| Revision as of 11:09, 4 March 2014 editThe Banner (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers125,921 edits Notification: listing at articles for deletion of Kilmoon. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:16, 4 March 2014 edit undoDr. Blofeld (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors636,344 edits noticeNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <center>Seriously pissed off right now. Will return to wikipedia once sanctions have been imposed against Banner from nominating my articles or redirects for deletion and coming into contact with me or he at least has had a severe talking to and this civil parish issue is settled at ]. This is the clearest example of wiki bullying due to his grievances with ] and ] that I've ever seen.♦ ] 11:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)</center> | |||
| ] | |||
| {{bots|deny=Theo's Little Bot}} | |||
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| == GA mega pass editor == | |||
| Something is fishy about this ]. He is doing way too many reviews too quickly. And now that there is the slightest bit of trouble on ], he bails out. How do I get the review deleted and/or started over? Regardless of that, I am not sure that what Seabuckthorn is doing is ethical. ] <span style="color:green">|</span> ] 00:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| No, I could not find any books about the making of HAHK. There is a "making of" documentary here , but it's all in Hindi, so I cannot understand it. ] <span style="color:green">|</span> ] 01:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I've been suspicious about Seabuckthorn's reviews myself. If I was GA reviewing ] I'd have asked some serious questions about the edit warring and protection in years gone by, and cross examined the sources in "notable users" (which is a cruft magnet) with a fine tooth comb. Obviously ''I'' think it should pass (I put it up for GA, after all) but you shouldn't take my opinion as gospel. ] ] ] 09:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mmm. Bailing out simply because I said the article was a bit sparse on production seems odd. I don't see anything stopping it from passing GA as clearly there's not much available on production which doesn't surprise me from an early 90s Bollywood movie, however esteemed. I had noticed that Seabuckthorn had passed a lot of GAs quickly of late, but I assumed he was picking articles to review which didn't need much criticism. Perhaps somebody could ask him to slow down? I'll do the Hum review Jeff if you're stranded.♦ ] 10:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::He has admitted to helping "known good" editors get through their GANs quickly. It takes all sorts I suppose. How do I transfer the GA review to you? ] <span style="color:green">|</span> ] 01:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Lae War Cemetery == | |||
| The hover is very cool. Didn't know about that feature till now. --] (]) 02:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you! == | |||
| Thanks for the award; it is very kind of you! ] (]) 20:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == thanks for your advice == | |||
| thanks again for your advice. It was really helpful and material I didnt know. | |||
| My aim firstly is to work on the suburbs and then separate pages in Lae (inclding buildings, rivers etc then the main Lae page in that order. I will work on an infobox montage image (see Canberra as an example) later on. | |||
| - Do you have any advice as to how to fix the names of the pages (with PNG in the title) | |||
| - will add the template suburbs of lae. I must learn how to do that. | |||
| - Do you have any nice looking info box templates for suburbs or other features in Lae I might use. (the Lae infobox is pretty ugly) | |||
| - If you are able to and have good search skills can I request please; | |||
| assistance with Governance, Economy, Demographics, Arts and entertainment, Media. I an finding a bit of research fatigue setting in and I seem to be missing things. Some fresh eyes would be appreciated. | |||
| ON another note, I am constantly critisised by my beloved for sitting with her watching a movie and finding myself reading the plot and actors in Misplaced Pages articles. I find the quality of "movie" articles really impressive. Well done. | |||
| cheers | |||
| ] (]) 21:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| hello again. Just leting you know I have taken a heap of photos for started Yalu, Papua New Guinea. | |||
| YOu mentioned :List_of_populated_places_in_Morobe_Province. This is the first I have seen this. Can you tell me please what do I have to add to the bottom of each page to include it in this list or is it a static page that I have to update myself? | |||
| cheers | |||
| ] (]) 01:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks again for your kind words. To be honest I haven't finished as I got tired. Still have to add city mission, the churches and the eco lodge. Perhaps you might like to garner some support from your networks to promote this project. I am sure there are betters out there that can value add. | |||
| It has an interesting history. German missionaries and traders settled here. Ww1 resulted in Australia taking over all the while one stubborn German refused to surrender (akin to the Japanese in the phillipines I think), the gold rush, the colonial Australian times, fqcinating ww2 history including buried tunnels independance in 75, riots and tensions. | |||
| I am here until Nov and being a nerd, spend all my spare time researching honing and updating. | |||
| ] (]) 14:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Good Morning Dr. | |||
| I have just created a village map that I think would be useful for villages around Lae. | |||
| ] | |||
| I am not sure what to do now and how it best fits into the Yalu infobox. I was wondering if you could change Yalu and I will then change the others. | |||
| Thank you again. | |||
| ] (]) 10:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| thanks for that. I note that these figures: | |||
| | top = -0.6 | |||
| | bottom = -12.2 | |||
| | left = 140.4 | |||
| | right = 159.7 | |||
| should be map coordinates but they look too general. Should they be, for example, | |||
| top -0.6543 or do they have to be to one decimal place? | |||
| Also is it the top center or is it the top left corner??4 | |||
| ] (]) 12:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ok thanks for that. | |||
| middle Top of map is -6.484792, 146.943297 | |||
| middle left of map is -6.665215, 146.660743 | |||
| middle right of map is -6.593600, 147.207999 | |||
| middle top is -6.876250, 146.949134 | |||
| I have also done a Lae Suburban streetmap as well. Once I figure this out based on what you did I will do the other suburbs. | |||
| thank you | |||
| ] (]) 12:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| it looks Great, thanks for that. Will work through the others. | |||
| cheers | |||
| ] (]) 13:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Just a quick question Dr. I have tried to use some of the code in the Lae village map template inside the existing template for Mount_Shungol (as a map under the existing one) but it is clearly not working for me. Is it because it is a mountain template or anm I doing something wrong. I was hoping you might install it so I can compare my attempt with yours please. | |||
| Then I can go through and update the others. | |||
| thanks | |||
| Peter | |||
| ] (]) 07:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==DYK for Enid Blyton== | |||
| {{tmbox | |||
| |type = notice | |||
| |image = ] | |||
| |text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that ''']'''{{`s}} books were banned by the ] for being "second-rate" and without merit?'' {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Enid Blyton|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Enid Blyton|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], , )</small>, and it may be added to ] 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 ]. | |||
| }}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYKNom --> ] (] '''·''' ]) 07:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Very strange that the best article would be only 4th on the list and a church barely start class would be the top one. Still, I suppose it's a good thing it's on the main page..♦ ] 07:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Yup, the same question popped in my head when I saw today's Main Page. Nevertheless, a Main Page appearance is still a good thing. —] (]) 15:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*There weren't any pictures which I really liked which were free to use as the lead hook I'm afraid. Thanks, ]]<span style="color: #800080">.</span>] 19:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Teamwork Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For a great collaboration on ], now a GA. I think we've done the guy proud {{smiley}} High Five! '''] ]''' 11:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| Thanks {{ping|Loeba}}! and (welcome to my talk page after all this time LOL). Yup, between us we've really produced a good article, big thanks for your help on this. I think a lot of film actors and film and theatre folk are likely to come across it and think it's pretty good. I think with a bit more research and hopefully to find more on his stage work and a fair bit of pruning we can get it up to FA status. I anticipate at some point a biography will be published, but I think we can get it to FA before then. No immediate rush to do so though. If we can get it to be TFA on the anniversary of his death that would be special.♦ ] 11:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah my mentions are finally working again! Good. I've been on here before, cheeky {{P|tongue}} It seems like FA could be a viable goal, although I must admit I'm a bit wary of taking such an article to FA ever since the negativity I received over Moore...a lot of people are immediately snooty about them. I would also definitely want a bit of a break first to work on other articles, before returning to give it the necessary polish (which will be a lot of boring stuff like getting the referencing perfect). But yes, I can't deny it would be great to get him on the main page for February 2 next year. Gosh, I can't believe we got it to GA in less than a month since he died! I know you always work fast, ha, but that's unbelievable for me. It's only because you got the bulk of the information in there so quickly. Thanks so much for that. --'''] ]''' 11:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah that's what bugs we about TFA, always snooty comments if it isn't about infoboxes!! I mean you got next to no thanks for promoting Charlie Chaplin and all of the comments on the day were negative. Considering what an achievement you and Susie were responsible for the handful of measly barnstars we gave you didn't really express much! Once in a while it would be nice for somebody to turn up and say "bloody good article, great work"! Gerda's practically the only one who says anything nice to the editors on TFA day! Yes, let's take a break from Hoffman for now, it can wait a few months, so long as we get it up to FA in time for February 2 2015! I'm hoping to get ] up to FA with Eric eventually. Started '']'' the other day, an Indonesian movie from 1955 but can't find it online! ] was sort of like the Kurosawa of Indonesian cinema but most of his films are still missing!♦ ] 11:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :That Chaplin stuff didn't bother me too much because I was confident that the criticism was unfounded, but it did hit home when people started saying Moore shouldn't be FA - it made me think "it's really tough to make a contemporary actor article appear good enough". So I sort of decided to to stick with GA for articles like it in the future...But it would be less daunting to aim for FA with a co-nominator, that's for sure. As for gratitude - I don't really expect it to be honest, that wouldn't be a good idea as I'd start thinking the personal satisfaction wasn't good enough haha. It has to be really. I only put hard work into articles on a subject I really care about, so I do genuinely feel pleased just to be working on them and knowing that when Joe Bloggs looks at that article, they'll get a sense that this person was/is important. That's the drive for me. --'''] ]''' 11:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh and should we nominate it for DYK? I can't think what would be the best fact for a hook... --'''] ]''' 12:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Agreed, it's better to produce 5 GAs than 1 FA in my opinion at least on an actor. I don't think I've ever taken an article to FA solely by myself, even ] that nice ancient Egyptian doggie was nominated by somebody else! For DYK mmm, something about jerking off in Happiness might attract a bit of traffic, considered one of his best performances... ♦ ] 12:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Ha yes! --'''] ]''' 12:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::See talk page for DYK nom. Thanks, ]]<span style="color: #800080">.</span>] 19:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ''Kalidas'' == | |||
| I have made some nice changes to '']''. Please have a look. ] (]) 11:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Good job passed, incidentally it is now listed next to my '']'' in the 30s film list at GA!♦ ] 12:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As Loeba said the other day Kailash, always polite to thank somebody for a review...♦ ] 12:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Blofeld, thank u for passing the GA review of ''Kalidas''. Also, if anyone awarded me another barnstar, I'd prefer it either to be a South Indian Cinema Barnstar (for having brought the first South Indian talkie to GA status) or an award for me scoring a double ] (''Kalidas'' is my sixth consecutive GA). ] (]) 12:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| You're quite welcome, I'll reward you with another barnstar when you get ] up to GA, I might not be able to review it though I vaguely remember starting it or editing it significantly at one time yonks ago:-)♦ ] 12:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Tribute offered == | |||
| . So sad. <strong>— | ] |<small>]</small>]| —</strong> 12:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks Gareth. Yeah unfortunately most of the world don't really realize what we've lost. Of course a few million people have heard of him (mostly in Spain, Mexico and US) but the majority really haven't and I bet there were millions of people the other day who were like "who cares, never heard of him" sort of thing. I've listened to hundreds of guitarists in my time and while there many terrific players in the world he was the best player I've ever seen by a country mile, particularly in raw technique and talent, but also in spirit. He might not have been as melodically as accomplished as my other favourite ] though. A lot of accomplished metal guitarists also cite him as the best and he used no effects or picks, machine gun picados!. You might enjoy .♦ ] 12:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wonderful. Lifts one's spirits. Thank you! <strong>— | ] |<small>]</small>]| —</strong> 12:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| also from the late 60s when he was a young man. There's very few people who can intimidate a camera and the audience as he does at 1:00!! ♦ ] 12:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is both enthralling and beguiling. <strong>— | ] |<small>]</small>]| —</strong> 12:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Cillian Murphy == | |||
| Hey - would you be at all interested in helping ] keep his FA status? The article's at FAR...I've already replaced most of the poor refs, but it definitely needs some beefing up with more information on some of his roles and films. You're really good at that sort of thing so I thought I'd ask, but obviously don't worry if you lack the time or inclination. I think he's a great actor (and absolutely beautiful, but obviously that has nothing to do with it...ahem) --'''] ]''' 13:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I can't say he's one that I've ever regarded that highly, good actor of course, a bit funny looking though if you ask me, but I get the blue eyed chiselled thing appeals to a lot of women! I actually have a long association with the article though since my days of arguing fair use images with Preity Zinta and always thought it was very good so i'm surprised to see it at FAR. I'll looking in on it later to see what needs doing though. He's been in a lot of important films in the 2000s, I saw him last night actually in Boyle's ''28 Days Later''. Like Hoffman he has that tendency to "pop up" in various films.. ♦ ] 13:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The first half is pretty solid, but everything from 2007 onwards (when it passed FA) is very rushed and stilted. You need to see The Wind That Shakes the Barley if you're not that impressed by him - I watched it about a month ago and was blown away. That would be great if you can work on it - I'll try and do stuff this week as well. ] is at FAR as well, which is sad, but that one would take a lot more work...so is ] for that matter. WP:ACTOR is taking a hit! Luckily there's quite a few editors doing high quality work on actors at the moment though, so it should balance out... --'''] ]''' 13:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is the same editor trying to delist them all??? Amazing how times change on wikipedia, in 2007 Shahid and myself always thought highly of the article!! He's one of those actors I don't pay that much attention to in films in all honesty, I've never thought of him as a leading actor in the Tom Cruise sense of the word. I probably thought he seemed a bit creepy or something I don't know hehe. I've always thought he was a good though, very good in 28 Days. If you're willing to work on it I will too.♦ ] 13:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::No he's not a leading actor type but I think he's always good - he has a great presence. A bit creepy yes, but in a good way! No I think it's different people who have FAR'd them all. To be fair they were all promoted years ago. It's only a matter of time until ] is nominated, I have to admit that it no longer meets the criteria... --'''] ]''' 14:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is about time that articles which passed in the earlier days on here went through re review. Even my first FA on the great Iranian master filmmaker ] might not cut the mustard now although by 2007 standards it is very good. Tons of new sources are available for him in google books which never available or even unpublished in 2007. It reads very well in the analysis I guess but in terms of sourcing and strength it badly needs updating but I haven't found the time to do it. I can't handle too much at once LOL, it gives me a headache. OK, Cillian Murphy for the next week, I'll also leave a note in the Diane Keaton FAR to hold off on delisting for a few weeks. Too much to do right now!! Seems we're too late on Keaton though it's been delisted.♦ ] 14:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh weird - I put the Keaton FAR on my watchlist, to see what happened, but hadn't noticed it being delisted. Ah well - I'm a fan of hers but I had sort of decided to let it slide...it would need a fair bit of work (for instance, there's no sort of analytical/reflective section, which I think is necessary for an actor like her) and there's really only so much time I can commit to WP, what with working full-time, being exhausted when I get home, needing to feed my film habit, seeing friends...Murphy doesn't need too much though so I decided that was worth taking on. --'''] ]''' 20:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, it's not something I think I'd really want to commit to getting to FA again now. I like her too but not a priority for me. Murphy as you say though requires less. So working on that over next week a bit at a time might be easier and manageable, see how it goes.♦ ] 20:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Fantasia == | |||
| Just letting you know I have finished that review for ] you requested yesterday. I'm still recovering from my hangover so that's why I could not finish the review last night LOL! The article is very good, only a few points need addressing so I put it on hold for seven days until those minor issues (left on the review page) are addressed! Thanks, '''☠''' ]] '''☠''' 15:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Nice one, much appreciated, thanks. I'll take a look at it this evening. I really need to lift some weights as soon as possible, I feel really aggressive for some reason right now in a good way, and it's not because of a dispute over infoboxes or tags or anything wiki-related LOL! ♦ ] 15:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I see. That's what I'm just about to do in a minute! A punch bag helps a lot too. Print out a picture of a BLP infobox and stick it on a punch bag? '''☠''' ]] '''☠''' 15:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Haha, I like your sense of humour. ♦ ] 18:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Just letting you know that Fantasia easily passed. I must congratulate you and Koala on your fast work with the article! Another film GA. If you have anything else that needs reviewing quickly soon let me know! '''☠''' ]] '''☠''' 19:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Very good review, much appreciated! Surprised at the traffic it gets though for an older movie, although Citizen Kane gets twice as many hits a month at 107,000 odd. Citizen Kane at FA for me would be like Holy Grail of films on wikipedia. And I didn't even like the movie that much on first viewing! I've now seen it five times on DVD and it gets greater and greater every time I see it and its genius becomes more and more obvious. ''Citizen Kane'', ''Dr Caligari'', ''The Kid'', ''Bicycle Thieves'', ''2001 Space Odyssey'', ''Sunset Boulevard'', ''Roman Holiday'', ''Psycho'', ''Ben Hur'', ''Lawrence of Arabia'', ''The Good the Bad and the Ugly'', ''The Godfather'', ''Cuckoo's Nest'', ''Shawshank Redemption'', ''LA Confidential'' and ''Lords of the Rings'' trilogy for me are ultra core film articles I'd love to get to FA. All top 10 greatest film candidates for me. I suppose I could start with taking ''City Lights'' that bit further. It comes close but I think ''The Kid'' just nips it to the post for greatest Chaplin film IMO.♦ ] 19:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I was surprised at the amount of views it got too. Maybe bringing ] to FA status would be a good goal, as of all it has a much better chance of reaching the FA criteria than Bentworth has! I've never actually seen either Fantasia or Citizen Kane LOL! I looked through the article's talk page, it seems like a few people have been wanting to get it for GA since 2011. Since it's hugely popular (100K people a month is a huge number!) it could be worth bringing for GA and then FA. I think there is a good chance it will happen... '''☠''' ]] '''☠''' 19:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '']'' is one which will surprise a few people but the look and atmosphere of the film in my opinion is incredible. A very special film in terms of lighting and mind expansion I think. For me it's all about the place it takes you to, it's like a different world. It screened at the Berlin festival last month in a restored version which I'm sure attracted countless notables in the film industry and scholars worldwide.♦ ] 19:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The biggest achievement for me though I think would be to get either all of the Academy Award winning films since 1927 up to FA, or even better, to make Stanley Kubrick and every one of his films an FA and make it an FA topic. That would be the grandest I think! Wishful thinking though. I'd never want to commit that amount of time and work to it., but I might consider requesting books for Citizen Kane or Sunset Boulevard through the wiki grant and tackling a few of the giant films. Any takers {{ping|Lugnuts}}, {{ping|Erik}}, {{ping|Loeba}} and co....♦ ] 19:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think we can do that. Seriously if you put you mind to something you can do it (says the one who's never seen Citizen Kane...). If you want to I can help with a few of those films and work towards making them up to GA standard at least. I'm pretty good at copy editing. Stanley Kubrick is a legendary director. Clockwork Orange would make a good GA target! '''☠''' ]] '''☠''' 20:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah Clockwork comes close, but I think 2001 is Kubrick's best although that's already GA. His most clinical without the shadow of a doubt though is ''The Killing''. If you've not seen it do so, it's one of the most intricate crime films I've ever seen. Genius. Only 85 minutes or something but it feels like you've been with it all day after seeing it. Nah it would take like 20 years to do all that LOL. But I could certainly be achievable as a start trying to a get a Kubrick film or two to GA or one of those mentioned above to GA. Too many people neglect the core articles on here out of fear or something, but Loeba and Susie showed that Chaplin was achievable and I was frightened off writing it since I started on here! I was looking through our FA/GA list of films earlier and it's kind of pathetic how many core films we actually have at GA let alone FA, there's little more than a handful at FA.♦ ] 20:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'd love to work on the Kubrick article but there's a lot of people interested in it which makes it difficult (including one particular editor you're not crazy about)...I was involved in an overhaul of it about two years ago, but it's already changed loads since then so I kind of give up...it's in desperate need of refining and focus though. 16 thousand bloody words! That's ridiculous. As for the specific films, I adore them but for some reason I've never been that drawn to working on film articles! I really don't know why; I love reading them but can't really imagine writing one (apart from ], I seriously considered working on that...and then someone else came along and improved it, haha). I'd really enjoy working on the Welles article - he's such a character, I love him. I've been meaning to get a biography on him for a while, if I do (and when I've finished my other projects) I may well use it to improve the article. Depends on how ambitious and motivated I feel - that is very variable! --'''] ]''' 20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::''The Killing'' is such an under-rated film. Was blown away by it the first time I saw it. Without that and Dassin's '']'', you wouldn't have '']''. I'll chip in where I can with Kubrick's films. Well, at least until the US and Russia don't re-enact ''Dr Strangelove''. Anyone else think of that film when hearing about Obama's phone-call to Putin? Now where's General Ripper when you need him...? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Yeah that might be a problem of course, Kubrick's owners might crawl out of the woodwork. The article as it is is very bloated and would need a complete overhaul. Perhaps if we picked something like The Killing or one of his lesser prominent films that would be something. ''Citizen Kane'' is probably the same in terms of owners on here. Love Welles, he could quite possibly be the best film actor/director combined that we've ever had, although obviously Chaplin and probably a few others have a claim to that. Like you though Loeba I prefer to work quietly without too many people glowering over every edit and then attacking it. My last experience of that was Paris and it was the most unpleasant thing I've probably encountered on here. ''Something'' of real value and core whatever it is out of those is really needed though. I think Citizen Kane would be the one to really go for with over 1 million hits a year.♦ ] 20:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'']'' gets my vote for one of his lesser-known films. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I've seen them all, I even enjoyed his debut film. Amateurish maybe, but I loved the girl and tree! The only one I'm not particularly gushing about is Spartacus and that was largely because I thought Kirk Douglas was miscast. Virtually very film is a masterpiece. Some of them have a few flaws, as Roger Ebert explains with Full Metal Jacket etc (even if the first half was wonderfully entertaining), but I think he's the closest director to having a full set of gems. | |||
| Only a couple of hours until the Oscars! I'll probably be completely wrong but here's my guess (clueless about the foreign and documentaries): | |||
| *Best Picture: 12 Years a Slave | |||
| *Best Director: Alfonso Cuaron for Gravity | |||
| *Best Actor: Matthew McConaughey for Dallas Buyers Club (although Ejifor also has a strong chance) | |||
| *Best Actress: Cate Blanchett for Blue Jasmine | |||
| *Best Supporting Actor: Jared Leto for Dallas Buyers Club | |||
| *Best Supporting Actress: Lupita Nyong'O for 12 years a slave (though Jennifer has a higher probability of winning) | |||
| *Best Original Screenplay: American Hustle | |||
| *Best Adapted Screenplay: 12 Years a Slave | |||
| *Best Animated Film: Frozen | |||
| *Best Song: "Let it go" from Frozen | |||
| *Best Music: Gravity | |||
| *Best Cinematography: Gravity | |||
| *Best Visual Effects: Gravity | |||
| *Best Editing; Captain Phillips (or Gravity) | |||
| *Best Production Design: The Great Gatsby | |||
| *Best Costumes: American Hustle | |||
| *Best Sound Editing: Gravity | |||
| *Best Sound Mixing: Gravity | |||
| *Best Make up: Dallas Buyers Club | |||
| ♦ ] 21:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You know what, I'm actually thinking about being really cheeky and staying up to watch them then pulling a sicky tomorrow. It's not complete rubbish, I actually have been feeling ill today, and I haven't taken a single sick day this year! Screw it, I think I'm gonna do it. Should try and get a couple of hours sleep in first though... --'''] ]''' 21:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, and I'm pretty sure foreign will go to The Great Beauty and documentary will go to The Act of Killing. The main one I'm intrigued to about (ie, that isn't predictable) is Supporting Actress. Will be quite mad if JLaw gets it - two Oscars before the age of what, 23? --'''] ]''' 22:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah that'll be annoying LOL! I think Lupita stands a very good chance as the Academy do tend to note realist dramatic performances. Lupita was incredibly believable in 12 years. I thought Fassbender and her were the best in the film. I have a feeling though that Lawrence might just nip it which will be favouritism of course even if she was very good!! I wasn't overly impressed by Ejio in all honesty though. I'll be the maddest though if neither McCon or Leto win. They stood out a mile as the best this year IMO. Fassbender was great and deserving of Best Supporting I guess but Leto was amazing.♦ ] 22:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::17/19, that's was great! <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—] <sub> ] </sub></span> 06:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Almost spot on, thanks Vensatry!! :-) The ones I'm happiest about are McCon and Lupita. I wasn't certain about those. McCon, Leto and Lupita for me were the best actors by far of the year and deserved those wins, but I thought Emma Thompson should have won Best Actress for Saving Mr Banks. I'm glad Her also won best screenplay as it is a great film, very original and charming. I'm surprised though that American Hustle didn't win 1 award for costume though♦ ] 08:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I've added two Kubrick books to the request ], Citizen Kane can wait for now!♦ ] 18:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :For the record, I made two guesses for the Oscars - Foreign Language and Best Documentary (''The Hunt'' and ''The Act of Killing'') and lost in both. ] ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Tobey == | |||
| Before I take ] to GAN --my 1st nom-- can you let me know if you see anything blaring which I should expand or contract? Though I've worked on the article off and on since 2007, it's really been pieced together by a lot of editors making the prose a mixed bag. I know you're busy with a bunch of other stuff, so no rush. --] (]) 17:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Ok dokey; I'll concentrate in those areas. Yesterday, I removed a huge quotes section, Bib (which seemed more like Further reading), and a Further reading section. I guess I should put some of that back? --] (]) 18:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You can withdraw nomination by closing it; the actor's death was already part of headlines in Main Page. --] (]) 22:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|George Ho}} I had nothing to do with the nomination. It does seem questionable to reject it on the grounds that his death featured in the news a few weeks ago. The hook has nothing to do with his death and the article's likely to be far better than most of the stuff going through DYK. This does little to change my opinion of DYK.. Perhaps {{ping|BlueMoonset}} could clarify if this was correct procedure to reject the article. If an article has been expanded to the extent that Hoffman has since it was ITN, then it really shouldn't matter. The hook has nothing to do with his death.♦ ] 10:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah it seems like a bit of a strange rule to me. Like you said, the article looks completely different since it was "In the News". Oh well... --'''] ]''' 13:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Once again silly rules override common sense.. I've split Murphy's filmography anyway, hopefully the bot will sort out the broken refs. Will begin on it later. BTW have you seen ]? I watched and sourced it earlier. Great chemistry between Fonda and Voight, she wanted him badly! There's tons of decent book sources on it, I'm not going to expand it right now though, keeping things simple!♦ ] 13:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yep, I've seen all of Fonda's important films - I just love her. I might have a go at Murphy's lead now... --'''] ]''' 13:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Me too, I remember you said you haven't seen the Electric Horseman though, that's worth a watch.♦ ] 13:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Loeba}} for Murphy, seems a lot better than I'm picking up in books for him. I've only read the first half dozen and they've already been tremendously useful, best to look there if you're looking for new material!♦ ] 16:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :No I wouldn't expect there to be much coverage of him in books. I must say, the article is already looking considerably better. Bravo. I'll have a run-through of it later tonight or tomorrow - really need to do some stuff on Thompson for now, I've neglected her far too long! --'''] ]''' 17:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)--'''] ]''' 17:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Loeba}} | |||
| I'd be happy to help you with Thompson later in the week if you're interested. If you let me at it some time you can then trim it to your heart's desire! If there's a book or two you haven't got on her I can add it to my request at ].♦ ] 17:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :If there was a good book on her I'd happily buy it, I'd want to read it, but it doesn't seem like there is... one had really poor reviews, and is very outdated now anyway. I've been making my way through it chronologically and am already up to 2013, so there's not a whole lot left to do...obviously I've tried to make it what I think is the right level of detail (I take a rather different approach than you, researching one topic at a time and selecting the best stuff, rather than adding info and then trimming it back). Hopefully I've got it right! I don't think I'm gonna try and take it to FA, for the reason I said above about PSH. I don't feel like putting it under that level of scrutiny - GA will be just fine. --'''] ]''' 20:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Don't take this the wrong way Loeba, please take this constructively, but in reading Emma Thompson though, although good as it is, a lot of it does read as "xx was a commercial success", somebody said her role was "excellent" sort of thing. I don't really think that does a lot of her roles justice. It needs a lot more critical analysis and some comments from critics which provide encyclopedic value. It's finding a balance I think but at present it's definitely undercooked in analysis of her roles and understanding of her work and also how she prepared etc for certain roles and relevant production details, so I'd have to disagree that there's currently a good balance. I'm not happy with the !xx was a commercial success, critic said she was "brilliant" sort of thing in even Indian actress articles I've helped get to FA but unfortunately with Indian film criticism that's what you almost entirely get. I'd expect Thompson to have more solid critical evaluation which will improve the quality of the article. I'm sure you'll focus on this as you now get back to it.♦ ] 21:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmm, see I'm not so crazy about getting bogged down in critical commentary. I am hoping to put together a "Reception" section again (like Moore and Hoffman, although briefer) which will add some depth, but I personally don't like having too much about each film. I kind of ''want'' it to be a simple read in fact - I think that's what most people coming to the article will want. I'm becoming more and more of a fan of brevity: saying the necessary things as succinctly as possible. Anyway like I said, I'm really not looking to spend ages on it and make it perfect. I'm just enjoying writing about her and seeing her have an article that covers her whole life and career, which is certainly didn't before. Most of the GA actor articles are pretty simple and that's all I'm aiming for. --'''] ]''' 21:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Oh it's certainly much improved already from before! That would be great, try to write a decent section with what you can find. It's easy to overcook critical commentary and border into irrelevance but like the Hoffman article I like comments which are insightful into their style of acting and roles rather than just saying it was a success. It doesn't need to be perfect just a bit more informative about her roles and possible preparation for them if the sources exist. Obviously some roles only need a mention and you don't want to do it on every one. Do you see what I mean though about reinforcing it a bit and trying to make the selected quotes stronger and adding a reception section? I'll leave you to it anyway, but I'd be happy to add some content to a sandbox version and you can take and leave whatever you want from it unless you're gunning for a solo effort and don't want to be disturbed!♦ ] 21:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == AGF please... == | == AGF please... == | ||
Revision as of 11:16, 4 March 2014
AGF please...
In fact, is take this as a personal attack and lack of good faith. The 101 links to disambiguation pages (what made me find this sloppy article) is something else. The Banner talk 11:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
@The Banner: I spent ages compiling that article yesterday. I'm steadily going through and dabbing them and sorting it out and have currently reached half way through Cork. I spent over an hour yesterday starting to dab them, it's going to take several more hours to fully dab them, nothing in comparison to what it will take to go through and cleanup the existing ones and start the missing articles. Calling it sloppy (a clear personal attack) and criticising me given the effort I made to get it up and running is mean spirited to say the least and the sort of comment which really makes me feel like walking out of here in disgust at times. I added the tags as I really think you'd have added them and I really didn't want that sort of negativity as I was in the middle of constructing the list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have been load and clear in my criticism of your civil parish approach. Spreading around a template with the same wrong links as the article is not really helpful. Did you not understand why I was critical about your approach? The Banner talk 19:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- @The Banner: Then why are the articles categorized as civil parishes still then? I understand your concerns that you think they're no longer used but it makes little sense of have separate articles. Most articles on "villages" on[REDACTED] for Ireland say parish in it in most places and we have existing articles long established ones in fact which state civil parish on here and have the towns and villages template in it. If you're going to argue on this then you should see to it that all articles on civil parishes and towns in Ireland are separated. Any thoughts @Aymatth2: and @Ww2censor:? My feeling on this is that the parishes should be merged into the villages but in the lead have a sentence which reads "The village formed part of a historical civil parish of the same name but it is now deprecated" or something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Because I don't want a silly edit war what will be coming my way when I clean up the thrash. This mess just gives me grieve and headaches, so I leave it to you, the main (but not sole) creator of this mess, to clean it up. The Banner talk 19:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Irish settlements are already generally trash and some are in a diabolical state. Most of them badly need work. I began going through the County Clare places template adding sources and cleaning up. Some of the articles, which are on your watchlist like Liscannor etc, are almost as bad as some of our Pakistani articles. You haven't bothered to do do the cleanup and remove the adverts which exist in them. My intention was to begin some sort of clean up and try to install some sort of coherent order and consistency. As long as you're around being a belligerent prick nothing is going to get done and Irish places on[REDACTED] will continue to be stale and suck.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I understand your message that you have no real arguments so you have to resort to personal attacks. Thank you for being so clear in that. The Banner talk 20:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Irish settlements are already generally trash and some are in a diabolical state. Most of them badly need work. I began going through the County Clare places template adding sources and cleaning up. Some of the articles, which are on your watchlist like Liscannor etc, are almost as bad as some of our Pakistani articles. You haven't bothered to do do the cleanup and remove the adverts which exist in them. My intention was to begin some sort of clean up and try to install some sort of coherent order and consistency. As long as you're around being a belligerent prick nothing is going to get done and Irish places on[REDACTED] will continue to be stale and suck.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Because I don't want a silly edit war what will be coming my way when I clean up the thrash. This mess just gives me grieve and headaches, so I leave it to you, the main (but not sole) creator of this mess, to clean it up. The Banner talk 19:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- @The Banner: Then why are the articles categorized as civil parishes still then? I understand your concerns that you think they're no longer used but it makes little sense of have separate articles. Most articles on "villages" on[REDACTED] for Ireland say parish in it in most places and we have existing articles long established ones in fact which state civil parish on here and have the towns and villages template in it. If you're going to argue on this then you should see to it that all articles on civil parishes and towns in Ireland are separated. Any thoughts @Aymatth2: and @Ww2censor:? My feeling on this is that the parishes should be merged into the villages but in the lead have a sentence which reads "The village formed part of a historical civil parish of the same name but it is now deprecated" or something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I made a major effort with you Banner but the fact is that you're not a decent fellow, otherwise you'd not still hold this grudge you've got. Ww2 censor, would you like to see this sort of improvement on Irish towns and missing articles started like Kilmoon or like Banner do you also assume bad faith and think I'm causing a mess? I'm not going put up with this sort of hostility. Articles on your watchlist which you edited even back in 2011 until very recently had bollocks like this infesting it. Why didn't you clean it up? And I'm causing more of a mess than that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Too bad you mix up a protestant parish with a RC parish and a civil parish. The Banner talk 20:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Kilmurry Ibrickane has an infobox settlement box in it and also a places template with villages. If it was intended as purely a Roman Catholic parish article it would have neither and would have some sort of religious box. Unless the RC parish is vastly different from the civil parish then it makes no sense to split them. The article should probably be expanded to cover the village and civil and then have a paragraph in it on the RC parish if it is different.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- yep, I predicted that you would go to war of it. The Banner talk 20:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- You turn up and make out that I'm causing some sort of huge mess, what sort of reaction did you expect? If you spent your time cleaning up Irish villages and sourcing them probably and cleaning up the existing confusion between villages and parishes instead of creating stubs on restaurants I wouldn't have to do it would I?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I expect that you come with real arguments and stay polite. Don't try to decide what I have to do on Misplaced Pages. The Banner talk 20:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- You turn up and make out that I'm causing some sort of huge mess, what sort of reaction did you expect? If you spent your time cleaning up Irish villages and sourcing them probably and cleaning up the existing confusion between villages and parishes instead of creating stubs on restaurants I wouldn't have to do it would I?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- yep, I predicted that you would go to war of it. The Banner talk 20:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
You've ignored most of the mess which currently exists, even though you live in Ireland and frequently revert people on the articles. You're in no position either to tell me to stop creating a mess or moaning at the effort I'm making.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC) @SchroCat: and @Cassianto:
I was reverted with this edit summary in which he says The vicar says it's not a civil parish These sources and state that it at least was a civil parish. On[REDACTED] we go by what reliable source state, not what somebody says by word of mouth even if affiliated with it right? If the article is intended to be on a religious parish, the infobox settlement and places template should be removed and you should explicitly state and link Kilmurry Ibrickane (village) in the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am very interested in your article Kilmurry Ibrickane (village)... The Banner talk 20:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- If the article is intended purely as a religious article like a Diocese then the infobox settlement and place box should be removed and a new article on the village and civil parish started. Either way we need a broader (and more civilized) discussion involving the rest of the Irish project to decide on what to do about villages vs civil parishes. The fact is that most articles clearly intended on villages and towns mention it is also a civil parish and is treated as both. Either this is completely overhauled for Ireland or you leave me to continue my work on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- The infobox clearly states that it is about a parish. Don't blame me for people combining all types of infoboxes. You are very welcome to write an article about the civil parish and, as you call it, the village Kilmurry Ibrickane. The Banner talk 21:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- If the article is intended purely as a religious article like a Diocese then the infobox settlement and place box should be removed and a new article on the village and civil parish started. Either way we need a broader (and more civilized) discussion involving the rest of the Irish project to decide on what to do about villages vs civil parishes. The fact is that most articles clearly intended on villages and towns mention it is also a civil parish and is treated as both. Either this is completely overhauled for Ireland or you leave me to continue my work on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- One last try... According to your own source: The civil parish was the fundamental administrative unit within each county. These parishes were based on the medieval Christian parishes, adapted by the English administration and the Protestant Church of Ireland. Government and Church of Ireland records between the 17th and early 20th centuries utilized these territorial units. They are not currently used as administrative units. Catholic parishes differ from civil parishes and are generally bigger in size. The Catholic parish system is still evolving and forms the basis for much of Ireland's social, educational and sporting activities. Catholic Parish Registers of birth, marriage and death are organised by Catholic parish.
- At present, all people in Kilmurry Ibrickane (and some other west-Clare parishes) have to register their marriage at the office of the Civil Registration Service in Ennistymon, at least three months in advance of the actual marriage date. They can decide themselves where they keep the actual ceremony, either a RC ceremony in one of the three RC churches in the parish, a Protestant ceremony in the church near Milltown Malbay (part of the Church of Ireland parish Drumcliffe) or a civil in an approved location (mostly the two hotels in Spanish Point. The same applies to deaths and births, they are also registered in Ennistymon.
- I am unaware of a protestant parish of Kilmurry Ibrickane. Most likely the area was combined with protestant parish of Kilfarboy (although a namesake, not identical to the RC parish or civil parish). I am also not aware of any protestant church in the present territory of Kilmurry Ibrickane.
- In the (short) time in 2011 that I was working at the RC parish office of Kilmurry Ibrickane I was only keeping the books of the RC weddings, baptisms and deaths. I did not register civil or protestant facts nor births. Although the Church Records are official records, approved by the Civil Registration Service, the parish office is not a part of the Civil Registration Service nor a civil parish. The Banner talk 21:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Kilmurry Ibrickane (village) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kilmurry Ibrickane (village). Since you had some involvement with the Kilmurry Ibrickane (village) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Banner talk 22:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not right zoom in there's a settlement of that name. Just when I thought you were beginning to accept civil parish and village you go and do this. I've had enough. Kilmurry Ibrickane should cover the village and civil parish and the hatnote at the top to the religious parish of the same name. Dabbing it is totally unnecessary, if there isn't a hamlet or village of that name why is it labelled as such on google maps?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- First, my paper map (Discovery series, nr. 57) calls it Kilmurry. Secondly, it is not a village, but a mere hamlet. Thirdly, that church that gave the parish its name is slightly more to the north. Fourthly, the main village of the parish is Mullagh, County Clare. Sorry, but don't you think that the details should be correct? The Banner talk 22:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hamlet rather than a village, it doesn't make any difference. The article on the settlement however small should be in with the article on the civil parish. I think it's time we took this to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland for discussion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I advice you to use this wording, already present in the original Kilmurry Ibrickane article: The parish derives its name from the tiny settlement of Kilmurry in the Barony Ibrickane, the location of the church before Cromwellian times. The Banner talk 22:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hamlet rather than a village, it doesn't make any difference. The article on the settlement however small should be in with the article on the civil parish. I think it's time we took this to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland for discussion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
We can't have three different articles though Kilmurry, Kilmurry Ibrickane, and Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish). It makes sense to at least have hamlet even if just called Kilmurry and mention the civil parish within it Kilmurray Ibrickane rather than all individually. I understand the difference between a Roman Catholic parish and a civil parish and agree that if its some sort of religious division like a diocese or sub division of that they should probably be distinguished. There must be some decent solution on this. The problem for me mainly is that if the religious parish is identical to the civil parish and there's not really much to say on either, or on the principal village of the same name it makes more sense to have it all consolidated in one article. I've just trying to install some sort of order and consistency into articles. We need to come to a solution on this as it's not fair to keep turning up here and bad mouthing what I'm doing when I'm trying to do just the opposite.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- That is why I did the text suggestion. In my opinion Kilmurry is just too small to warrant an own article. By now, it consists of a ruined church, two graveyards (on either side of the road), a pub and a few farms. The Banner talk 23:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It does look like a townland sort of rural place on google maps I must say. But by default I think Kilmurray/Killmurrya Ibrickane should be the article on the civil parish/hamlet and the hat note to the religious parish at the top.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Is it OK if the redirect for discussion, the discussion is held at the RfD page? It's a bit confusing if you list something there then continue a discussion on a user talk page and not on either (any) of the article's own talk pages. Si Trew (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you talking to Banner? I didn't list it of course!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Haha, I know you didn't. It's just getting a bit confusing with all the goings-on. I know you are a slave-driver for getting people to translate stuff for you etc but you don't jump immediately to process for what should be sorted out equitably between two good faith editors. Si Trew (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Bieber's RfC again
Hello Dr. Blofeld, sorry to bother you again about Bieber. Unfortunately, only 5 of the 16 editors who posted their opinion in the General survey part of Bieber's RfC posted again in the point-by-point survey. Progress simply isn't made - could you help to post in the responses to above points subsection to move it forward? Thank you very much. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your immediate input Dr. Blofeld! However, you posted in the General survey - which you've already done so previously some time ago. I was hoping that you would post in the Responses to above points section. Thank you! starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Rfd for Kilmurray/Kilmurray
I see your bind and that is why I bunged in. The difficulty is for the purpose of RfD it is difficult to discuss something when the articles are moving about (the hatnote was on the RC one when I first looked and gone again later), so my or any other editors' comments are kinda immediately irrelevant if the article keeps changing (it is not as if there are the permIDs on the articles at the nominations at XfD).
I live in Hungary now well am starting to! So I have been improving some Hungary articles etc as I have been mooching about, not much but you know WP:NOTFINISHED etc. Si Trew (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Nice, hope you're enjoying living in Hungary! Hope Monk is well!♦ Dr. Blofeld
Nomination of Kilmoon for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kilmoon is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kilmoon 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. The Banner talk 11:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)