User:Dr. Blofeld/July 2014

Odense edit

I'm replying to your last message here as the section on Esbjerg on my own talk page is becoming increasingly cluttered and confused. After our discussion on the images for the box in the Esbjerg article (when you impressed on me that blue skies were not the only important criterion), it seemed to me that to place an image of a fairly recent Roman Catholic church as representative of the city was a backward step (as I pointed out in the edit comment). I have studied carefully the discussion on the Odense talk page (including the removal of the long, historical passage on the city's Roman Catholic history) and came to the conclusion that it was not a good idea to resuscitate the controversy. The cathedral is certainly the most important landmark and we could select a better photo - perhaps File:Odense Dom St. Knud 05.JPG or File:Sankt Knuds Kirke Odense 2.jpg would do. Alternatively we could use the blue skies over File:Denmark-Odense City Hall.jpg (but this is used for Odense Municipality) or maybe even the view with Hans Christian Andersen's statue, File:Statue of Hans Christian Andersen at Odense.JPG. But I don't think the recent Roman Catholic church is suitable. Hope you agree.--Ipigott (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you were referring to the image of Egeskov? If so, I replaced it as it is a long, long way from Odense in the southeast of Funen.--Ipigott (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Odense St. Albani Front_2.JPG looks a superior image to me, clear sky, clear building, nice central position. Much better. St. Albani is hardly a non notable landmark either. I know which I prefer, but change it if you want. The current one is fine, I'm just surprised you removed an image which I thought looked very good in the infobox♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

After careful reflection, I've inserted the image of the Andersen statue with the cathedral in the backgroud. It comes out quite well in the box, I think.--Ipigott (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It's always useful to have a template. Thanks for the work so far. As for Odense's districts/neighbourhoods, the template in the Danish wiki seems to present a fairly complete list although I note that some important districts like Bymidten (the centre) and Nørrebro (if that is the official name) are missing. See the template for example at da:Agedrup. For English, I would imagine only a few of these are of real interest. Perhaps we could try to cover Åløkke, Blangstedgård, Bolbro, Dalum, Dyrup, Hjallese, Hunderup, Seden, Skibhusene, Skibhuskvarteret, Stige, Vollsmose. We could also base development on the city map. Have fun! --Ipigott (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Good find! I'll add more shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Odense infobox image edit

Dr. B and @Ipigott:: I don't think that's a good img for the Odense infobox. Yes, the sky is blue, but it's not a good representation of the city (or the church or the monument). --Rosiestep (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: We seem to be having real problems with the box image. I thought this one was more representative of the city than most of the others as it depicts both the cathedral and Andersen. Perhaps Andersen's birthplace or childhood home would be more suitable? Or either File:Sankt_Knuds_Kirke.JPG or File:Odense_city_hall.jpg which are used in some of the other languages? I could also try to enlarge the part of the current image which shows the cathedral and the statue. Maybe you have something in mind yourself? Or should we move the discussion to the article's talk page?--Ipigott (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Is the cropped version any better? Personally I think it is quite a good representation of the city as it includes both the cathedral and the Andersen statue. I know Odense quite well. As the main streets are rather nondescript, I think we need to use an image of one of the historic buildings or perhaps one of the Andersen homes. Unfortunately, the photo of Odense Palace is not too good. There are several photos of the city hall which might qualify too.--Ipigott (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I really don't want to get into a debate over images but the angle and position of that image for a main infobox image does look very odd, particularly the crop. I still think File:Odense St. Albani Front_2.JPG is more suitable but I see why you consider it covering the city's more famous assets.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Earlier today, I started a comment on the infobox image at the article talkpage for purposes of wider discussion. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Uldale edit

Hello Dr Blofeld. You've been editing Uldale. Someone else has, too. But I reverted some of his/her changes because of POV. Or rather: advertising. Would you like to keep an eye on the article, as this is not my home-wiki, do you think I should report it somewhere? Regards, Sander1453 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Éric Dewailly edit

On 1 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Éric Dewailly, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Éric Dewailly conducted research into the breast milk of Inuit women? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Éric Dewailly. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A short moan about birthdays edit

I've been cleaning up List of Hammond organ players every now and again to try and make a featured list out of it, going through and ensuring at least the years of birth (and, if applicable, death) are reliably sourced, and it's depressing to see how many aren't. The worst offender was Milt Herth, whose date of death was not only improperly sourced, but wrong for seven years. I thought WP:BLP was supposed to cover this stuff? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If you suspect the dates in parts might be wrong then it's probably a good idea to check them all and source them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I did, but I got bored after I'd done 15 of them! :-/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Name change edit

Hi, could you change the name of the film here? That place wasn’t in existence till 1947... :) Kaayay (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2 edit

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.

Gymbox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Farringdon and Advertising Standards Authority

Denmark Street (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fender

List of Brazilian films of 1944 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alvarenga

List of Brazilian films of 1945 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Marlene

List of Brazilian films of 1946 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alvarenga

The Yorkshire Grey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Camden

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of photographs edit

Hi again Dr. I have opened a discussion of my use of my uploaded Commons photographs to augment architectural text detail in churches here. I didn't want to carry on with this kind of stuff if I'm running onto sticky ground. As I refer to the photos of Berden church, I thought you therefore might have a point of view to offer. This discussion is promoted entirely by me, not by any criticisms - there have been none. Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Acabashi: User:Peter I. Vardy or User:Bencherlite would probably be worth asking on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Already done that Dr. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Chinawhite edit

I'll repeat - I do NOT have access to Highbeam. I vaguely remember you e-mailing me about it a long time ago, but I never registered. You have been here long enough to know that the number of sources is 100% irrelevant - it is the quality of sources which matters. Finally your comment of "this is how you repay me" indicates you feel this was personal when that couldn't be further from the case. Giant Snowman 11:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was a kind thing to do; I didn't take you up on it through rudeness, simply due to time contraints. I'll repeat something else - the number of sources is 100% irrelevant - it is the quality of sources which matters. Are you saying I could create an article about a completely non-notable footballer, but manage to find and add 30 reliable sources, and that's enough? You really seem to have a warped view of notability. Giant Snowman 11:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be appreciated, and I promise to give it a better try this time! Giant Snowman 12:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Alton, Hampshire edit

Hi Doctor, just wondering that if in the near future you're willing to help me brush up Alton, Hampshire to GA standard? I notice that it's already on your planned list so I was just wondering if you're still up for doing it soon? No rush, of course! I've just returned to Wikipedia from a long break and I'll start converting most of it into good quality prose soon. Regards ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take that review. I'll read through the article now, it seems to be pretty well structured. I'll start cleaning up the Alton article tomorrow and put in some new content. The summer is nice, so I might take some pictures of the town tomorrow! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! edit

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your help in improving Denmark Street from a dismal start-class article of trivia to a good article! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I will try to get back to V&Y, but I have some redlinked heliconians I want to clear up first. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello edit

I'd just like to let you know that I'll be stalking your "Great Films" page after watching The Kid :P Great movie, though I didn't understand the dream sequence at all :/ AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 10:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@AB01: Beautiful film isn't it!! Yeah that was a bit offbeat, which added to the ingenuity of the film I thought and made it that more special. I recommend watching any of my 4 or 3 star films in particular!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah! This was my first black and white film I've seen. I never thought I'd find an almost-century-year-old movie funny, haha. Perfect mix of comedy and drama! And I never expected the special effects in that dream sequence to be so advanced, considering the period! AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 10:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously?? First black and white movie??? Or do you mean first silent? Good grief, what have you been missing??? Greatest black and white comedy films, good Lord there's zillions. Great black and white comedies which are eternally funny no matter how many times you watch them I recommend firstly Bringing Up Baby, My Man Godfrey, Arsenic and Old Lace, Adam's Rib and Duck Soup, something like that!! Film of the day though is Once Upon a Time in America. Have you seen it? It's a marvellous film it really is! It's sort of like the crème de la crème of cinema IMO. All of Leone's films are masterpieces.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL! I can hear my mum's voice in your words. She's always telling me to watch old movies. I tend to only watch the newer ones. But I'm trying to watch some older films. I'll definitely watch those film soon. I'm planning on watching City Lights later tonight. Btw, have you seen Oldboy? I'm surprised it's not on your list AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 11:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten that one, thanks! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@AB01: Well, if you start with my four star movies you can't go wrong! If you can't find a film online let me know :-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, sure. Thanks :D AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 11:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Michael Phelan edit

Can you c/e the public-domainish tone and trim the superfluous fluff in Michael Phelan (billiards), and then I'll nom it? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup, hopefully later this evening. just popping in :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Mintlaw edit

Hi Dr. Blofeld, I noticed you added an image to Mintlaw yesterday - I know there weren't many images of the village available but I think that image makes it look rather bleak. I have uploaded some images this morning, all with the vastly imaginative title 'Mintlaw monument'. I know they are not brilliant but wondered if you'd consider using one of those instead? I don't like to change it myself as I uploaded the images. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sagaciousphil: Strange coincidence, do you live there? Sure, how about File:Mintlaw_monument_10.JPG? The article could use a lot of work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Aah, no I'm very much a country side lover and couldn't cope with village, town or city living; I like being in the middle of nowhere, plenty of space and with no near neighbours except cows, sheep and birds! The article does need a lot of work; one the main attractions in the village is the beautiful Aden Country Park, which sadly also needs work. The centrepiece of the park is File:The Ruined Aden House. - geograph.org.uk - 116777.jpg which is only category B listed due to it's ruinous state. Yes, the image you suggest would be fine, please! SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You must live somewhere though LOL, where were you born? I cleaned up Gardenstown the other day...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I could just say I was born in the UK.

But, just to cause further confusion, it was actually the very far south of England ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Japanese films edit

I sometimes forget about those, thanks for reminding me.--Cattus ^talk 10:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Progress on Odense edit

I've now been through the whole document, updating and adding references where necessary. You might like to do a bit of tidying up, particularly with the images and general presentation. I would still like to add a bit more on the landmarks and nearby attractions but that should not upset the remainder of the article. Can you extend the population table under Demographics?--Ipigott (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Do you have a url link to the historical population like Aalborg? Can you expand Agedrup and Allesø? Why is there no Category:Villages in Funen or Category:Populated places in Funen?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into this in a day or two. I'll be on the road tomorrow, travelling to Denmark.--Ipigott (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dartford Crossing edit

Since you mentioned some geography / places articles just aren't anywhere near half decent, I've been chiselling away at this one about probably my least favourite place to drive to on the entire planet (although the South Circular Road, an utterly miserable traffic-jam all across South London, comes close). I think there's a GA lurking in there if you want to have a look. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: It does look rather ghastly! Article looks good though, I'll give it a read later!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The main problem at the moment is that it superficially looks good, but dig deeper and you will find unsourced or questionably sourced content. A number of "facts" were wrong or at least irrelevant, but there are still numerous paragraphs that I have not touched. A second pair of eyes would help spot these. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've given it a read and think it does a pretty sound job of giving the reader a grasp of the topic and could easily be taken to GA. However, it is concerning that you state there are hidden problems so it would all need checking out I think. It's a really tough article to write well I think and to investigate all of those sources! That's largely why I always prefer writing articles from scratch!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I am struggling a bit with a sea of heliconian redlinks. It seems the systemic bias on Canadian+woman+artist is a) Emily Carr or b) oxymoron or c) who cares? Probably one article for V&Y would be enough, but it could always be split if it did not seem to be working. I can't think why there should be so many attempts to add unsourced material - maybe that means it will be a vandalism target for some reason. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"The towers are about 2,000 metres (6,600 ft) height"? See also List of tallest structures in the world. OK, now fnixed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

LOLO! Makes you wonder how many other blunders were written in it before Ritchie got to it!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah don't worry, that two-fold mistake is mine and very recent - firstly I put metres where I meant feet (the source says the towers are 200 feet or 61 metres heigh), and to make matters worse I then putting too many zeros on the figure. Still, if it's good enough for Nigel Tufnel..... The font on the standard editing box just doesn't lend itself to easy proof-reading, particularly when the prose and references are all sandwiched together, and on a slow broadband connection, the "Save Page" can take so long that by the time it's finished I've wandered off and done something else.

Clearly I have turned into an official old fart, as I'm confusing feet and metres and yesterday I put a lengthy footnote because I don't believe the average Wikipedian would recognise what "two and six" means anymore. Anyway, I have now checked over everything and believe it's now in a state to give GA a go. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Easily done! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Just looking through google books to see if I can find anything further.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I put it up for review anyhow, but it won't hurt to put other content in. Records for tolls and traffic levels between opening in 1963 and the 1980s seem a bit fallow - presumably they do exist, but in print form buried in a National Archives document. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I've added what I could from google books, really tough subject to write about and worryingly easy to completely fuck up :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Still a worthwhile subject to write about, it is in the news all the time, and a good one for me to check I can write in a neutral point of view. If I wrote it using my point of view, particularly when I've had to go from Canterbury to Colchester (which involves going all the way up the Thames Estuary, over the crossing, and all the way back again the other side), I'd probably be indeffed for violating WP:CIVIL. On numerous occasions I have come through the tunnels and gone up to Brentwood and seen four lanes of stationary traffic in the other direction all the way there - about a ten mile queue. And that's nothing out of the ordinary. Add to the fact that High Speed 1 doesn't connect easily to East Anglian lines at Stratford and it's small wonder that people put up with this crap. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a core article really for transport in the UK as the busiest crossing and is one of those articles which strategically it would be great to get up to GA status.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Phelan (billiards) edit

Are you sure that's not a really bad typo of my name?

On 7 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Michael Phelan (billiards), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Irish-born Michael Phelan has been described as America's first billiards star? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Phelan (billiards). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Almost! :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Capesthorne Hall edit

That was an interesting experience - quite a whirlwind, in fact. It was a helpful review that improved the article; a far cry from some of the (as I perceived) "aggressive" reviews I've had at both Good and Featured level. As you may have gathered, I do not cope with aggression (on WP or elsewhere), and that has deterred me from making nominations. Achieving these higher levels is a bit of vanity for me but, more importantly, it provides a bit of kudos for the projects in which I participate. EC has been a phenomenal support to me; we are "chalk and cheese" in many aspects, which confirms, maybe, that it takes all sorts to work on a project like WP. Thank you for your support - and not just because you passed the nomination.

A couple of points. At my last FLC (and I think it will be my last) I was told that redirects were "good" for WP, so that instead of doing piped links I "should" link directly to a redirect, because "that is what they are for". Oh joy for consistency in reviewers! Although I do agree that it makes sense to write "Perpendicular Gothic|Perpendicular" rather than "English Gothic architecture#Perpendicular Gothic|Perpendicular" (I created that redirect). The former works just as well as the latter for the reader (and is less trouble for the editor).

IRO Arley Hall I had planned to nominate it for GA a long time ago, then found that many of the crucial links had "died", and so I moved on. Perhaps I'll give it another look. In the meantime, encouraged by you some time ago, I am working on completing the lists of the listed buildings in the various Cheshire parishes. Cheshire West and Chester is "done", and I have got to "T" in Cheshire East, so not too far to go. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Peter I. Vardy: You're quite welcome!! Actually I was surprised to find as much as I did to "complain" about on that one, I really mean it when I say I've looked at a lot of your village church articles and they're as sound as a pound and I'd pass them as GA with barely more than a couple of minor complaints. The big problem as you say is that you can get some really irritating reviewers who seem to go out of their way to stop you promoting something and that can put you off it for years. I was scared off of FAC for many years and even GA after some excessively picky reviews and failures. Since 2011 I've noticed a general improvement fortunately but there's still incompetent reviewers who are putting people off of the GA process. If you let a GAR open to anybody then the chances are you might get a reviewer who is either too lenient or too excessive. It's better to ask a half decent reviewer to review it to not only save time waiting but to get a reviewer who you know is working with you rather than against you. As you say it's supposed to be constructive and further improve the article to not only get it to a satisfactory level but to also prepare for a possible FAC. With enough experience you'll find GAR gets easier and easier as you generally come to know some of minor issues in terms of layout and MoS that reviewers might pick up on. There's a formula, for sure. You're really doing wonderful work on here and it's time many of your articles reached their potential in grading. When anybody visits wikipedia and can say to themselves "OK, now what decent articles do we have on here" and they look through the GA lists and find your church and country houses articles and lists I really think it's worth it. 20,000 articles out of 4.55 million is pathetic really, so the more already decent articles reach the milestone the better IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Peter I. Vardy: Not sure what you currently have under your belt but a goal with those Cheshire listed buildings lists might be to get them all to good article status and reach Wikipedia:Good topics. That would be a tremendous achievement if you could get all of the lists for Cheshire at GA. I don't think we even have an architecture good article topics yet, I might be wrong as I know Hassocks does a lot of work on Brighton buildings.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually there are four! And I have to (humbly) admit that I played a part in two of them. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, they are featured, not good. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems that they don't do "good list" still. I think though that entries like Listed buildings in Acton Bridge etc could be brought up to FL status relatively easily though. Those which are narrow in scope are always easier!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

But there are 280 Lists of listed buildings in Cheshire, and more to come. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yikes!! OK, maybe pass on those then!! Maybe something like Churches in xxx parish would be more manageable!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Peter I. Vardy: Delamere Forest might be one that interests you to take to GA. From a geography point of view, it's actually really important it held the principal trig point for maps of England and Wales from about 1870 to 1940, and Scotland from about 1900 to same. ([1]) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting Capesthorne Hall to GA. I'm a big fan of the process (provided it's done right) as it improves the quality of Wikipedia, identifies to the reader that a certain threshold has been passed, and enables the nominator to increase their writing and referencing skills without the rigamole that FAC entails. The only serious problem I have (and I have to emphasise that this is me, not anyone else) with the FA process is its length and detail - I just don't have the time to deal with the 2/3 months a typical FA review can throw at you, although I'm happy to contribute to reviews as and when I can. I've had some great GA reviews (Talk:Hammond organ/GA1 was particularly good as it threw up new ways of looking at the article I'd never considered) and one or two where I've thought (not said!) "you're a moron" to the reviewer and walked away from it. From my experience, though, reviews tend greatly towards the former - ultimately everyone wants to succeed, and I always make the point that failing (Eric uses the probably more appropriate term "not listed") is not permanent and always try and encourage a second review later. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I do prefer to avoid using the "f" word in that context, true. I've had three GANs fail, but I've never agreed with those decisions and all but one – which is now back at GAN – were overturned at GAR. Eric Corbett 11:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie, for your comments. So much to do...... I tend on the whole to go for comprehensiveness rather than for badges. For example (almost) all listed Cheshire churches have an article, as do the country houses grades at II* or I. And I am now working through all the listed buildings in the county by parish, or unparished areas, making lists ensuring that every listed building in the county has a mention on WP. My experience of going for badges had been mixed; sometimes helpful and quick, other times IMO over-pedantic and tending towards the attritional (is there such a word?). For the latter I resent the time taken and the anger evoked. Preferring a quiet life I am tending towards comprehensiveness. Yes an encyclopaedia should be of the highest standard, but it should also be comprehensive. So I go for the articles being "good enough" rather than GA/FA. Or perhaps it's just laziness.

Yes Delamere Forest could do with a gong, but I am reluctant to work on it for various reasons. It is not in the centre of my interests, and my input to it has been minimal. The major editor is Espresso Addict whose work I admire, but whose writing and referencing styles differ from mine. Sorry; so if I do work towards another GA it will probably be a church, maybe All Saints Church, Runcorn, sometime. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You're certainly not lazy Peter, it's definitely your negative experience of the process. As I say, ask somebody decent to review it and you won't get reviewers like that. The point is that if anybody says "well what have you got to show for yourself in terms of quality for a 13 year old website", you can at least show a bank of articles which have at least been looked at and should have some sort of reasonable quality.Not to mention that process can bring about an article improvement and spot errors/problems if done by somebody decent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

At the end of the day, if you are writing articles and improving them for the reader, that is all that matters. Everything else is a sideshow. Also, for key articles like tree, World War I, France and piano, just getting to B-class is a major achievement on such important topics. You might be interested in this essay which is concerned that the quantity of GAs is being placed over their importance, and from that point of view, getting your church articles to B/C class and leaving them be can show well-placed priorities. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, a decent article will always be a decent article, whatever grade it has been given. But with GA and FA I think its a good thing for the reader to know that it has at least been properly edited and given some sort of review. That for me is why GA is an important step to make and worth it. With most B class articles I find a lot of bloat and worry about what needs doing more than I might do on an average GA/FA. Honestly though, some of the better B class articles could really be brought up to FA status without too much effort. A lot of Peter's churches articles for instance rated B class would pass GA very easily and some might even be FA worthy with a bit of editing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

All that's true, and indeed it's the reason I like GA reviews. However, taking piano to GA is by no means comparable to taking Rock Bottom (SpongeBob SquarePants) as the work required to meet the "broad in coverage" section of the GA criteria is orders of magnitude higher. Therefore, a genuine B-class assessed article (as opposed to one that somebody tagged randomly) for the former carries more kudos. It also means if it does get through a GA review, it will be more valuable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Good list nominations edit

It's a shame there's no "Good list candidates" - List of Hammond organs is not too bad, it wouldn't pass FLC at the moment but it could still become "good" like a GA. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Ritchie333:. Yes, I was thinking actually for campaigning for a Good Article List. We have a lot of decent lists which should really be good articles even if not featured lists. If I make a proposal though I can imagine a very mixed reaction.. Perhaps it's worth a try? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I would definitely like to see Wikipedia:Good list nominations up and running - how do we go about announcing it? And who might object and why? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I'm going to make a proposal on the GA talk page. Watch it backfire... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've made a proposal here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've opposed the idea of introducing a GA list when it's come up before, and I'll likely oppose again, for the same reason. Basically I don't see the FLC criteria as being particularly challenging to meet (admittedly the moving goalposts can be rather annoying, but that's another matter), so in what way might they reasonably be relaxed for the purpose of a GA list? Eric Corbett 11:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said "watch it backfire" as I'm aware there'd be opposition to it. I'm not looking for a support-oppose thing, just some constructive input on why or why it isn't a good idea. The main argument against is that FLC doesn't need as much effort, but in my experience of it it still really needs a considerable effort to get there nowadays and I think a lot of editors are put off by it and feel we need something in between. The problem as you say is what would we relax for GA with a list? Offhand I'd say that it wouldn't need strong prose sections above it, just a technically sound list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of thrash metal bands/archive1 was a typical example of a FLC, but if it is, I would not be so sure they're that easy for the average editor. I've been treating FLCs as if all the prose and referencing is at FA level, and that means the lead must be brilliant with professional prose that explains in concise but focused terms why the list has encyclopaedic importance, and the references must be extremely high quality. For GLN, I would expect areas of the prose and MOS to be relaxed, and the sourcing given a small break - using Allmusic for band lists, rather than official biographies, for example. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that was where I can see some light in a GAL, on prose and MoS issues, I certainly think you can produce a good list without it being quite FL standard anyway. I think though that Eric makes a very good point about a GA needing a decent lead and that it might be difficult to reduce the requirements to a given level in practice without reducing the quality of it. And of course it might open us to poor quality lists going through which nobody would really consider "good". My concern is that that some FLCs are quite vigorous, I was picky over one recently and it took a long time and much effort from the nominator before I came around to a support. I know a lot of editor aren't willing to go through that but are willing to produce a half decent list. It's drawing a line somewhere though isn't it, I think Eric's right that there's not that much point really given that most of the requirements would be the same. But what do we do with those decent lists which don't quite pass but remain decent and are not marked as having any form of quality? And if people fail FL, will they bother with it again? Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing happens. Look at the example of Peter and his many church articles for instance. Eric Corbett 13:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I would add that for some list articles, not so much churches but certainly pop culture and people lists, can be total and utter cruft magnets for new and unregistered editors, and just keeping on top of that can be a job in itself. (example) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's another good point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Evil
Evil
Moody evil!
Taxi evil!

I guess I prefer an IP adding cruft to one nominating a prisoner of conscience for deletion, with the first edit --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That's kinda like saying who was worse out of Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Chris De Burgh ([2]) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I was going to say! Don't forget Jimbo and Tara Reid!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Esbjerg edit

Thanks for your help with Esbjerg. I see it's now GA.--Ipigott (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, a one man show! :-) Ref 55 still looks broken though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

New articles edit

I think you're right - most of 'em are scientific things, but still and all. Nice to see. Also, the fact that two more Wikipedias crossed the million-article mark - did you hear about that? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

See here - looks like the Cebuano Wikipedia will be crossing that mark within a week, to judge by the numbers that I see on their front page.

I have a couple of articles I want to write (and one that I want to majorly expand), but I simplly don't have the time right now. Administrative tasks, cleanup, that sort of thing, is much easier to do with the time I have available.

I've given up looking at the number of articles, because I have a feeling it's going to take a long while for us to cross the 5 million mark...at this rate, more than a year, I'd say. That's not entirely a bad thing, but I think there are bald spots in our coverage that are only going to get worse if we're not careful.

That said...check out some of the stuff going on over at Commons right now. There's massive growth in at least one sector of Wikimedia... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Order edit

Thanks for your nice comment. The order follows the old principle of going from the known to the unknown. Numerous mountains lie on the border of three regions. If you list the less known districts before the provinces and regions or even the country, it makes it more inconvenient to get an overview. I really prefer to zoom into information. See you! -- CaTi0604

Dartford Crossing - sfn and cut and cover edit

This is now being GA reviewed here and there are some problems with some of your sfns. Could you take a look when you've got a mo? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you fixed them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick question for you, I'm going through the prose with fresh eyes to fix up things before they get logged on the GA review. The second paragraph of "First tunnel" says "The tunnel was built using a cut and cover", but it then says "The first tunnel, a two-lane bore tunnel". A tunnel can't be cut-and-cover AND bored, it's one or the other. I think the latter source (Banister & Berechman 2003 p. 65) is one you added - can you check? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: here... Says "Two-lane bored tunnel at Dartford". Should be bored rather than bore but that's what the source says and it looks a reliable one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to look closer. One of the sources empirically must be wrong, confused, or transcribed incorrectly. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Any luck?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Cut and cover is impossible for deep tunnels (and indeed tunnels that pass under large bodies of water, unless one drains the water body first, which was probably not considered with the River Thames). Given the decades-long timescales involved in the construction of the first tunnel, I would presume the "cut and cover" text refers to some of the very early work, e.g. we could imagine something like "a cut and cover tunnel was started" in the very early history, as it's quite clear that neither tunnel had their main portions constructed by that method. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9 edit

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.

Many Happy Returns (1934 film)

added links pointing to John Kelly, Henry Sharp, Arthur Johnston and Stanley Fields

Honeymoon Lodge

added links pointing to David Bruce, Warren Wilson and Rod Cameron

List of American films of 1943

added a link pointing to David Bruce

Odense

added a link pointing to Jens Juel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Catherine Rayner edit

Hey, thanks for the thanks on Catherine Rayner (designer) - didn't think anyone would even notice! It's only a tiny little stub, but as a Dress of the Year choice and a poster girl for the V&A, she definitely seemed someone who ought to have something. I see from multiple (unreliable, alas) sources that she was Bridal Designer of the Year for a record eight years running, which has to count for something even though she (and other sources) since seem to have quietly disappeared. Not much about her that's readily available, but what there is does indicate she had a ton of coverage in the '90s, and by WP:ARTIST standards, she has significant work represented (on its own merits as HER work, rather than "dress worn by local bride") in two major museums, which is usually sufficient for a painter/sculptor to pass the barrier. Mabalu (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Veloz and Yolanda edit

Let me try to locate some trailers for their films. IMDB has quite a few trailers now, so there may be something there. Also, we may find some publicity photos we can use at eBay or even something in the collection of old film magazines and books via U of Wisconsin's Lantern. Since I'd never taken anything to PR before, I asked Crisco to put it up there. Knew a bit more about GA even though someone else nominated Perry Como for GA. He/she must have felt sorry for me working away at it all the time not long after I came to WP. :) I'd really appreciate hearing your thoughts on Skelton! We hope (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No trailers that I could find online, but some photos from both eBay and Lantern. Bet you didn't know they owned a racehorse! :) We hope (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@We hope: Brilliant! Thanks! @Aymatth2: Please add ones which take your fancy, spoiled for choice!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

File:GubbiVeeranna.jpg edit

I note that you uploaded this a while back, do you still recall a rough date of when it was taken? (The reason is so that I can update the information before it can be moved to Commons).

(It's also technically a {{bsr}}, but you'd prevoiusly state you don't like automated messages.

In a similar vien, do you have a rough date (of original creation or publication) for File:Trimon.jpg ?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sfan00 IMG: I don't think the source had the date. Actually in looking at it I'd guess around 1955, the year he won the Sangeet Natak Akademi. It's probably best to change it to a fair use rationale unless proof can be given that it's PD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC) The Trimon image would have been taken in the late 1930s 1936-1938 most likely. I thought it would fall under PD-India as I believe the photo would have been taken probably by a British Indian official coming to Lhasa from India at the time. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Makred the Trimon image as Commons based on the date, but the stated author on the source was Freddie Spencer Chapman (British) and didn't die until 1971. Can I leave that one with you? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Name change Again edit

Sorry to be a bother, but could you change the name of Daughter-in-Law to Bahurani (1940 film)? I have appropriately ext. linked the page. Most of the English names from those days have been forgotten and these films are usually referred to by their Hindi names. I don't think I can do Title changes or I wouldn't have troubled you. There will be a few more esp. now as I go back more in time. Thanks lots. Kaayay (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kaayay: You can also move it, just click the move button and type in what you want to move it to!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Done! Learning something every once in a while. Thanks. :) Kaayay (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Jorge Negrete.gif edit

Thanks for uploading File:Jorge Negrete.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:Watermark edit

Let me see if I can't find one about this size to replace the watermarked one. I've removed watermarks, but from larger files than this. We can then get someone to delete the watermarked version. ;) We hope (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Prescription for Romance.jpg OK-I found a larger copy of the poster-it also had a watermark, but it was big enough for me to remove it and reduce the file's size. We hope (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You can ask an admin to delete the watermarked version. We hope (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Chrome edit

Nominated Chrome for FAC today, FYI: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California Chrome/archive1. Grab your popcorn and watch the show. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I have a GA review to do first for Crisco, you're next, then SchroCat!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Veloz and Yolanda edit

On 12 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Veloz and Yolanda, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the LIFE magazine called Veloz and Yolanda "the greatest dance couple in America"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Veloz and Yolanda. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Departures edit

Thanks for the review. Just to let you know, I managed to cut about 2k characters from all the reviews and awards, so it is much more balanced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: You're quite welcome. Looks much better now you've trimmed it! I'll definitely watch it over the weekend!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope you enjoy it. I loved it, but Curly was somewhat on the fence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I watched it immediately! Agreed it's a great film, some parts greater than others though. It joins my User:Dr. Blofeld/Great films list! If you know of any more worth watching feel free to suggest on its talk page.. I have a few ones still left to see though! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If I come across any that scream "must share", I'll let you know. Woman in the Dunes is supposed to be very good (Ebert loved it), though I haven't watched it yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Noted, thanks! Storm Over Asia is next to watch though, probably tonight sometime!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems interesting. I'll have to look into it once I've got the time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Have you seen Ikiru? Now that's one to see! BTW, you do realize that most articles on films reference Rotten Tomatoes and also external link it? It's there for convenience. Why should a reader have to look through a massive number of sources to find something? I just spent almost a minute trying to find the Rotten Tomatoes and Roger Ebert review in the sources. Whenever I visit a film article first things I want (after who directed and starred in it) are "what is the Rotten Tomatoes rating?" and "What did Roger Ebert think of it?". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I seem to recall WP:EL is against doing that (WP:ELRC to be specific), although I could probably bear accepting the link to RT (not Ebert, because [neutrally] he's ultimately one of many critics). Anyways, I'll try and find a copy of Ikiru. Mrs. Crisco is questioning why we seem to end up with so many Japanese movies (we watched Ponyo last week), but so long as the films are good she has fun. We enjoyed Grave of the Fireflies, though she was surprised at the... ballsiness... of Pom Poko. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Can you just add the RT link then? Agreed on the neutral critic thing, but at least a link to RL would be really helpful!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I've added RT and Metacritic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Chopin edit

Hi! sorry to have been out of touch. I think there may be some way to go yet in terms of fleshing out the mid-1840s. Many thanks for your Liszt section which was certainly needed- I hacked it about a bit in the light of some of the peer review comments on other sections. In the meantime inevitably others come in and tweak the article to their own agendas, - this is the most tiresome aspect of trying to promote articles.....--Smerus (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Smerus: Agreed, it's tiresome gunning for FA! It's definitely close though and I really think it would pass if nominated after much input from other editors of course. I think I've found what I could in google books, but I really think I'd need access to biographies to really find more detail. I don't want to get in the way of your editing of it though, but it really is one of those articles I've long wanted to get to FA!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Reviews edit

@Montanabw:, @We hope:, @SchroCat:, I'm having a quiet day on here today but I hope to comment on your FAs tomorrow and Tuesday if I can.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Monthly focus of Project: Missing encyclopedic articles edit

Only 9 entries are left in the current monthly focus of the Missing articles project. All of them will be created in a few days. What should be the next monthly focus?--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice going! Not sure, I always think the DNB articles are worth doing but are unlikely to be all started within a month!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with your view that DNB goal is too large to be reached in a month. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Missing mammal species should be our next focus. Only 39 entries in this list are redlinks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Skr15081997: Yup, that would be a good idea!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the suggestion, I got it. I think you want to talk about the project.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A new article you might be interested in edit

Bheja Fry (film series), seemed informative so I've reviewed. Have a view? Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Bare urls could be filled out! Can't say that Indian comedy is anywhere near the top of my film passions though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! edit

		The Original Barnstar
		For your massive improvements to the critical response section of Transcendence (2014 film). It's looking so much better! Corvoe (speak to me) 12:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Corvoe: Much appreciated, thankyou!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons edit

Yep - there's a huge image uploading scheme going on with things from the Library of Congress right now. Part of an ongoing project, but still quite happily useful. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Almost 22 million now, actually. Think we can hit 25 million by the end of the year? It's a tall order. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is a manually-assisted Flickr bot. I've been using it for some uploads. Very, very useful - and I've found some more that I'd like to upload but I'm not sure about categorizing. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The conservative estimate on this batch is 200,000, I believe - it's a majority of the Historic American Buildings Survey archive. Here is where I'm getting my details. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

True. But that will come, in time - we're getting more and more archival agreements every day, seems like. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Dartford Crossing edit

On 14 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dartford Crossing, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Dartford Crossing is the busiest estuarial crossing in the United Kingdom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dartford Crossing. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014 edit

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Svendborg 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:

] has its origins in Svendborg, in the "Villa Anna".{{Fact}} The company remained in the hands of [[Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller] until his death in 2012 at the age of 98.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sergio García may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

| residence = Borriol]], Castellón, Spain<br>[[Crans-Montana]], [[Switzerland]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aarhus 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Odense edit

The article Odense you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Odense for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16 edit

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.

Dulcy (1940 film)

added a link pointing to Ian Hunter

François Stoepel

added a link pointing to George Onslow

Sporting Blood (1940 film)

added a link pointing to Robert Young

The Nurse from Brooklyn

added a link pointing to Paul Kelly

Transcendence (2014 film)

added a link pointing to New Yorker

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

FLC review request edit

Hi. Hope you're well. Corvoe and I nominated Gravity's accolades page for featured list a couple of weeks ago. I was wondering, if you had some time to review it? It would be really helpful. Link to the article [3] and the FLC [4]. Cowlibob (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

re: Films edit

Hi Dr B! I'll have to look at the ping function - maybe I've switched it off - I was changing alot of preferences recently. Nope, not given up on films, just working on other things at the moment. There are still some big gaps in filmographies to fill and I'll have a purge on them in the near future! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Rights, pings are back on and I have more red dots than the King of the Mountains jersey. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool, I'll have a look at that later. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Archie Simpson edit

On 17 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Archie Simpson, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that as a boy, golf course designer Archie Simpson was the favourite caddy of Sir Alexander Grant, Principal of Edinburgh University? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Archie Simpson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 04:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"His Last Vow" edit

Hi Dr. Blofeld, I've been talking with J Milburn regarding taking this to FA after his GA review, and he gave some very helpful advice. Please would it be possible for you to look the article over and see what you think, as a kind of informal peer review? Thanks, Mat ty.007 09:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but it might not be until the weekend if that's OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Best, Mat ty.007 09:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dr., would it be possible for you to take a look at this in the next week? Thanks, Mat ty.007 12:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to look at it tomorrow, I've already reviewed and expanded Red Skelton today. And I'm going to be watching the golf for much of the remainder of the day.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Is it The Open you're watching? Thanks, Mat ty.007 12:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah McIroy. Love watching him play. I've been watching it the last three days. I forgot about it in 2012 and 2013! I watched the 2011 one religiously with Darren Clarke. Must be something about Northern Irish golfers which appeals to me! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Matty007: Actually I have some time to kill before McIlroy starts so I'll look at it now and leave pointers on the talk page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, they seem very helpful. Good luck with the golf. Thanks again, Mat ty.007 12:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Dr... I really don't want to fail three times. Please can you take a look at it? Any GAs I can review for you? Thanks, Mat ty.007 10:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Matty.007: What does "pegged" mean?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Number 1. Thanks, Mat ty.007 14:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Odense edit

Hi Dr., I have nominated for DYK here (also crediting Rosiestep, Ipigott, and SchroCat). May I say how much I enjoyed the article, especially learning the history of this previously unknown (to me) city. As per usual, you know the intricacies of the article better than me, so any alt hooks are more than welcome. Thanks again, Mat ty.007 14:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, but I've struck my name: I was only the reviewer, rather than one of the writers, so I shouldn't share in the credit. Thanks anyway! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Your decision, hope you come back to DYK soon. Thanks, Mat ty.007 14:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The initial hook looks fine to me and is well referenced in the article. Is any further action needed? How about a picture?--Ipigott (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Fam event today. Murmansk Shipping Company tomorrow. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Advice edit

Dr, I am a new user. Sadly I got embroiled in a dispute upfront and my one month of work is in peril. Refer talk page Rama. Can you take a look and advice me as to what should I do? If you think I am wrong I will backtrack immediately. I see you have a lot of experience about India related topics. What is "feedback request service"? Seeing the talk page what do you think as per you experience could be the likely outcome; I will plan my editing time accordingly? --Radrianne (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Radrianne:, I don't really want to get involved but Redtiger and Dharma are two editors with a lot of experience on here and have featured articles under their belt and in my experience of them they usually know what they're talking about with content. Redtiger in particular is a specialist in Hindu articles and I have worked with him on several occasions. The concern seems to be that you bloated the article to over 100 kb which began to read excessively with some POV. I haven't looked at what was there, but I think you should know that the best articles in my opinion are ones which are concise and punchy. On a topic like Rama I think for non Indian editors (like myself) I'd rather be reading a shorter, concise article which is easy to understand rather than a lot of Hindu definitions and content which are very difficult to read for non Hindus. I don't want to deter you from editing here though, but if you can look at what Redtiger is saying I'm sure you'll learn the ropes quickly. It is annoying though to have work reverted, I understand.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Thanks. I will backtrack. --Radrianne (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find this useful edit

http://lantern.mediahist.org/

This is the search engine at University of Wisconsin for media history. The information is hosted at the Internet Archive, but this is a much better search engine than that at IA. The magazines, books and trade papers here are said to be in the public domain in the US (but I check something before I use it to make sure that's right).

Re; Skelton's son's birthdate being wrong in two books, when Paul was working on Jo Stafford, all the newspaper articles said she was first married circa 1941. I was clattering through Lantern and ran into a magazine story from 1938 saying she had been recently married. Checking the California Marriage Index located a marriage license for Jo and her first husband from 1937. We were able to get a copy of the license and upload it to Commons as PD-California; I think WP is the only place where the correct date for her first marriage is shown. ;)

Thanks for your offer of help with Skelton! We hope (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks a good find!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@We hope: If you're not happy with what I added you can always trim it or whatever. That is a big paragraph in the lead now though, but you do need to mention his film career!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I thank you for what you did! Sometimes one gets all too focused on certain aspects and doesn't give enough attention to others. Your work with Skelton's film career took care of that to balance the article! (The big paragraph can be made into two smaller ones if need be.) We hope (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@We hope: I really mean this, and I'm sure Schro and Cass would agree with me, it's editors like you who make wikipedia seem all that more worthwhile and convince me that it's headed in the right direction. It raises a smile when I see the work you do and efforts you go to in helping people, and I am very aware of how lucky we are to have you on board. Editors like you almost make up for the dozens of assholes we have running about the website intentionally picking holes in everybody's work and trolling! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Dr.B., I hope you have a cure for blushing because that's what I'm doing right now. Thank you! We hope (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR edit

Dr. Blofeld, do you have access to JSTOR?--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I think so, I don't use it very much to be honest. It's great for things like plants and archaeology, but I don't edit many of those!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I want a little help for the symphony six article. I want access to pages 227, 230, 232, 235 and 237 of the 15th chapter: A matter of Morality from the biography "Sir Ernest MacMillan: The Importance of Being Canadian". They are not the part of Google Book preview. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at Symphony six, an article which I am expanding for DYK and Indian National Congress campaign for Indian general election, 2014 which I have nominated for GA. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks heavy reading!! I can't say that they're the sort of subjects I enjoy writing about.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You may like The Wrath of the Gods (1914 film), a former DYK. Does it has what it takes to be a GA?--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

With a little tweaking and expansion of the lead , yeah I think we could get it up to GA. I'll add it to my to do list!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

And with a little bit of hard work we can get the actors of the films Sessue Hayakawa and Tsuru Aoki's articles to GA! Dr. I want a little help for the symphony article. The pages above would enable me to complete the 5x expansion of the article.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the symphony article doesn't really interest me...♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem then, but I haven't understood yet what you wanted to do a few days ago. I was very anxious when you sent it.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Palaces edit

We have a dearth of articles on African and Middle Eastern Presidential palaces and official residences. A fruitless two hours a-duckduckgoing has drawn blanks on so many of them. Do you know of any good sources? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice! I can't think of any one source, nope. But I'm sure you could find something on most of them, even if brief.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Shakhtarsk Raion edit

Do you plan on making this template English? --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lewis Hulbert: Yeah I asked Ezhiki or @Ymblanter: to translate it. I intended starting a few.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's good to hear, I see it's already been partially translated now. I was just confused by a purely Cyrillic template on an article. I split it into groups like on ukwiki and ruwiki, if it intentionally wasn't like that feel free to revert. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Chrome edit

Hi Doc, can you stop by 'Chrome's FAC and let me know if there is anything other than the "maybe the owners need their own article" situation that you super-need to see fixed before you can support? I realize you have a preference for conciseness, but I'm kind of getting to the point where I'm wondering if we are having a difference of style question more than substance. I'd be glad to have Corbett or someone peek at it for yet another opinion, but I think Eric's burned out on race horse articles, I've asked him at least three times to comment and he's yet to bite. Yet, at some level, I think he would sympathize with the press pillory that Coburn and Martin have landed in due to their uncensored bluntness and telling it like it is, so that may yet tempt him... ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 20:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: It really would be good if you could get Eric to look at it first.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Any bright ideas how to get his attention? I have, literally, asked at his talk three times...! I'd actually value his input, but how to get him interested??? Montanabw ^(talk) 21:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How about if I email you a list of editors I'd like to see eliminated, and you take care of any that live in your neck of the woods? Eric Corbett 23:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Heeheehee! Do it! That said, I do not advocate actual violence or disobedience to civil authorities, but I can build a decent case for on-wiki trout slapping. (And, do you know about the high horse award?? Muwahahahahaha!) Actually, I can only think of one such user who is actually in my neck of the woods, and he really is annoying me at the moment - IRL no less! Email if you want that full tale of woe. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realise you'd asked him three times Montana. You can't "force" somebody to read and review something. I don't like it when somebody does that, neither does Eric. Perhaps @Crisco 1492: or somebody could give California Chrome a grilling then? I still think it's rather long, he might feel differently.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I could possibly give it a look, if I'm not too busy... not very familiar with horse racing though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it needs a few reviewers actually who aren't very familiar with horse racing to ensure it reads well to the average person! I still think it needs trimming in places, you might feel differently.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Considering Chrome still has several more seasons left in him (hopefully), I find myself agreeing with you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Crisco, thanks for stopping by. Yes, non-horse people are needed! (I recently did a baseball GAN for Go Phightins! and one of TRM's Boat Race pieces, knowing little about either, I think that was a plus) ALL of you are helpful, even if I get tired and cranky about the details. I was begging for multiple eyes prior to the FAC, and had a couple good ones, but not enough. Seems that FAC itself is the crucible. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: The thing is, why does an article on a young racehorse need to be 43 kb longer than an article on Enid Blyton? You'd expect Blyton to be 10 times as long, having over 600 books and a career of 40 odd years!! I think you could cut it down to around 100 kb that would be more reasonable. At the current length, how long is it going to get when you document all of his races over the next few years? 200 kb? It is already looking better though, just needs more condensing work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I created DAP racing and chopped some stuff from the 'Chrome article. See if it's better. Incidentally, the drpda tool has Blyton at 7893 words and 47Kb of readable prose, Chrome is now 43 k and 7484; I think the raw length difference is # of refs, we're stuck with news stories on Chrome because no books written yet! ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 09:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, readable prose is really the best way to assess size, agreed. My concern though is that after a few more racing seasons the article will be super long. The early sections starting to look better now, good edit! The 2014 coverage, especially given that it's only July still looks too long though IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

He will only have two more races this year: the Breeders' Cup Classic and a prep. He won't be racing past next year, most likely. This is the USA where dollars rule and the breeding shed is a siren's song to the owners, who could syndicate him for millions yet still keep a controlling interest. Note the fate of last year's three year old wonders: Orb (horse) retired at three, Oxbow (horse) retired at three, Will Take Charge is four but already has a deal to retire at the end of this year. Palace Malice is four and might keep going next year, but I'd say even money he retires this year, particularly if he does super well (i.e. beats 'Chrome in the Breeders' Cup). Mucho Macho Man was an exception to run until six, but he had trouble along the way and never really had a good, solid year until last year, and he was just retired. Verrazano (horse) is four but went abroad and so he might run next year, maybe; horses in the UK have slightly longer careers and tend to stay sounder running on turf instead of dirt tracks. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, DAP Racing looks like you could get it to GA without too much trouble!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Need to cook up a good DYK hook first! Any good ideas? LOL! Montanabw ^(talk) 01:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23 edit

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.

List of Brazilian films of 1950

added links pointing to Marion, Alvaro, Marlene and Tom Payne

List of Brazilian films of 1947

added a link pointing to Alvarenga

List of Brazilian films of 1948

added a link pointing to Alvarenga

List of Brazilian films of 1949

added a link pointing to Badu

List of Brazilian films of 1960

added a link pointing to Conceição

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email edit

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitz gmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks edit

For your comments, suggestions and support for Dadasaheb Phalke Award FLC. The list is a FL now. I appreciate your time and help. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Swakopmund Railway Station for deletion edit

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Swakopmund Railway Station 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/Swakopmund Railway Station 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. Laun chba ller 19:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Goemmu edit

Hello,

Unfortunately, I cannot be of any help with re-writing the page. I edit/write new articles when I have time, and unfortunately I think I wrote maybe 1-2 articles in the past year. I have a list of other Wikipedia sites that need to be created as well as a number of ones I created that need to be updated/improved. Thank you for letting me be aware of this opportunity! LittleT889 (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! edit

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Many thanks, Dr. B., for all the film work you put in with Red Skelton! I believe your additions made for a well-balanced article that's now a new FA! We hope (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you know, BTW, that S. Sylvan Simon directed the bulk of A Southern Yankee? The issues started between Simon and MGM while he and Skelton were filming The Fuller Brush Man; MGM thought Skelton should be playing a romantic role and not doing slapstick. MGM did not ask Simon to direct the retakes for A Southern Yankee; Simon was angry enough to ask that his name be removed from the film's credits. We hope (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Another bit of film trivia that would have been lost to the ages if not for old newspapers. :) We hope (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

And now it's time for me to say thanks to you for the barnstar! :) We hope (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: separate stage and scrren article for Skelton. It might be; think we'll have to take a look at what's now in the article and try seeing how that could be expanded with additional material. We hope (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

In the small world department, Frank Borzage, who directed Flight Command, was Edna Skelton's second husband. ;) We hope (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:Skelton tweaks edit

I'm fine with it--when we start owning articles, this is where so much of the trouble comes in, it seems. Not to say that obvious misinformation and/or vandalism doesn't need to be removed, but just because someone sees it slightly different than we do, doesn't make either of us wrong-and often makes for a better article. :) We hope (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice one edit

I hadn't considered promo for that Shocking article... It was too coherent for nonsense, unfortunately. Peridon (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Peridon: db-nonsense would have been equally as fine!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you edit

Dear Dr. Blofeld, thanks so much. I'm still smiling. You deserve a barnstar for being one of the nicest companions. See you. -- CaTi0604 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! edit

Hello, thank you very much for the gift. With respect to the other I do not think I can do it no problem; is that still not know very well the use of templates, and as I speak Spanish because I find it a bit difficult to understand some things. But thanks for your help.--Damián (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I believe it is fine. For now I'm working in 1969 and so I slowly, but if you want you can contact me in English so I do not have problems.--Damián (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Silk Purse Award edit

		Silk Purse Award
		I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Silk Purse Award in appreciation for your superb improvements to the Purappadu film article, essentially changing what was seen as a sow's ear into a terrific silk purse. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Brønsted–Lowry acid–base theory edit

My 1st GA.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Congrats! I must say though that the lead looks way too short for a GA, please expand to summarize the whole article a bit better♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Millennium Biltmore Hotel edit

So let's make Millennium Biltmore Hotel a GAN project. Ok? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No no, not next. It's just one for the future. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Prostitution involving Vatican City for deletion edit

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prostitution involving Vatican City 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/Prostitution involving Vatican City 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. Student7 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Great films edit

Moved to User talk:Dr. Blofeld/Great films for future reference!♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

How to link to a Spanish wiki page? edit

Please look at the "Television" section of the filmography on Jaime Camil's page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Camil#Television

The Wikipedia pages for some of Camil's shows appear only on Wiki's Spanish site. How do I link to them? Notice my failed attempts (red links) for the shows in 2001, 2002, and 2006. Thank you for any help. I am a native English speaker who uses telenovelas to improve my Spanish. Paulah88 (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Pony treats! edit

Treats!
As a previous recipient of the Pony Prize, here is some sugar for your pony, recognizing your review of the California Chrome FAC. Ponies do not really need sugar because they are prone to be easy keepers, so this is a special treat, only given once! (Subsequent awards shall consist of carrots). Montanabw ^(talk) 04:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

@Montanabw: Thanks! Good luck with passing the FAC!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30 edit

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.

List of Brazilian films of 1954

added links pointing to Heloísa Helena, Ariston, Badu and Paul Hartmann

List of Brazilian films of 1964

added links pointing to Christian Wolff and The Guns

List of Brazilian films of 1951

added a link pointing to Tom Payne

List of Brazilian films of 1970

added a link pointing to Elas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)