automatically assumed some editors here would think...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been advised to check out Haim (band), and from their article it looks like I'd probably like 'em. Looks like a potential GA too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to check them out, I mean, I'll make a note to watch a music video ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I read "Este has developed a reputation for her blunt and coarse banter with the crowd, as well as for producing amusing facial expressions, a "bass face" while playing" and thought I wonder where I have seen that before? Please, let a reliable source fall out of the sky that links the two "silly face making bassists" together, please! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Color me skeptical

Hi Doc. Regarding some of your comments at Jimbo's talk page, got me to thinking.

My one experience with a FA article was that it was taken to FA largely through the leadership, initiative and work of one editor. Before he began this work, the article was pretty short, had few images, was not written particularly well (in terms of prose style), had relatively few refs and some of those were formatted incorrectly, and the section divisions were poorly organized.

After the upgrade process which ultimately resulted in the article reaching FA status, the article was longer, was better organized and written, had a plethora of refs all of which formatted to Wikipedia standards, had many images integrated into a pleasing layout, and was a tissue of lies.

Well, I exaggerate, but the upgrade to FA status was handled by an editor being paid by the subject (he was open about this) with the specific remit to make the subject look better, an exercise in which he has professional expertise and succeeded.

Well, that's a small sample size, and I suppose I should educate myself more on the process, if I had world enough and time. But my experience watching that play out, that people vetting FAs are much more inclined to look at surface things then delve into the guts of the article to suss how well and how truly the article explains what the entity is -- understandably, since that is hard work which would be extremely tedious, time consuming, and often contentious, and for which they're not really qualified. They are qualified to spot obvious and egregious violations of NPOV, but beyond that, not so much.

It is important to have proper references I will grant, but beyond that but I don't really care that much if we don't look as professional as Britannica. I'd rather have some misspelled words and even missing refs in a generally accurate article than a perfectly beautiful article that contains obscure but important errors, subtle skewing of emphasis, lies-by-omission, delicate misdirections of focus, and so on.

I may be wrong about that but it's a reasonable position I think.

This is one of the reasons that I am unconvinced that getting articles to FA status is the main thing, and really at this point the only really important thing, that we ought to be doing. Even if this is true there are complications at the system-dynamics level such that it's not necessarily true that every individual who is involved in a large number of FA efforts is necessarily helping you that much. (The person on you team who hits the most home runs may nevertheless be costing your team the championship for various complicated reasons, opportunity cost being only one of several -- and opportunity costs might include not being able to sign the pitcher you really need because he just doesn't want spend any of his limited time on this earth in the same locker room as Mr Home Run King, if you get my drift).

And that's even if this is true. I'm not convinced it's true, which is one of the reasons I have no interest in the GA and FA process (there are other reasons, some being reflections of mediocrity on my part and some not) but prefer, among various other tasks, to take take articles from not-all-that-good to halfway-decent-or-at-least-improved-a-bit. I contend that this is reasonably worthwhile, and though I could be wrong about that, absent some demonstration to the contrary I'm inclined to continue to think that and to resent implications that it isn't.

Anyway. I gather you are heavily invested in the FA process, and for that reason alone -- human nature being what it is, and all -- I'd expect you to particularly valorize it, and I'm not expecting to change your mind about anything, but perhaps this is helpful in explaining why someone might not agree with the general thrust of your arguments on this matter, or at any rate take them for granted as being prima facie correct. Herostratus (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I'm not saying that a featured article is likely to be absolutely perfect, and I'm also not saying that there aren't some great articles on wikipedia which are not FA and still provide readers with all the needed material and sources. That's most important, is giving readers accurate information, structured coherently in a high quality article. Where I disagree with you is that I think FA at least (GA reviews can vary in quality and some be more worthy than others) is important because it not only gives an indication to our readers of what material we consider to be the best, but above all the articles have been extensively reviewed by a lot of the more trusted and experienced editors who combined always produce a better quality article than if they hadn't been reviewed. I'm sure any of my page watchers who regularly work on FA and review articles, Tim riley, Cassianto, SchroCat, John, Ritchie333, Casliber etc would fully agree with me that the peer review and FA process is very important in spotting issues which the writer can't see which combined tends to produce a majestic result at the end. I wouldn't call myself fully invested in the process though as it takes a lot of time to review and to get articles to FA status which often seems like work. Much of my work tends to be invested at the grass roots level and trying to tackle systematic bias. But I do try to work on one occasionally with others who are enthusiastic enough to want to get it there. Absolutely though, for every article on here we should be aiming for the highest possible quality, and the way that FAC functions it almost always takes articles that one step further than if it didn't exist. Some editors might be paid, most are not, I don't think it matters provided that the end result is a very high quality neutral article. I hope my response clarifies some things and makes you see it differently.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

TPS here. I've rarely read any comments with which I've agreed so strongly as Herostratus' comments above. My suggestion, FWIW, is that it should be absolutely forbidden for anyone who nominates an article for FA. GA, or DYK, to undertake any further editing of the article until after it has completed the relevant process - as a small step to removing the WP:OWN culture which, in my somewhat limited experience, seems to prevail among those who become involved in such processes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

So, what do they do, let editors intent on adding shoddy content (like Peter Sellers currently) to freely add what they like and watch the article degrade back to a sloppy article just for the sake of avoiding WP:OWN culture? I don't think so. Taking it to FA and protecting against poor edits is one of its strengths not weaknesses.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is what Ghmyrtle's comment said, which was that a nominator shouldn't edit an article between its nomination and its promotion. But that wouldn't work either. An editor has to edit during the review period to take on board the comments and suggestions of reviewers. Tim riley talk 08:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah he said during the FA process. At the very time when the nominators need to make extensive changes to respond to FA feedback??♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) It should be up to other editors, not the nominator, to change text during the assessment process. The nominator could of course comment on the talk page. The point is to build community involvement in such articles, rather than relying on individual nominating editors who, sometimes, cannot see the wood for the trees, because of their involvement (sometimes, "ownership"), of the article. After the article has "won" the FA/GA/DYK prize, or whatever, the nominating editor could return to editing the article, editing in accordance with the comments made during the process and with an overview being maintained by the assessing editors, and others. (I never even attempt to "complete" any articles I start. I rely on other editors to help in that process - whether it's by improving sources, formatting references, or whatever. That's what a communal process of article improvement should be all about.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

PS: The problem, it seems to me, is that the current process assumes that the same editor prepares an article, nominates it, edits it during the assessment process, and continues to be the lead person oversighting it from then on. That is the process that leads to "ownership". The roles need to be disentangled so that more editors have clear roles in these processes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem in that though is that the article writers have gained a lot of knowledge and experience of the topic which most FA reviewers will not have so are in a lesser position to make the major changes they think necessary to the article. Not all points are technical or minor and not all reviewers are right. Especially with concern over certain content which the writers and other reviewers think is fine. That would be more likely to create conflict if it isn't up to the editors to make the suggested changes and respond to feedback.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That's why we have talk pages. But, it's a whole question of culture. There's far too much emphasis on individual editors, the numbers of FAs/GAs/DYKs that individual editors accumulate (not a personal attack on anyone!), etc. - and far too little emphasis on resolving issues collectively. Given the way WP culture has developed, with the abandonment of many (most?) Wikiprojects for example, I think that, to overcome the problem, the only solution is to prevent editors who have gone through certain processes (like nominating an article) from contributing during other stages (the assessment phase - other than via the talk page). As more editors gradually move away from the phase of starting articles on the "low hanging fruit" in their areas of expertise and interest (yes, I know there are a lot of articles still needing to be started, but...), we should be encouraging established editors to participate in those processes, as assessors and editors of other people's articles. But, it seems to me to be a toxic battlefield arena, often, that I have no wish to play any part in - in its own way, just as toxic as the admin processes in which I have equally no interest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There's many toxic battlefield areas on wikipedia and I don't think FAC is one of them, although occasionally difficulties can break out!! You'd have a point about listing FAs and GAs on user pages like trophies like I and many others do here, but in an unpaid, hostile environment we need all the encouragement we can get to remain motivated to edit here so I don't see anything wrong with it. Established editors do contribute to the process and there is often wide input which goes into various articles. If there is something wrong with an article, editors who haven't contributed to the article will say so anyway. I don't see how the FAC is a disruptive aspect of the encyclopedia. While it is true that there is a gross general lack of collaboration across the project, you can't get people to work in areas in which they're unwilling to put in the time needed to resolve major disputes or disagreements with articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think what I'm suggesting is renewing the efforts to encourage - and if necessary enforce - collaboration between editors, rather than beating hard-pressed and hard-working individuals about the head. Carrots rather than sticks, perhaps, and also a fundamental review of all the FA/GA/DYK processes. Should be easy. (?). Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Did I hear my name mentioned? I so agree with the Doctor about the GA process: it is worryingly prone to the personal views and idiosyncrasies of the individual reviewer. At PR, A class and FAC the input of a range of editors gives a much more reliable result. For every one banging on about (ahem!) anarthrous nominal premodifiers there will be another who is an expert on images, or on referencing, or on verifiability, or, with any luck (and surprisingly often), on the subject of the article. Occasionally a reviewer can seem to the nominator to be an officious busybody, but that's something up with which one has to put, and is good for the soul if not always for the article. The great thing about PR and FAC is that they weed out not only misspelled words and inadequate references but also "obscure but important errors, subtle skewing of emphasis, lies-by-omission, delicate misdirections of focus, and so on". That said, my WP work is mostly on small, unassuming articles that are as good as I can make them but are going nowhere near GAN let alone FAC. So to a considerable extent, it seems to me, you, my dear Doctor, Herostratus and I are ad idem, as the lawyers say. – Tim riley talk 08:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

AfD

Dr. Blofeld, can I have your wise advice on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R v Khan? As you will see there, I have a confusion about this case. Thank you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I like your user name LOL. @Aymatth2: Article notable?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Everybody likes my user name. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this a duck?

How can anyone (even people who agree with him/her) look at this contribution history and blame anyone for hearing the quack of a previous user? S/he has barely edited the mainspace at all, and somehow discovered Jimbo's talkpage, which isn't even one of the official drama boards--though it certainly serves as one? I'm sorry, I don't buy it. And I think if an "editor" (I use that word very loosely for one with that contribution history) had landed on Eric's side of the divide, the same people giving kudos for what a bright new "editor" s/he is, would be at SPI demanding to know who s/he really was. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I know, annoying. But he's not the only one...♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• If I had even an inkling of who it might be, I'd start an SPI in a heartbeat--even though I have no clue how that process really works. We don't need anymore sub-10% mainspace editors--they're already taking over the project as it is. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The George

Hi Dr B – sorry, as usual I have been distracted by other articles and stuff (also been away for a bit). I've had another look through The George Hotel, Crawley and I think we can go for FAC now; I can't see any obvious changes or additions to make at this time, certainly not from the sources I have. I will be away with limited/no access to WP from Wednesday until Tuesday 28th, but am around regularly after that, so I can keep an eye on progress and act promptly on any comments etc. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hassocks5489: OK, we'll nom it then when you return.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

So do you want me to stay off of Jimbo's talk page?Amanda Smalls 14:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Entirely up to you, but if you're looking for friendly conversation and a place to hang out it's almost as bad as hanging out at WP:ANI. Most of his talk page tends to be negative and pointless nonsense, and he barely responds to things most of the time anyway. I'd find somewhere more upbeat like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers or something...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed. Do you think that I'm too young to be of value to Wikipedia?Amanda Smalls 15:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you've got the potential to do a lot more in terms of content than Jimbo has ever done. Nature articles need a lot of work, a subject which seems to interest you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nature articles have a lot of sources and there's millions of species that need articles. Plus I love nature. Sometimes, I'll spend hours just walking through the woods, enjoying the natural beauty of it. I'm not one of those Die Hard go green people though. You know what I mean?Amanda Smalls 15:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think you were David Bellamy's granddaughter or anything :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to work on an article with me?Amanda Smalls 15:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not editing at the moment!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Help on Loboc Church

Hi Dr. Blofeld! Hope you could do some CE on the article. Thanks.--Carlojoseph14 (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice job! Sure, I'll look at it later on this evening.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Blofeld. I have been into edit wars because of the issues an IP user insists, though another editor have copyedited it. That's why it has been page protected. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Even churches in the Philippines are subject to edit wars?? What hope is there on here!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this was the first time. The edit war issue is mainly on capitalization. This was supposedly resolved when another editor does CE. However, the IP since he cannot edit anymore after page protection, logged in and manually revert the edits. He insists that it must be Loboc church not Loboc Church (which lead to some red links and no category in commons). It was a proper noun in that case, and all PHL article on churches uses a capital C after the town's or location's name just like Maribojoc Church. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It generally looks OK, you might want to link or explain what a retablo is though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look for a reference on retablos (or church altars). Linked it to reredos or retable--Carlojoseph14 (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Dr. Blofeld:, just a question. Should it be Saint Peter the Apostle Parish Church or Saint Peter the Apostle parish church. And what is the difference between Sfn and harvnb. Thanks. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Capital letters generally is preferred on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Editor who I have edit wars on Loboc Church turned to Maribojoc Church (diff), although not disruptive editing (and does not anymore insists church instead of Church). --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lindita Arapi

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Music community, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Distribution, Lifestyle and Fans. 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) 09:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Algebra II

Hey Doctor, (Is it ok if I call you that?)This has nothing to do with the Encyclopedia, but are you good at Algebra II? I take online classes and am taking a test right now. But I am stuck on a question. Could you pretty please help me out?Amanda Smalls 13:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the doctor is fine. Oh good grief Amanda, nearly 20 years since I did that stuff, maths was my least favourite subject even though I was pretty good with it. I've pretty much forgotten most of it, perhaps somebody at WP:Maths can help you out?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, So you're like 35 years old? (No offence)Amanda Smalls 13:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

In a couple of years, yup. I know that probably seems ancient to you but you'll be it before you know it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What?! No!! I don't want to be old! (Well at I want to be 21) but not old!Amanda Smalls 14:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Will you help me get the Valrico, Florida article up to GA status?Amanda Smalls 18:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're prepared to do most of the work yeah!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Eh, never mind. I don't really like Valrico. Do you want to work on making an Angelfish article with me?! Pretty, Pretty please with a cherry on top?Amanda Smalls 18:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Fish? Not really my area of expertise but I did expand Galjoen fairly recently.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Well what article do you want to work on?Amanda Smalls 18:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not that active at the moment Amanda and aren't feeling up to working on anything of real worth. I do have some books I need to be cracking on with on several topics if I can motivate myself on such a website...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Film

Hi. Can you take a look at this? Also -- I've been meaning to ask -- have you ever seen Invaders from Mars (1953 film)? I just love it, even though it scared the heck out of me when I first saw it. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey there!

I saw your post asking about my immaturity. Truth is bitter and it's not everybody's cup of tea. You don't hear anything from me because I don't visit Wikipedia like previous days. Also, nobody need me here. So, it's obvious that I'm a laughing stock for everyone.—Prashant 19:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you do have a habit of making things personal and still seem a little bit dramatic, yes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm reminded of an old Woody Allen joke, from his standup days: "My ex-wife was very immature. I would be taking a bath, and she would walk right in, and sink my boats." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Blofeld Well, I say truth and in a process to prove my point, it looks like a drama. But, trust me I don't take anything personally and I like to have a healthy discussion, despite the hypocrisy of others.—Prashant 04:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Polemic

Dr. Blofeld, would you please remove the banner ad of Wales from your talk page? I realize that you have a fundamental disagreement on the civility thing, but this is going too far. It's a violation of WP:POLEMIC and is only going to create more time-wasting drama. In the interest of, well, building an encyclopedia, please remove it yourself before someone else does. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

How is posting an ad, which Wales himself uploaded, and which contains nothing but a positive message, be a "polemic"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If the community is uncomfortable with the banner, then I'm sure it's nothing on how uncomfortable I really feel right now contributing to something run by people who obviously are not showing enough interest in promoting the actual encyclopedia and don't appear to be trying to improve relations between editors such as myself and the foundation. I'm at an all time low in enthusiasm for this thing and find it incredibly hard at the moment to want to produce anything of value. And a large part of that is realising how this thing is being run and the poor will to overcome site problems. I'm feeling that this is a huge time sink currently and work which further glorifies Wales at our expense. The people running this thing have the real power to breathe new life into project and bring us the people we need but what are they actively doing? Where is all the effort to bring in twice the number of female editors and realistically meet the 25% goal? The site is riddled with massive administrative problems and needs a major focus on content but what are they doing? If you're going to pay people to run this thing then they should be concentrating mainly on using their position to maximise the growth and potential of the website at the grass roots level of actual day to day editing of wikipedia and invent new and exciting new ways to get us the expert editors and new content we badly need. Jimbo, a member of the foundation, however strongly he feels about Eric or incivility, right now is doing just the opposite and creating an even bigger divide in the community, however good he thinks his intentions are. He's well within reason I think to want a more pleasant atmosphere on the site, but he's obviously not doing anything to tackle it personally in practice and he doesn't seem to acknowledge that the way he's going about it is actually increasing incivility and hostility by encouraging a culture of lynch mobbing to gain quick brownie points and further distractions from actual encyclopedia building. If he or the foundation are concerned with anything I've said or think I'm wrong, they're perfectly entitled to email me off wiki. I doubt I'll change my mind on the current situation until I see any indication that they do care what the most active editors on here think and start to show an actual effort to try to improve the problems on the site. Personal attacks are prevalent on here, and not just in sweary remarks; until you get to the root of the actual problem and try to make changes which reduce editor conflict then nothing is going to change.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the image before today, and can't say I would call it "Polemic". It isn't calling Jimmy a name, it isn't questioning his character, it is questioning his priorities. That it does so in a satirical manner doesn't take away from the message, a message that has been expressed by a number of people, that Jimmy is putting civility above content, the social aspects of the site above the articles. Whether or not you agree is meaningless, as the latitude we give editors when expressing themselves isn't dependent on whether or not we agree with them, but instead on whether or not the message and vehicle is "reasonable". Posting this message on a singular editor's talk page seems reasonable to me. Posting on Jimmy's, that would depend on the context of the discussion, but would probably be seen as soapboxing and I would strongly discourage that.

But lets get down to brass tacks, shall we? Here is the real problem: What if someone (me, Blofeld, whoever) typed this on their talk page when they were in the middle of a discussion:

"It's like Jimbo is saying "Imagine a world in which everybody was really, I mean, really nice to one another and a project which brings together the most civil people on the planet into one project to make the worlds a better place. This is what we are trying to achieve, oh and that encyclopedia thingy some want as well as a bonus, I almost forgot!! Click here to donate today!""

Would you call for sanctions against that person for that satirical observation? Is there anything that resembles a personal attack in that paragraph? Would you file at ANI for it? If you did, how long would it take to get closed as a silly case? The ONLY difference is that Dr. Blofeld embedded those exact words into a graphic with a freely available image of Jimbo. And frankly, that is one of the better images of Jimbo. It is on topic (about Wikipedia), it is properly placed (in their own space) and non offensive (no attacks). Some might not like it, but isn't anyone's job to please everyone, nor is it anyone's responsibility to be politically correct as to not offend every single person here.

Just as I would defend any editor's right to express their opinion about how Wikipedia is run, or the priorities of people who have more power than they have, on their own talk page, I just can't see a reason to force someone to delete something that is perfectly fine when expressed as text. That someone disagrees with the message, thus finds it convenient to request action, is insufficient for me. People on Wikipediocracy and other websites often complain about how some censor genuine disagreement with the "powerful" types here, and this is exactly the type of situation they refer to, seemingly with some good cause. If we can't accept healthy criticism of ourselves, our leaders, when done tastefully and without personal attacks, then all is lost. Dennis - 2¢ 19:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful comment Dennis. Coincidentally I too had written a reply that got edit conflicted with the temporary removal of this section. (I ended up sending it via email.) It wasn't nearly as eloquent as yours, but the main point was that mockery isn't going to make someone change their mind, and will most likely make them more entrenched in their views. I also suggested that a more productive approach than going on the offensive would be to defend those who are being attacked.

I should probably also clarify that I'm not try to force a removal here, devalue satire or criticism, or seek sanctions on anybody. I think an open conversation about civility could be a good thing, but I also think that conversation has a better chance of being productive if it takes place in a more civil manner. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If all methods of displaying disagreement were as civil as Dr. Blofeld's image, we wouldn't have a civility debate. I don't see it as "mocking" as there was no cruelty. I saw it as using satire and hyperbole to communicate a message, one that says he thinks Jimbo is worrying more about our manners than our articles. ie: priorities. That is specifically why it is so easy for me to support using the banner. Jimmy cares about civility. Jimmy cares about articles. This, we all agree on. The image was simply using humor to say he cares about one of those too much and one too little. Nothing else was injected into the message, no nefarious motives, no character flaws or insults. Jimmy is a big boy, he can handle it. To compare, if someone drew a cartoon of me holding an umbrella over Eric Corbett, while it was raining "blocks", I wouldn't make them tear it down. I would probably laugh, but that doesn't mean I agree. I use this as an example because a few say I "protect" him. when the truth is, I just hold content to a higher level than minor incivility. That is particularly funny since during his last block, I agreed with the blocker and said I would have done exactly the same, a short block. So yes, if someone wants to opine in a way that is not cruel or defamatory, and do so in an appropriate space, we should allow it. If we are to err, we err on the side of freedom of expression. Dennis - 2¢ 23:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I suspect many of the more committed builders of the encyclopaedia are becoming too afraid to debate these issues. It is not helped by the way Jimmy Wales, instead of responding thoughtfully, either attacks, gags or ignores editors if they speak out on his talk page and mutters instead about purging them. At the same time he encourages input from social networkers with agendas that have little to do with building the encyclopaedia and much to do with controlling the behaviour of content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dennis, I see your point. And that would indeed be a clever cartoon, though I think that there might be other admins who it would fit better than you :-). I'll admit I too smiled at the ad when I first read it, but I don't think everybody would read it the same as you...I fear others might see it as being more divisive. Anyway I'll stop beating this now. Thanks ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I welcome the opportunity to talk about this stuff any time. I don't think it is so divisive, and certainly not as divisive as what happens on Jimmy's page. If anything, that little smile might make someone open to new ideas, or at least open to tolerating ideas they don't agree with. The only way we can avoid that "little jolt", be it an image or a sentence, is if we just shut up and say we agree with each other when we don't. That is not a price I'm willing to pay. Dennis - 2¢ 23:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We're hard enough done by contributing to wikipedia for free as it is, a banner with a light-hearted rib at the God-King I think is perfectly fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Barnstars!

Going through your array of awards; you truly deserve all, just reiterating some of them:

		The Indian Cinema Barnstar
		Like Shahid said on 5 November 2007, "thank you for your existence on Wikipedia" and "Wikipedia is so lucky to have such a brilliant and dedicated editor like you..." Kaayay (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	genuinely preventing Wikipedia from fraudulent purposes by standing up for what’s right Kaayay (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for that extra mile Kaayay (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Your hard work is seen and appreciated. Kaayay (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		large body of work, never sacrificing quality. Kaayay (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

	For Every Hindi Film Page Created By You Award
	And finally once again, I thank you for this! Kaayay (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Dr. Blofeld:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Jim Carter 19:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Ah... This talk page is full of stars. Jim Carter 19:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Stub contest - final prize

Hi Blofeld,

Just to confirm that September 1 was indeed the highest-viewed article for the Stub Contest, beating out its nearest rivals by about sixteen times over. Sorry for the delay in sorting that one out - I ended up having to write a script to process the logfiles to be sure and it took longer than I expected to work out how to do so! Casliber will be able to sort out the prize details for you... Andrew Gray (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hubble bubble toil and toffee" (the noo)

Nos Calan Gaeaf Hapus!

Hello Dr. Spookfeld:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – As you stoke up your steaming wiki-cauldron, please help yourself to some tasty plot toffee, Tom Trot, claggum or clack ….. or else how about some cinder toffee, hokey pokey, puff candy or seafoam??! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)