User talk:Midnightblueowl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Midnightblueowl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Kukini 17:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] New articles added to Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not a collection of names, unless something is note worthy about them.--Adam (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Con rit

Hi there. It's great that you're getting out there and being bold. Unfortunately, Con rit might not be able to support an article. It has been proposed for deletion. An editor is concerned that the article might be unverifiable. Please review WP:V for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve this article by adding sources, please do so, and feel free to remove the prod notice if you feel you've answered the concerns.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the prod notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. NickelShoe 22:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asterix volumes

Sorry to remove your list of volumes, but the Asterix article is already quite long, and there is a separate and very detailed article listing all volumes... as well, the list is part of the Asterix template and available through Category:Asterix --Invisifan 16:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna related pages

Dear Midnightblueowl - I've reverted your edits to the A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and Bhagavad Gita As It Is articles with the purpose of keeping them both as accurate as possible. Please don't feel disheartened from editing. On well developed pages such as these you may want to 'test the water' first on the discussion pages before making edits, whereas on smaller articles which need more work, at least in my opinion, it pays to be bold. Best Wishes, ys, GourangaUK 18:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This reply is over a year late, but oh well! The reason for why I added the information on the conspiracy theory was because it does describe one view point. I find that those rejecting and deleting this view point are devotees of the Swami who seem to be opposed to such conspiracy theories, and I understand their point of view, but Wikipedia is not biased to anyone! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] List of Doctor Who serials

Hi, Midnightblueowl. Thanks for your enthusiastic contribution to List of Doctor Who serials. I've reverted it for now, mainly because the addition of a "plot" column to all 28 seasons of Doctor Who to date would be a major addition to an article that's already over the suggested 32K. That's not to say that the idea is completely without merit, just that it should be discussed first. I've started the conversation at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Plot column. Please join in! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Palin

Hi, I saw you changed the titles to some Michael Palin series/books articles. For the next time, you can move a page instead of starting a new page and make a redirect. See Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page. That way the article history is preserved. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that you could do that:)Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Marlow

Hi, i was so impressed with how you added a pic...where did you get it from and how did you add it? I wonder because I would like you to do the same for Peter Blake (UK pop artist) and maybe even Augustus John...or let me into the secret. thanks Peter morrell 15:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your reply...I didn't think you could do that...I assumed that you must have copyright permission rather than just uploading any old pic off the web...surely all web pics have a copyright? in which case the pic you placed may well get removed by someone in due course because it is not in the public domain as yours. What do you think? I could simply place a pic of Peter Blake or Augustus John, say, on those articles, but as I understand it, that is a disapproved method. Please tell me if this is correct. thanks Peter morrell 08:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BNP article

You added the following to the British National Party article:

It has been given the nickname of British Nazi Party by some of it's opposition, with it's views being likened to those of the far right German Nazi party.

Could you provide a cite for that, please, as per the verifiability policy? -- The Anome 12:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link to British

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom or Great Britain by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 03:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sci Fi Investigates

I deleted your "Controversy" section because you pretty much repeated what was already under the "Criticism" header including the exact same link. Cyberia23 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritualism

Nice to see that you are interested in spiritualism. The article focuses on the history of spiritualism, not on current spiritualism. Not also that every paragraph cites authoratative sources. Introducing unsourced comments on how spiritualism is viewed in contemporary British popular culture doesn't really help improve the article. I think we can work together if you place your edits about current developments in the section on developments after the 1920s, if your edits are concise, and if they cite authoratative sources (i.e., they are not original research). I'm not trying to discourage you, just trying to be clear about what I would like to see in the article. Thanks --Anthon.Eff 03:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to write about current Spiritualism, the best place would probably be Spiritualist Church. Long ago, on the Spiritualism talk page, an agreement was reached to place most of the material about current beliefs in the Spiritualist Church article. For example, the creed proclaiming the "brotherhood of man", etc. is spelled out there. The Spiritualist Church article is very much in need of an editor to clean it up. Why don't you become that editor? Alternatively, if you would really like to focus on the UK, you could introduce some material on important early British figures--William Stainton Moses, for example, doesn't yet have an article. At any rate, I think that your edits on Spiritualism are sufficiently different from the existing content that you need to use the talk pages to explain your purposes. Thanks --Anthon.Eff 22:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wow =)

Ahahaha i loved the work you did on Jeopardy (BBC TV series)!!! I loved that show when they screened it in our australian summer christmas holidays lol

Loved Loved Loved your articles =] --- Bitbitz.xx 06:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calusari episode / UK rating

Hi Midnightblueowl. I just saw your note about the X-Files episode The Calusari. Do you have a cite for that? Frankly I'd be surprised if The Calusari was rated more severely than, say, "Home", which was (I think) one of the few "adult content warning" episodes in the US. --lquilter 21:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Since it seems like the rating comes from the DVD, and it's not clearly listed which episode, then I think you shouldn't include the information. "Our Town", for instance, includes cannibalism, and that might be considered "mature" according to the English ratings board. --lquilter 21:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll be very curious to see what you find out! If you can include a link to some official British DVD ratings board that would be an EXCELLENT source for similar such material & would be much appreciated. --lquilter 21:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vicar of Dibley

As I have said in each edit summary, the current category (sitcom episode lists) is a child category of comedy episode lists. This means that only the child category needs to be used, as you will see by the many pages that are in the sitcom category that aren't in the comedy category. --Berks105 17:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 2007 (UTC)


[edit] IslamExpo

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article IslamExpo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Postcard Cathy 19:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely the largest exhibition on Islamic culture in Europe ever is worthy of a Wikipedia article...(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)){Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)}

[edit] Moomin template

Hi. Thanks for creating the Moomin template. It is far more comprehensive than I would have been able to make it. -*Ulla* 13:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Just William

Hi there. Just wondering why you've taken out so much of this article? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You seem to have moved it? Just your edit note didn't say that. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Taking an overview of the pages related to Just William, it's clear that there are too many and they do need to be rationalised. I've left a merger proposal on Talk:William Brown (fictional boy) to sort this out. Let me know if you disagree. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neopaganism work

Greetings Midnightblueowl! Thanks for your current Paganism work ({{Paganism}}, to my untrained eye, looks quite nice)! However, I want to point out that adding unsourced statements (diff) or statements using an unverifiable source (diff) should not be added to articles. Please see WP:V for more. If there are any questions, please leave me a message. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paganism template (thanks)

Thank you Midnight! =) I've restored the section about indigenous spiritualities. ---- Esimal (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Some Eastern religions are similar to the Western historical Pagan and modern Neopagan faiths. Nevertheless, the trend to include them into the Western umbrella word "Paganism" is quite recent and opposed by the scholars. This kind of categorization was popularized by Isaac Bonewits (a Druidist), who's not such an "academic" scholar. Some of his theories are rejected also by many Neopagans. I think it's also an identity issue: Indian Hindus or Japanese Shintoists don't label themselves as "Pagan" or "Neopagan". =) ---- Esimal (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beowulf template

Hi Midnightblueowl! Well done with the template!--Berig (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neopaganism template

While this one avoids some of the problems of the Paganism template, in that the article names are mostly accurate, there are still many of the same problems with this one (POV and OR in the categories and articles chosen, etc). It's not ready to be added wholesale to any article with "Neopagan" or "Neo-" in the title. Also, on some of the cultural articles, I think it's best to let those more familiar with the article subject decide if they want to be included in a "Neopaganism" template and have symbols of other faiths, such as pentacles, put on their pages. Please see the discussion at the talk page of the Paganism template, as well as at Use talk:Esimal for more on this. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page for templates relating to pagan topics

Hello there Midnightblueowl, I'm aware that at least five different templates have recently been produced and added to pages within this general area. I'm a bit concerned that this profusion has taken place without much discussion from editors who work on these articles, and I'd suggest that this should be discussed centrally so that there is a degree of uniformity in articles within the same family. I'm writing to you because I know you have been involved with these articles quite closely. If you would like to join this discussion, please do not reply here, but go instead to the talk page I have set up for this purpose. Of course if you want to have a 1:1 discussion about this, then please do reply here or on my own talk page. PS: I realise that several of these templates are due to your creativity and hard work, and I mean no criticism of them! I just think that they are so important that there needs to be some consensus among interested editors in this subject area. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage those than know a lot about these subjects to add to the templates instead of deleting them :) Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That does assume that they are desirable and necessary in the first place: I can envisage situations in which the most comprehensive template would still be an unnecessary and distracting addition to an article. That's why this discussion about their desirability in principle is overdue, and should precede technical discussions about how they could be improved. I will copy this exchange here so we can add it to the discussion of templates in general in these articles. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On further thought...

...I just wanted to add something more encouraging here. It must be very demoralising working hard on templates which look good and work well, then getting them criticised or deleted by other editors. I don't want to discourage you with this discussion, and I'm reminding myself that new editors who actually want to improve the encyclopaedia are (a) rarer than the "John Doe smells of poo" type of editor and (b) therefore to be encouraged, not slapped down!

I think the suggestion I'd make for the future is that templates, images and similar 'architectural' contributions that change the whole look and shape of a page are significant and need careful handling. Rather than develop a template in isolation, then launch it on an unsuspecting article, it might be better to canvass opinion at an article's talk page along the lines of "Hi folks, I think this article needs a template, here's a first draft, what do you think?'" This would be more likely to get people onside, improve the quality of the template, and avoid wasted work if the consensus is that the template is not needed.

So once again, keep up the good work on contributing, and I hope we'll see you discussing your templates at: WikiProject Neopaganism/Templates Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of Susan Hiller

A tag has been placed on Susan Hiller requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger of Denominations in Wicca

Hi there Midnightblueowl, you'll see that I've proposed that the page you created should be merged (with a redirect) into the already existing section at List of Neopagan movements#Wicca. There's so little difference between the content of your new page and the old section that I think to keep both would be confusing. I'm sorry to pour cold water on another of your ideas, which must have taken you some time to work up. But these pages on Wicca and associated topics have been around quite a while now and are reasonably mature: this means that the pages and their inter-relationship is there for a reason, and that major additions/changes such as you inserted are very likely to be challenged.

There are two things I'd suggest for the future: (1) go to Wicca, click on the 'what links here' link on the left and browse every page that's there. You'll see how the family of articles that link to Wicca is set up. This may highlight areas of overlap or confusion, or even some gaps to fill! Then (2) before you set to fixing the overlaps, confusion or gaps, come to the Wicca talk page and discuss your proposals. That way you're less likely to get people reverting your hard work. It's always better to get some consensus first before a major change or addition, and the discussion often throws up better ways of doing it than one person alone could come up with.

Don't be discouraged, and do join in the discussion of these topics: we've just got Wicca to good article status through a lot of collaborative hard work, and there are some very helpful editors on these pages once you work out how to interact with them! All the best, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Traditions

I'd like to thank you for fixing that page. It certainly made it much more specific than somebody else changed it too, and it's actually something like a likst of religious traditions, now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.164.235 (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Spiritualism small

Template:Spiritualism small has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If your comment on the infobox is a "keep", or at least a "live and let live", could you mark it with a;
* '''Keep''' -
I would appreciate it. I am happy for it to be modified but I feel there has to be something bringing together the broad spectrum of spiritualistic topic and not one just limited to the Anglo-phone Modern Spiritualist Movement --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Please look closely, it is spiritualistic not spiritualist
The citation;
  • Y Mena, A.I.P. (1998). "Cuban Santeria, Haitian Vodun, Puerto Rican Spiritualism: A Multiculturalist Inquiry into Syncretism". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 37 (1): 15-27. 

[edit] Pagan Pride

Hi Midnightblueowl. Thank you for the work you did on the Pagan Pride page. I would like to know where you have seen the term used prior to 1998, back to 1992. I know the Pagan Pride Project is not the first group to use the term, but I have never been sure who has used it before. If you know, please let me know (and maybe provide a cite in the article). Thanks again. --FarShadow (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Many thanks

Hello Midnightblueowl. I was just looking at the crptozoology template that you added to the jackalope article and I wanted to pass along my thanks for all of the work that you put in to create it. I know that I am going to be spending some time in the next few days using this template to read a batch of wikiarticles that I might not otherwise have ever encountered. It looks like you put in some time and effort to make this template and I wanted to let you know that I very much appreciate it. Cheers and continued happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Western Buddhism

I disagree with your use of the term "Western Buddhism" to cover the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order as if there were no other buddhists in the west. You reverted my change without explanation. Will you please discuss it (on Talk:List of religions and spiritual traditions? Tb (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Oldbear.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Oldbear.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Rolfstarportrait.jpg

Please consider adding a fair use rationale (a template is available at Template:Non-free_use_rationale) the image [[Image:Rolfstarportrait.jpg]]. Thanks. Kushal 16:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Fairies}}

Hi, Midnightblueowl! I reverted your addition of the template {{Fairies}} to a few articles (jengu, kappa (folklore), and yōkai), and I wanted to explain why. I think with creatures from non-Western folklore such as these, it is important to cite a reliable source that explicitly calls them a Western term like "fairy". In my experience, "sprite" or "spirit" is more applicable, but it's worth mentioning in the articles that Author X calls a creature a "fairy", of course! Thanks, — Dulcem (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Putin

Watch what you write there. Putinistas abound.([1])Trysty (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ----

Could you explain why you're putting "-----" in with the navigation templates. Whether the templates are appropriate, I don't see how the horizontal line could be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also if there is a consensus to add this wouldn't it be simpler to add them to the templates? Or even better the template for the template wrappers? If there is a consensus, of course. (Emperor (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC))
I came here to ask for the same reason. As far as I know there is no consensus or even discussion I'm aware of for this. Wikipedia:Layout advises to never use horizontal lines. I think you should stop until other people agree with doing this to every page. And if people do agree then there could probably be a bot created that could do the work for you. It seems like you are creating pointless work for yourself and probably annoying some people. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, thanks for the advice. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Theyexploredthemoon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Theyexploredthemoon.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)