User:Dr. Blofeld/March 2015

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something I ran into[edit]

HathiTrust has litho plates from issues of The Building News for the years 1873-1881 at the link. They were scanned by the New York Public Library, but unfortunately, are not in any particular order. You need to simply go through the volumes (and do it using the reader's scroll mode or it will all roll up and you'll not see a thing) if you know something you want was in the journal. A much larger copy of File:The Tower House 1878.jpg came out of it and a ground floor plan File:Tower_House_ground_floor_plan.jpg which might be useful as it was published with the image of the house.  :) We hope (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW-the scans are set up so that every other page is blank, so don't let that concern you if use them. We hope (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Didn't see this yesterday, sorry about that!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1[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.

The Ritz London Hotel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Anne Kerr and Gilbert Russell
Der Weg nach oben (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to FRG
Julian Bream (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hampton
Patrick Fairweather (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to FCO
The Big Chance (1957 German film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Michael Cramer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Mary Celeste again[edit]

I've opened a peer review. It really needs some American eyes on it, to vet my attempts at American spelling and to check for any transatlantic solecisms that will make American readers wince. If you can find the time I'd be most obliged. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Would that be Welsh American eyes Brianboulton :-)? Rosiestep you're needed!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton, I'm working on it. It doesn't need much, as you can see. I'm about halfway through. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rosie! I do actually kind of feel American on here though, I do think a lot of people probably assumed I was American before realising that my times of editing are very un American!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes,I had assumed that you were an insomniac American with a strange interest in British buildings, culture etc. Well, there we are – thanks for putting me right, and even more for finding someone to do the chore I laid on you! Brianboulton (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, understandable, a lot of Americans are fascinated in British architecture and geography of course. You'd think Waldorf Astoria New York would have been very much written by an American wouldn't you! Well, I guess We hope did help contribute a bit to it though! I was born in Cardiff and live in the Vale. Most of my family are English though and I'm not particularly fascinated by sheep and rugby :-) I will certainly give the article a read, but not so much on the American english, I'll leave that to Rosie!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification – and I also overlooked the fact that you open the bowling for England, something an American would be unlikely to do (mind you, you're not doing a very effective job at it just now). Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The "King of Swing", pretty close ;-) My type of swing is nearer to Benny Goodman though than cricket!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the Ritz-and the other Waldorf too :)[edit]

Architectural Record November 1914 article starts on page 463 re: Ritz and Waldorf hotels in London. We now have a floor plan for the Ritz File:Ritz London floor plan.jpg and a 1914 photo of the Winter Garden there File:Winter Garden Ritz London 1914.jpg These are also stored at HathiTrust--it looks to be very good for old architectural literature. We hope (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You've excelled yourself We hope! I will be resuming with Chapter 4 today..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry--was having internet connection issues earlier. Not sure if you saw this comment or not, but last night as I was "Ritzing", I found a wealth of books on the Waldorf at HathiTrust. If you're interested, I think we have the sources to do it. :) We hope (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
More books on the Waldorf? Eeks, I'm scared, I think I'd just rather ignore them hehe, I was thinking it was pretty comprehensive! Trying to get on with the Ritz but am not concentrating well at the moment! I do think though that the 1893 article at some point might be one to pick for gunning for FA, more so that the main one which is more complex. If you were really up for it I'd probably oblige!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Among them is the biography of Oscar which is now PD (looks like it's due to non-renewal, but will check further to confirm). This says they once had a trout stream in the original Grill Room where you could bait a hook and catch your own trout to be freshly fried there. There also looks to be more books to expand on people like Lucius Boomer, etc. We hope (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely an interesting (and very glamorous) subject and closely associated with film and high society. Oscar would be a cool one to get up to GA I guess. BTW would this be useable. I just requested Rosiestep to start him he's the subject of a missing dab in the Ritz article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me take a little time to check as the artist died in 1931. Know that 70 years have passed but want to make sure we're not treading into bad territory. We hope (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The Orpen work may be PD in the UK but it's likely not PD in the US and that's where the issues would come in. It can be copied and used here for a portrait as there's none, but it would need to be licensed as non-free. We hope (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

They had everything-from royalty to entertainment stars to dictators. I'll throw my hat into the ring, but at present need to make sure some RL obligations are taken care of so might not be able to go full steam on the Waldorf for a short bit. We hope (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Up to you. I'm working on the Ritz at the moment but will return to the Waldorf if you're up for further projects!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This is my official sign-up for the project! :-) We hope (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Let me see what I can find to add to the Ritz from books and newspapers. :) We hope (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Funny Taavi Rõivas. He's supposed to be 35, yet Arjen Robben is only 31 haha! Having Roivas in that suit and as Prime Minister rather reminds me of some of the teen administrators we have on here. "Look how important I am! Now buy me an ice cream!" :-) Just doesn't seem right somebody looking that young running a country!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've seen older looking fellows doing bagging at supermarkets or asking if you want to "Super-Size it" at fast-food restaurants. ;) We hope (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
OK-got a New York Times pic of Charlie Chaplin at the Ritz File:Charlie Chaplin at Ritz hotel London 1921.jpg-where would you like it? We hope (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Awesome, there's one of him in my book but it's throwing carnations out of the first floor window at fans!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Mmm now who could Baron Pfyffer d'Altenhofen be, google search is literally dead for that one, he was supposedly the son of Cesar Ritz's benefactor in Lucerne. Detective Rosiestep?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Pipe smoking--found a news story from the 1970s that said The Ritz had relaxed its ban on pipe smoking. If we can get more about when the ban started, I'll add the ref. We hope (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
How deeply do you want to get into the construction of the building? I've just found a 1906-1907 article with plans for the foundation and framing, etc. We hope (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Depends if its technical gobbledygook or encyclopedic! Some details are probably OK!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Article starts at page 439. We may also be able to use the photos--I think under PD-old and PD-1923-this is from 1906 or 1907. You can see them "at work" on it. :) We hope (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
If you think it'll improve the article go for it! Will be resuming tomorrow!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Alphons Maximilian Pfyffer von Altishofen - here he is. If you asked me to research anyone else, just let me know as I've lost track. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Do me a favour ...[edit]

... please don't mention my name in a discussion where I am unable to reply and fix a misunderstanding or two. You may remember that - while you can freely speak - dangerous me is restricted to two comments per topic. I am biting my tongue, it hurts. (I can't even reply or fix here, it's the same topic, Arbitration Enforcers are seriuz about that.) You may remember also that all participants have been requested "to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general". I did not mention your name in a related discussion (about real life eye surgery and visions). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If you were fully topic banned not topic banned at all from commenting on infoboxes Gerda you'd not have that worry. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I am biting my tongue further, it hurts more. Did you know that the photographer was also among the contibutors to the article in question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've emailed you, seems as the silly two comment thing applies on talk pages too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Here's an ally for you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
A Minkey?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Bramshill House[edit]

A housewarming present for the Bramshill House FA. (lol) But really, congrats; good job! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Doc, congrats on getting Bramshill House up to FA. I'm glad the "Legends" section made it through OK; sorry if it caused problems for the nom... that wasn't my intention. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Simon, and thankyou for documenting all 14 ghosts :-)!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rosie, is that a young QEII though LOL?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Speedy deletion nomination of Zambar (restaurant)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Zambar (restaurant), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Vin09 (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Tag has been there a long long time, somebody.. I think it should probably be merged into Ambience Mall. Somebody can do that if they like, I guess I'm talking to myself..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld I care. But I don't want to overstep. And I don't know enough to edit this article.

The person who posted this should look at WP:Before Do these relate?

  • Bhanot, Saurav (March 16, 2014). "Hyderabad on a platter at Zambar restaurant". Business Today. Retrieved March 2, 2015.
  • Datta, Tanu (25 January 2014). "There's More to Feast than Zambar and Rice". New Indian Express. Retrieved March 2, 2015. filmmaker-turned-chef Arun Kumar
  • Sanghvi, Vir (November 16, 2013). "Are Delhi restaurants successful only because of their chefs?". Hindustan Times. Retrieved March 2, 2015.
  • Bhattacharyya, Sourish (March 13, 2014). "Proud to be Indian but refusing to be stodgy, says Sourish Bhattacharyya". India Today. New Delhi. Retrieved March 2, 2015. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I removed the tag. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Wondering why nobody else removed it, it was nearly 12 hours ago. In fairness I only just spotted it though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I sent you two e-mails, but seems you've got a lot on your plate. You have created so much that it 'causes a black hole in the universe' to which errant WP:SD and WP:PRODs are sucked in. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense now, cheers, I've emailed you the reason I had not dealt with this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of comment on Collect's Talk page[edit]

Any particular reason you deleted my comment on Collects talk page? Cheers. JBH (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't intended Jbhunley, must have got caught up somehow, sorry about that! I was just questioning the block on just the one editor, I know nothing about what issues are at stake!.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I thought so. Just wanted to make sure I had not committed some faux pas or some such. Cheers. JBH (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
PS I saw your comment in the history but not on the page. JBH (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Unbearable[edit]

Please see this message that was recently posted by an IP editor. It's becoming increasingly difficult for me to work here with the constant barrage of personal attacks and harassment towards me. Why, only because I refuse to fan the ego of a fan boy? First, my user page and talk page had to be indefinitely protected, but these messages are still being posted in other places. I am not sure if it's from the same person or a group of people. But I am really sick of it, and find the entire idea of contributing here to be an epic waste of time and energy! I am sorry about venting here, but I really needed an outlet! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not just report it to an admin at ANI?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, the moment I mention his name, he starts his rant about how much of a bleeding hypocrite I am and oh, there is the constant barrage of crap like female hero, shero, Chopra bestestestest! And without solid proof that it's him, I don't want to end up being blocked in another one of those unending arguments. It also might be that god-awful Mriduls.sharma who has been harassing me for a while now. She might have just found a perfect ally to harass me with. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Break[edit]

Taking a break for the sake of my health. I'll return here when somebody is kind enough to give me the coding in my preferences to suppress Template:Infobox person in an article and to replace a photo if in the infobox with a formatted photo in place set at 250px with the caption given in the infobox. I've requested it at the village pump and an editor who knows coding but they've not responded. I want to ensure that I'm not personally involved in a dispute over biographical infoboxes myself again because they create rifts between people and destroy friendships. Daft. A considerable part of the disruption on here is over infoboxes, and frankly I've had enough of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Dr. B - whilst I personally might have chosen somewhere other than our beloved article on the "soul-inspiring one" to launch the latest phase of the great info box wars, there have been benefits. I very much like the suggestion of including the quote "Too much opium" in the IB and the page view statistics have gone through the roof! Have a good break and when you come back I'll try to have The Tower House ready for FAC. Then we can work together to get it through, to the benefit of readers and for our own enjoyment. Look after yourself. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I came to say what a great place the Hotel is and see this, very sorry. - I don't agree that there is large disruption over infoboxes, - I have a list of disputes, and the number is decreasing. I noticed about 60 cases in 2013, and only a few this year. "Hope" is the first word of a comment on my talk, - I kept it from last year because I need it often. - A typical quote would be an addition to think about, thank you for the idea, KJP1! What would Palladio and FLW have said? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Dr. B - a stellar list of contributors, with some superb amendments, at the peer review for the Tower House. It's coming on well. KJP1 (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
So the UX folks at WMF are saying, try Adblock Plus to suppress Infobox person. It's a plugin. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
It should be optional in preferences I think. We need a much broader range of options in our preferences to customize wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Waldorf–Astoria (New York, 1893)[edit]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Province of Saskatchewan Map used in infoboxes[edit]

I wish you much success on your break. I just thought I would pop off a note to you, as I noticed you had an interest in the Canada locator maps. I started a conversation on the help desk regarding the map of Saskatchewan under the title Error in maps and therefore in the GPS coordinates. The map titled File:Canada_Saskatchewan_location_map.svg does not look my province of Saskatchewan. There should be curvilinear lines north and south. The eastern and western borders albeit are parallel lines, however they are in no way parallel to each other. I see the map NordNordWest used as a template File:Canada_Saskatchewan_relief_location_map.jpg, but it is not a good one at all. The boundaries for Saskatchewan have never changed, I think the cartograher who made File:Canada_Saskatchewan_relief_location_map.jpg took a short cut and made it rectangular with square corners in error. This one MapSK.JPG shows the not parallel east west boundaries and the curved north south borders the best, but it should be oriented more north and south and not off on a diagonal. This also shows the borders well. Saskatchewan Municipalities.png, or this one SK-Canada-province.png. I have contacted user_talk:NordNordWest, the creator of the SVG locater map who seems to have good map making skills BTW I know they have to be rather particular to work with the GPS robot. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 14:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Nordnordwest on German wiki would be your best bet. I haven't contacted him in about 2 years now as I don't do much work on settlements any more. Aymatth2 lives in Canada and is known to make the occasional map, he might have something to say.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Blame?[edit]

I saw a post on your page from Krimuk90, he was saying about an IP address. But, I don't understand why did he blamed me for that. He directly pointed his fingers at me. I was the one, who was constantly haraassed by the IP adresses, e-mails, tweets, blah blah blah. It's not an attack? Who knows he must be doing it himself to get some sympathy as his writing was same as that of my talk page post, calling me sir, saying PC is godess and others are nothing (a way of bullying, laughing at her). Infact, one edit on Chopra's page cannot be ignored (Successfuladdition), no one would do that. So, what should I do? No one should say anything by any proof. I suggest him to go to ANI, why taking my name?—Prashant 18:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Core Contest[edit]

Hey you remember this from 2007 (with winners announced after 12 months...)

- my question - did you ever get the promised prizemoney and if so, who got it to you? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it was User:Proteins who dealt with the prize money.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enthiran/archive1[edit]

I have opened the FAC for Enthiran. Feel free to leave comments. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Detailed article on the Ritz, London construction[edit]

It looks like HathiTrust is limiting total viewing of the article to those in the US only. Crisco tried to view it and was told he could only do a word search. I've uploaded a copy of the article here:

In the folder, you'll find everything needed to use the article for citations. Any photos you might want to use would need to stay at WP due to the fact that the journal is in the public domain in the US but not in some other countries. This seems so silly because we're talking about a long out of print magazine that was published in January 1907. Any monetary consideration for the publisher for this issue has long gone by the boards. We hope (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent WH. Will be back in a day or two hopefully when I have to coding to hide infobox person!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Paris, Good?[edit]

Heylo, how do, sir? I'm going to have a bit of spare time on my hands in coming weeks... how is the Paris article looking, is it up to snuff? Will it take any amount of work for it to get its 'GA' status back? Cheers, take care, THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing looks sound anyway! I'll need to give it a full read later this week! Hope you're well!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hayup, overworked, but fine, thanks. I've looked over some of the other 'big city' articles in my time off... some of them are more poorly sourced and presented than the Paris article, but they have FA status! I always try to keep things as factual and coherent as possible, but I've never really figured out how the 'wiki system' works. Seems to me that getting GA/FA means 'not having the attention of too many critics at the same time'... which is sad. Is there any means of getting a non-'I am a decider' opinion on article quality? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, first of all of course you have to be a good writer and editor who writes "engaging prose". But there's good writers on here who find promoting to FA difficult. The peer review and input from other great editors is so important I think. Part of the reason I increasingly like being involved with peer reviews and FAC is that it allows me to escape the silliness on other parts of the site and have a mature discussion about content and how to improve it without people taking pot shots at each other and ending up at ANI! An FA on Paris would be quite extraordinary though I think given the scope. A GA again is achievable, but the article really has to be stable and once promoted not degrade to shite again basically!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Tree[edit]

Thanks for the cantata review! Found returning from rehearsal of the second movement which we will sing for Easter, about thanks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Have a free tree, please, and no worries ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

That's very nice of you Gerda, thankyou! The tree of knowledge, ever growing perhaps, some branches more fruitful than others!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

yes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Wise Wehwalt!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for St. Paul's Cathedral, Abidjan[edit]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Basically stupid image request[edit]

You know a hell of a lot more about images, commons and the like than I do. I was wondering whether this image and/or any images of the distinctive Spider Jerusalem 3-D glasses shown in it might be available for addition to commons. I'm thinking we might have an editor who might also, broadly, be considered a bit of a "crusading journalist" type and such images might be among the only available ones to convey the idea. John Carter (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You could always ask on flickr for a person to change the license to CC-2.0?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Mary Celeste[edit]

Just to let you know that I have closed the peer review. Your comments will of course be most welcome at the FAC which will open shortly. To answer the question you raised on the PR page, all the ship specifications shown in the infobox are also in the text, and are referenced there - see "Amazon" and "New owners" sections. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm baffled as to why you closed the peer review when I said I'd look at it tomorrow, but in fairness it had already had a vigorous review and there's probably little left to comment on. I will look at it anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Re; Irataba[edit]

There might be something at HathiTrust or at the Library of Congress--will have to see. Right now, am working on "Bet a Million" Gates, a former long-term tenant of the Waldorf-Astoria. I found a 1948 PD biography as HathiTrust. ;) We hope (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Some old news stories popped up that might be useful-
  • Omaha Daily Bee July 2, 1874. The paper places his date of death as May 4, 1874.
  • 2 page PDF The Ireteba Peaks Wilderness (see Eldorado Mountains) is named for him. The brochure was produced by the US Bureau of Land Management. Everything in it--text and photos--are in the public domain because it was created by a US government employee in the course of his/her work . Tag for it would be {{PD-USGov-BLM}}. We hope (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

More links We hope (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing yet re: Ives. The photo you found was taken from some type of display as you can see the glare on part of it-it would have to be non-free since we don't know where it came from. I did get this if you can use it:

It comes from:

We hope (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks WH!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Right now, a decent and freely-read copy of the book above is needed. The HathiTrust copy is missing many pages. Not because they were lost from the book but it looks like a terrible scan. Let me first of all see if I can find one at Internet Archive and then if not, I'll need to get the pages needed, if possible. There are first-hand accounts re: Ives with irataba in it. We hope (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This clears up something earlier I found, thanks for that!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

decent copy of the book above from Internet Archive. The only difference you'll see is that the illustrations of indians in this scan are not in color. The reading material looks complete in this one and there are no gatekeepers for this very old PD book, which, on top of it, was published by the USG. ;) We hope (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate the effort here guys. Thanks a million! Rationalobserver (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Irataba gave testimony in the proceedings following the Wickenburg Massacre, but I'm not sure if it should be included. What do you think? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, something mentioned might be a good idea.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The Tower House[edit]

Dear Dr., No urgency but I've added a ghastly bare URL as note 65. When you next drop by, could you do me a great favour by fixing it. Whatever happened to that marvellous Reflinks tool? All the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think I fixed it, but I might have forgotten a parameter or two. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that, for some reason I didn't see your earlier message KJP! Dear Dr., No, would that be Dr. Julius No :-)?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Teamwork Barnstar
You've probably gotten so many of these over the years, but here's another one for being such a great help at the peer review and contributing at Irataba. I really appreciate your effort. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Gracias! A great character and an important one in US history. Well let's hope it's all been worth it, I do hope people will try to purely look at the article and see some potential in it and be willing to comment and help polish it. What matters here ultimately is promoting articles to FA... I'm happy with it's level of comprehension anyway. There's not a tremendous amount of biographical detail about him. The Mohave people article itself though is pretty dismal!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Mohave people article is sorely lacking. I have a few books lying around that I could put to good use there, such as Sherer and Scrivner, but the task is a bit intimidating. Maybe after I tidy up my current projects and gain some confidence I'll find the time to take on that worthy subject. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, broader topics are more difficult to really do justice to and research. A general great article on the Mohave would need all the components on history, economic practices, demographics, culture, architecture etc. Not easy to really do justice to but if you're really into the subject definitely worthwhile. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Re - Silent Films[edit]

By some virtue, I've been addressing errors in the historical record and submitting corrections to different venues for all matter of silent film works. I am liking how later productions by most companies have plenty of images and background works to go by. As long as errors like this exist, I'll have to be on my toes. I'm sure you know the whole "Verifiability, not truth" and "no original research", but some "original research" quickly clears up such errors and shows how prevalent they are in almost all topics. So much of that film still is totally wrong. It is Robert McWade in the 1912 Vitagraph production! Zoom in if you don't believe me I've actually submitted several other film still identifications, but I don't want to be a pain. Most people know Wikipedia is not infallible, but most people don't understand that so many books and other sources are also very flawed. Only 1000 Thanhouser films left to go. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, you have to be very careful, even otherwise reliable sources get it wrong!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how on earth you managed to find this erroneous claim that Francis Boggs directed The Pasha's Daughter! Though it seems like you used IMDb here. Glad you fixed all the other errors in the next update, but the erroneous claim of Boggs lasted for over 8 years... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Started it nearly 10 years ago now Chris at a time when imdb was largely all there was!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Guess we've come a long way. No worries, most of these issues are easily fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Re:Gates[edit]

He was a particular thorn in the side of the refined George Boldt, who made the remark that he would rather have Mrs. Astor drinking a cup of hot water in the Palm Room than have Gates eating a full-course meal there. :) I got interested in what he had been up to via the Waldorf. We hope (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The resident bad ass vs the stuffy boss. Mmm..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Mayabazar[edit]

Would you like to conduct a GA Review on this article? Let me know if you are interested in doing so. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 1957 might be the best year in film, or if not it's certainly one of the very best! I've not seen that film yet either!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Word of appreciation[edit]

Hi Dr Blofeld, while I know we did not agree on the technicality of how to administer the structural breakdown of the Lhasa article series, I must say I am very impressed with the quality of the article which I am sure you played no small part in creating. A job well done and I hope to see you expand on other topics in the subject area in the future! Colipon+(Talk) 02:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Colipon Thanks, but Aymatth2 really is responsible for all of the recent work, I've been busy with FAs, reviews and, er.., other things... I did a lot of work on Tibet a while back and created most of the monasteries and settlements and at one stage I was going to get the main Lhasa article to GA but at the time I wasn't impressed with the sourcing available on other aspects of the city. I really mean it though when I say that I think the larger area prefecture level areas should be organized this way across wikipedia, for development reasons. It's difficult to cover a 30,000 km2 area with a notable city all in one. I I don't want Lhasa to be the exception, and if I had time I'd work on a few other areas of China. I don't see it as breaking official naming and structure, but I simply see it as an extension, with a different main focus on each one, one rurally and the other on the urban centre. I was the one who began drawing up the lists of townships by region as eventually I'd like to see a good article on each one and on the villages within them! China I'd say probably needs the most work generally on settlements on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Chrome[edit]

Hey Doc, first off, my mea culpa for getting involved in that one article dispute; in the future, feel free to let me know if I'm treading in something that you put blood, sweat, and tears into. I don't call it "ownership" I call it "quality control." On that note, you helped me with the FAC for California Chrome and I'm going to put it up for TFA on May 2 (Kentucky Derby Day). I've added a fair bit of material since the FAC - and removed some too (**Blofeld cheers**). I'd value you trotting (or galloping) over there and taking a whack at anything that isn't up to par for the main page. Feel free to post at the talk page there if you have questions or want to discuss nuance. Thanks in advance! Montanabw(talk) 05:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Still looks in good shape!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Castell Coch[edit]

Morning Dr. B. I've begun some preliminary work on the above - filling in time while waiting for The Tower House to go to FAC, and only about 2 years late! Haven't touched the architecture, just done some referencing, removed the gallery, given a possible outline structure and started some early history etc. Hchc2009 has also most helpfully pitched in, risking the wrath of the Dr Who devotees! How do you want to play this? I won't have lots of time to devote to it immediately, and, of course, we've no idea what the Tower FAC will require. But, to paraphrase Bute, "why should we hurry over our chief pleasure?" Shall I have a go at the first expansion, or do you want to divvy it up. I'm very content either way. I think we have all the books that we need. I'll potter on for the time being - just let me know what approach you favour. See Tim was on the front page again. He really is amazing. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the photos, I think we may need some more. A few, including mine of Lady B's bedroom, are rather dark. Commons has fewer than I'd have thought. I think you may need to sally forth with your Instamatic.
NB: Searching around a bit, the Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Glamorgan: Volume III Part 1b has an really good detailed section on the castle that should probably be included. Google Books seems to have it all, which is very handy. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I have Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Glamorgan: Volume III Part 2 not 1b though unfortunately!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hchc2009, as I mentioned to the Dr. when he first proposed working on the article, the history and architecture of early medieval castles is far from my strong suit. I also suggested that the best collaborator on this would be yourself! If you have the time and inclination, your involvement would be absolutely invaluable. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou both, delighted to see you interested in this. Hope your work continues KJP! I can't promise too much in the next few days on the castle as I have books on the Ritz London I've been meaning to continue with, but I will get into it soon! And yes, educated level-headed folk like Tim and Brian are a joy to know and a large part of the reason I stick around these days and convince me it is worth it on a website which at times is like a primary school playground. Yet they're undervalued by most here, as most of us content contributors are.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That's just fine Dr. B. We'll plough on and you get back to it once you've finished swanking around at the Ritz, with its mere Grade II listing! But if you have time, could you press the FAC button on the Tower. I'd like to know what we're facing. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I thought we were waiting to see if that person Gerda contacted could further improve it? If not I'll close the PR and nominate shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
We could if you wanted, but I'm not sure. We've had Cass now, very usefully. I think you can probably close it. If there are others who want to comment, they can do so at FAC. KJP1 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, will close and nom shortly. Don't want to let it stop the ongoing development of Coch though!.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Just looking back over the FAC review for Burges. That was fun, wasn't it. Don't worry about Coch - it'll be fine. KJP1 (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Amazon vouchers[edit]

Hi, and nope. We didn't talk about editor motivation at all. We got caught up on our personal lives. And there was conversation about technical stuff... Virtual Editor, Flow, translation tool (currently only works on languages which are very similar: Spanish/Catalan, Russian/Ukrainian), placement of the Wikidata link on the sidebar, how to suppress the biography IB, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's probably something to save until Wikimania itself!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yup! Or maybe something local, i.e. with WMUK? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Editor motivation I think is central to the development of wikipedia, no stepping around it! If the foundation are serious about bringing in an army of female editors we've really got to look at why they would want to edit wikipedia. What's in it for them?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Shitloads of abuse, methinks. That said, I have to admit that the worst editing wars I have ever been in have been with other editors who self-identify as women. Anyone remember the ItsLassieTime sockpuppet sock drawer that had a couple dozen accounts? I helped bust that one, but she damn near ran me off wikipedia before she got caught ... Montanabw(talk) 04:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, it's not as if we're a welcoming site in general anyway. To really edit wikipedia long term you really have to be super into encyclopedias and building content to put up with all the bullshit that goes on on here. So something is really needed to lure in potential editors with the chance of winning something I think like an article of the month competition or something with a decent prize in which will make their effort worthwhile. Wikipedia should not work in practice, but the many flaws aside, it really does overall, but we're grossly under achieving and not even tapping into a small part of our potential by making the website more attractive to the average person, woman or man. And for poorly developed areas of the project, we also need to place an emphasis on improving them from monthly drives, with a different focus each month and offering a decent prize for the editor who puts in the most effort to improve them. The reward needs to be a decent one which could potentially bring in new editors looking to win it. Whatever gets us decent content, and at a much faster rate with more active good editors. In fact I 'd go as far to say that wikimedia should have a whole branch dedicated to PR work and launching schemes and competitions to generate interest and bring in new editors. I also think this team should contact local councils and governments and encourage them to get involved with the project and sponsor editathons with drives to improve content on the local area and take photographs of monuments and encourage people at a local level to contribute. That needs to take place all over the world I think. Wikipedia is not a competition, but if you really look at what drives the average person to produce it is usually towards some end or personal gain, even if not monetary. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Having done some real world experiments with non-regular editors, hell yeah we are an unwelcome site. Wikipedia's worst enemy is people who spend too much time on it, to the extent that their perspective becomes divorced from the real world, unable to accurately judge what a reader wants. A reader doesn't care about any policies, guidelines, the MOS etc etc - they just want accurate information, well presented. Encouraging editors is all well and good, but all you've got to do is step in a controversial area (add some unsourced speculative content to any article under Arbcom discretionary sanctions and revert a few times and you'll see what I mean) and the average person would be scared away. Even in less controversial areas, an IP adding unsourced content to anything at GA or above is extremely likely to have that edit reverted - who would take the time to find a source for the edit? Most regulars would think "you add it, you source it". But acquiring the skill to able to make edits that can generally withstand a revert is nontrivial and not within everyone's grasp. Gregory Kohs has just done a nice experiment vandalising a few Wikipedia articles but superficially using all the right citation templates and formatting. Nobody has batted an eyelid. I don't know how you can correct this balance - you could block everyone who makes a "bad" revert, but if we did that we'd have no editors left. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
If the voucher were connected to winning a contest, it will be won by an "experienced" editor, not the "average" newbie. So I don't see how that would motivate a reader to become an editor, which is what I thought you were referring to on that earlier post? If the Amazon voucher is meant for experienced editors, I'd see how it could be handled in the same way as access to the website/journal accounts. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Rosiestep Perhaps a different competition for newbies to make it fair?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Rosie, your heart is in the right place. I wonder if we could film new editors editing Wikipedia and show everybody how they are treated if the result comes out like this, showing the problems regulars inadvertently cause and prompting them into helping correct the environment. The trouble with publicising that is that it might make even more people stop trying to edit Wikipedia, and the trouble it reflects could simply be ignored. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie: Geez, that editor, Charliallpress, put up with a lot of negativity... but it finally paid off with his first DYK article Tenacious person. I'm rather certain that given identical circumstances such as Charliallpress faced, most newbies would just walk away from the effort. Which brings me to whether an Amazon voucher would induce newbies to edit. Me thinks not. I think the newbie isn't interested in an Amazon voucher in the mail or swag at an editathon as much as (a) they want their edits to stick, or (b) if their edits really don't conform to our policies, they'd like a kind message which addresses the issue(s) so that their future edits stick. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the average housewife whose family may not be on a great income, do you think wanting to earn and achieve something on the side might not be more important to them then making their edit stick on wikipedia? Perhaps it wouldn't be a motivating factor for somebody of your class or for attracting the female scholar types to edit here, but I'm thinking about the masses, what motivates average people to work and get a job done. It's an incentive usually. Of course newbies want their edits to stick and be treated well, but what is going to lure thousands of new female editors Rosie? There's no point in lecturing on the need for women if you don't address why they'd want to edit. Long term, of course a reward won't keep editors here, but I'm thinking, how do we make the site more attractive to new editors. We need bait, even if there's other factors as you say like kindness and allowing their work to be published.. My mother for instance I doubt would touch wikipedia with a bargepole, completely uninterested, but she frequently enters competitions and likes having something to do in her retirement years and winning things, and if I told her she could win £500 in writing an article or two on wikipedia I'm sure she'd show an interest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

Is it ok to open up a PR while an article is at FAC? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it defeats the object of it! I personally can't see any big issues with the prose in Enthiran like Sandy can but minor MoS issues are often difficult to pick up on. I have asked Eric to further look at it. My intuition tells me though that it's not going to pass first time, the delegates won't be convinced that there is any real support for it, with what Sandy and RH said and the fact that Tim didn't actually support. It'll get there though, RH agreed with that. So please state you withdraw it at the FAC and regroup to another peer review and request for copyediting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Revolver[edit]

To cut a long story short, I don't think I've done much work on this, so I'm happy to do the GA review if somebody else wants to give it a quick "shave and a haircut" copyedit. The sourcing all looks okay, and I think between them, GabeMc, JG66 and Dan56 have tightened up the prose. I would certainly not quickfail it if it went to GAN today. The only obvious show stopper is at 28K the article is a bit light on detail, given this is one of the most critically acclaimed albums of all time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the current content is OK for GA, it just needs sourcing improvement and a bit of a "shave and haircut" I think. It doesn't need to be comprehensive for GA. But it might be better for somebody to research it further properly and get it up to FA status instead. If you think it's worth it I'll look at it later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The only good sources I have to hand are Mark Lewisohn's Sessions, Ian McDonald's Revolution in the Head (you can tell where I've worked on a Beatles article as I still use the 1997 second edition instead of the 2005 third edition which I personally think is a little more pro-McCartney POV), Barry Miles Many Years From Now and Keith Badman's The Beatles - After The Breakup. The four of them together have tended to be good enough for the GAs I've used, when used in combination with what I can scrape from Google Books. @JG66: has all the Harrison sources you can shake a stick at.
Personally, as you know, I just can't get excited about FAC, for me the means do not justify the end and I am happy to have more GAs at the expense of less FAs. You can always improve GAs a bit more after the event, and indeed, we do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Ah, wonderful Revolver … I'd had my eye on nom-ing that article for ages, actually (but go ahead, Doc, if you're keen, why not). I've got MacDonald and Badman also, but I have to say I'm rather suspicious of Miles' book. Of more use, I think, is Rodriguez's book dedicated to the album, How the Beatles Reimagined Rock'n'Roll. He seems to provide a good picture of what a group effort Revolver was, unlike MacDonald. Also, from memory, Schaffner's Beatles Forever is fantastic at describing the mood of the times in 1966 and the cultural impact the album had in the US. I think I've also got a 2006 Mojo special celebrating the album's 40th anniversary … somewhere here.
Must say, I thought the article needed quite a bit of work yet. There's far too much detail on some of the songs, imo – interpretation and analysis by musicologists, for instance. And I admit I sorta caught the bug when I arrived at the article after Gabe had worked on it: seeing how much text there was already for the likes of "Taxman", "Eleanor Rigby" and "She Said, She Said", I started matching that level of coverage when adding to the paragraphs on "Love You To" and "I Want to Tell You". In fact, what's needed is to cut things back. Having said that, I've always thought that the same section in Sgt. Pepper's is way, way too long. (As with the previous sections in that Pepper article, we seem to hear plenty about what musicologists and other commentators think of each aspect of the album, without learning what it is first.) Mind you, it was a popular FA and I seem to be in a minority of one on that … What do you guys think, of the desired scope, I mean? I'm all for giving GAs the coverage required for FA, but without actually going down the time-consuming FAC route. JG66 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Well the level of song coverage isn't too much different to The White Album, where I think I made sure every song (even the throwaways) had at least a few sentences. Certainly, a number of Revolver tracks (such as "Taxman", "Eleanor Rigby", "Tomorrow Never Knows", to name but three) have had extensive critical analysis in sources, and the level of coverage in the article should reflect that. I would probably rearrange the content so each song has the order of background (who wrote it and why, lyrical themes), recording notes (who used a bifurcating splange filter and why) and specific critical response to an individual track (not required for all of them).
FWIW, I'm not a fan of Miles' book, and have only used it sparingly. It's useful for things like "You Never Give Me Your Money" where you can pull on McCartney's opinion not generally available elsewhere. But for what's supposed to be a biography about McCartney, it's near useless for anything to do with Wings. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think a couple of points could be added in the White Album's songs section. But the thing is you provide clear facts there, the nuts & bolts on each song, rather than author's prose before we've even had a description of what the song is. (And don't forget, just as for those Revolver tracks you mention, there is so much critical analysis on the White Album's "Blackbird", "Dear Prudence", "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Julia", "Revolution 9", etc.) Perhaps you're right – ensuring that the descriptive stuff appears up front. JG66 (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Throw the article up for GA and we can carry on the conversation there ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Nommed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Bet a Million[edit]

I think the bulk of the article is done now. At the start, I'd hoped to just be able to enlarge it with news stories. Was aware of the bio, but wasn't sure about getting access to a copy of a 1948 book. Turns out the authors didn't renew their copyright and the entire thing is PD, so HathiTrust has a scanned copy. We hope (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The Tower House FAC[edit]

Hi Dr. Well, the comments are mostly addressed but there are some beyond my technical abilities. Specifically, the photo sizes / whatever is meant by a "comma splice" / the feet to metres conversion / the use of cite book templates for the C. H-R magazine articles. Can you help with these? Then there's the issue of the lede quotes! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the comma splice and the H-R refs. I couldn't find a conversion for square feet into square meters. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I fixed it that's why. Also altered the lede. Disagree on setting the images to default though, the page image would become too big and the 1878 image too small.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I've seen this come up a few times, but doesn't each user set a default image size in their preferences that these mark-up settings do not override? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Other points should be addressed now, not sure if you sorted out whatever he meant about the cloak.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The cloak? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "a tunic powdered with letters".♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'm not sure what that means. Are there any images of this? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Morning Dr. Thanks very much to you, and to Tim, for all of your help. I think the objections that the two of you haven't already addressed can be dealt with. My problems are, firstly, time, but I can certainly have it all done by the end of the weekend. Is that ok? Secondly, I shall almost certainly need help on the Citation issues and I'll highlight those as I get to them. Lastly, the capitalization of furniture. Which is right - the Zodiac Settle, or the Zodiac settle? I can then make them all consistent. Would you be kind enough to ping Tim on this as I've forgotten how to do it. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd probably avoid capital letters, but that's just me. What does Tim riley think? I don't think all of the points are valid ones, but I'll try to go through as many as I can over the next few days. Not today though, the Ritz beckons.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to fix the issue with inconsistent pagination, but I'm not sure which style you prefer. I use 345–7 versus 345–347. What do you think? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither, use 345-47.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I think I've fixed them all now. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld and Tim riley:

Dear Dr. and Tim,

Curly Turkey still has two concerns. The first appears to be in relation to a miles to kilometres conversion, see below:

If the intention was to switch the order of the distances, this can be achieved with {{convert|0.3|mi|order=flip}}. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The second is in relation to the "dropped H" footnote, see below:

Well, the footnote leaves my head scratching. The link's great—but the quote defending it's use? and seemingly atributing it to Cockney? I'd also like to see it more explicit—something like "In Burges's time a "dropped aitch" — as in 'Enry 'Iggins for Henry Higgins — was socially taboo." Although I'm not sure if even "socially taboo" is necessary—I might go with something like "This refers to the "dropped aitch" — as in 'Enry 'Iggins for Henry Higgins — in many British English dialects." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

+ Resolved?

Not really—the quote in particular seems out of nowhere. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to address these? I'm not sure I know what the issues are, let alone how to resolve them, but I think if it is possible to do so, we may have Curly Turkey's Support.

Let me know if there is anything I can do, although I doubt it. KJP1 (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I doubt Curly Turkey would be willing to support it. Let's let him decide anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

But he has! Though now we have another contributor, whom I think you invited. No matter, his comments are very valid and helpful and he hasn't put up anything yet that should be a problem. So, I make that five Supports. How many of the bloody things do we need! KJP1 (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Five supports, yes, but still no support from Tim, Brian and Wehwalt... Or Gerda. Is it really only the lede quote stopping her? In fairness though it's not exactly the most straight forward looking FA I've ever contributed to though, the content is relatively sparse compared to some of the country houses we have but it only reflects the sourcing. Castell Coch should have more detail and "flowing prose" and be easier to promote once we get there. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure Brian will, once the comments end. And Tim, although his absence is a bit puzzling. Wehwalt, I can't say, you know him better than I. I think Gerda will, although here the Cashen issue is unfortunate. Anyway, we shall see. I think it will get there though the sources are sparse. But the house is very notable and it deserves FA status. And another Support as I type! Castell Coch is coming along very well. KJP1 (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
There's no rush of course, it'll likely be kept open a full month and we're only 5 or 6 days in. It's just it's usually the peer review commentators who arrive before the others though! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
A month! I don't remember the Burges taking that long. If that's the case, I shall address the remainder of Simon Burchell's comments tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hc's Edward II has been open nearly 2 months!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

There's still a request for a copy of the ground floor plan alone. I can do that from File:Plan of the Tower House, London.png and license it as a free derivative in less than 5 minutes--just let me know. We hope (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we want it, but I'm not sure how to fit it into the article without bloating it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Just remembered I'd cut a rather fuzzy version earlier- File:Tower House ground floor plan.jpg. One can experiment with it and see whether it can be fit in without issues. If so, then I'll be glad to make one from the file above-just ask. :) We hope (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
File:15th century painted wooden shield-William Burges collection.jpg Something for you--but if this was the original we would both be behind bars for quite a while! :-) We hope (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Commons upload though?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

An error on my part. I was looking something up there and didn't mean to upload it there. The book was publisher in both the US and UK at the same time so there shouldn't be a problem re: license. We hope (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Have a look at this starting on page 13. Interesting in that Google (who did the scan) has chopped out the small illustrations at the start of chapters while HathiTrust's copy is complete. We hope (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Have just come upon something else but will need to upload and link as it's at HathiTrust. I think you'll like this one from 1916. :) We hope (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

KJP1 Can you glean anything from it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

OK-your viewing link

Permalink to : RIBA journal. 3rd ser.:v.23 1915:Nov.-1916:Oct.. This is the 19 February 1916 issue and the pages are 129-139. (All PD in the US) We hope (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent find!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

your viewing link In the Burges folder is a review of Pullan's book about Tower House. The person who wrote the review (did not find a name anywhere) knew Burges and also was an overnight guest at the house. He (and I think that's a "given" back then since men were the norm in professions) gives some room sizes, more descriptions and talks about how light the house was from a first-hand perspective. We hope (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • permalink
  • The Archaeological journal-1886-Royal Archeological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland-London
  • pages 470-474
I think I've added the refs you asked about. We hope (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks. That was a great find! BTW if you start a new post can you start it at the bottom of the page as I have to keep looking for the section haha! It's OK for a day or two in the same thread, but after a while it tends to get too far up my page!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Revolver (Beatles album)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Revolver (Beatles album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Revolver (Beatles album)[edit]

The article Revolver (Beatles album) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Revolver (Beatles album) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 16 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Enthiran/archive2[edit]

I have opened the 2nd PR as the article's first FAC is now withdrawn. Feel free to leave comments. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, but it's not good timing, I don't want to pestering people to look at another article at the moment!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Duh, he (Doc) significantly copy-edited the article, in a way we never could have done. What more do you want him to do? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Take your time, Doc. I can see you are busy with The Tower House FAC and the beetles album. Best of luck for Kubrick. Hope to see it become an FA. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor motivation is the key! I didn't mean me, I meant asking some of the regular reviewers to take a look at it. I've already asked a bit much of them of late.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Finally, Sandy's comments have been resolved. When do you think I should nominate for FAC? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Yes, Sandy was a great help with that. I still say keep it open until the end of the month, hopefully I can attract some more editors to commenting on it but can't promise anything given the subject!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: London Ritz[edit]

Have just been trying to get some text from various news clippings into the article. On a related note, while searching, I found that Hemingway did something memorable while at the Paris Ritz. When his wife (believe this was #3) notified him she wanted a divorce, he was a guest at the Paris hotel. His reaction to the news was to take her photo, throw it into one of the hotel's toilets and then used his pistol to shoot both the photo and the commode. (At least Elvis confined himself to television sets.)

For the London Ritz, I wish we had a way to get a copy of George of the Ritz by George Criticos, the head porter there for many years. It looks like it would have some interesting information in it. Out of print (1959) and I've not found a scanned copy online. No idea why someone would have wanted to paint over all of that fabulous marble, but glad they restored it. There are others who would make more fitting "fish food", but naming names would mean the usual shouts of "incivility" and a trip to AN/I. :-) We hope (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That book looks like it would be good!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Any use for this?[edit]

page 650 The Athenaeum-15 May 1886. It's a journal by J. Lecton, London. There's a review of the books Burges' brother in law wrote about him and possibly some useful commentary about Tower House. If for some reason you're not allowed to view this, I'll upload the 1886 page elsewhere. ;) We hope (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't view it in the UK!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hold on for a minute and I'll give you a "private view". :-) We hope (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Your private link to the page :-) We hope (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I just read it but I don't there's anything to add from it that we don't already have. although the description of the settle as "extraordinary beautiful" might be worth quoting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

MS mail is really acting up-I can sign into my wiki e-mail account with live mail but when I try going in online, I'm told the password isn't correct. I wish they'd stop doing this with the books and journals and simply set those they aren't sure about the non-US copyright status of as read only. The journal they've locked you out of is 129 years old, for heaven's sake! We hope (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I know it's ridiculous! Don't worry, I'm told the research is excellent, even by those who think the prose is bog standard...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
By some chance are you able to read a 1907 issue of Architectural Review, printed in Boston? The Ritz article starts on page 138. Somehow drawings from the First National Bank of Boston are in the middle of it (no idea how or why) but it seems to be good for some details and snd some old photos. We hope (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, not even that. It's just the outline of the cover and the top of the page shown. Ludricrous.But they have to be ultra careful with copyright, so even if unlikely they're going to run into difficulty they'll block it anyway as it's not covered by US law. I do think they should make more effort to make them available in the UK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me get the pages uploaded. The possible issue is in the copying, not in the reading. The article is from a US magazine and is before 1923. I'll upload the pages for you to see. We hope (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Didn;t you earlier upload some stuf fon the construction of the Ritz? Did you add any content from it? If you could I'd be grateful, I still have about 50 pages to get through and another book to plough through!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's the link. The article runs from page 138-148. The information on the bank doesn't show up in the page count--it's just there for some reason in the scanned copy. This is a HathiTrust permalink for Architectural Review and this is the May 1907 issue. Some of the drawings didn't scan very well (checked both HathiTrust and Google copies--they both have the same problems). This looks to be a detailed article about what's in the Ritz. If you want some photos from this, just let me know. Yes, I added some content from both the earlier upload and have started adding on this one. Will continue at it--just didn't want you to feel I was taking over the Ritz. :-) We hope (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent find! Are the images uploadable?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

They're all US PD-pre 1923. The journal was published in Boston. Just pick out what you like and I'll get it uploaded here. We hope (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Emailed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

OK-Ritz photos so far:

That's great, I'll put them in a gallery at the bottom of the article and we can decide later how to use them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This is every illustration and photo from the article. The pdf to jpg website plants a tree for every 4K pdfs converted there; while I was working 2 trees were planted, so we also gave a little hand to the environment too! :-) We hope (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated WH, I've put the gallery on the talk page. Hopefully we can use a good number in the article. BTW Peter Beatty and Baron Pierre de Laitre might be interesting to try to dig up something on, see the post war section. Laitre sounds like something from a Peter Lorre movie!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Beatty was the younger son of David Beatty, 1st Earl Beatty and Ethel Field Tree, the only daughter of US department store tycoon Marshall Field. At the time his parents met, Ethel was still married to her first husband, Arthur Tree. After an on and off relationship, Ethel told Tree she wanted a divorce as she never intended on living with him again. She then went back to the US to file for it on grounds of desertion, as Tree remained in the UK. They were married in 1901. There were two sons from the marriage, the older one was David Beatty, 2nd Earl Beatty, as well as a half brother from his mother's marriage to Tree, Ronald Tree. Beatty was a millionaire through money and property left to him by each parent when they died.
He was said to have been born with an incurable eye disease--had many eye operations in both the UK and US--and was recently told he would lose the bit of sight he had left as doctors could do nothing to save it. He owned many racing horses--as his sight failed, he was no longer able to watch them run. At the time of his death, he was living with his brother, David, in a small apartment at the Ritz. He needed a valet to guide him around due to his poor sight. He said he was going to the sixth floor to visit some friends there. There's one school of thought that thought he fell and another that he ended it all because he couldn't bear to become totally blind. I can get news clippings.... We hope (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Where'd you get all that? I think we could probably make a stubby article stick on him. I picked up something somewhere on 1938 and him breeding horses for Agar Khan. He also held business interests and was clearly an aristocrat himself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

By searching Peter Beatty Ritz at newspapers.com He was a good friend of Aly Kahn and Rita Hayworth. There's a bit on the baron, but perhaps not enough for an article on him. According to an article I read, he was "odd" and also well-off. That also is from newspapers.com. We hope (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a picture of Hayworth and Khan in my book but it doesn't mention that they were friends with Beatty I don't think. If Rosie can take care of the last two chapters of the book sometime I'll begin on the Binney book tomorrow BTW. I glimpsed something in it earlier which mentions that the Grille Room was later converted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep-it's the Ritz Club casino now. They closed the Grille Room shortly before the hotel was bought in 1976. The news stories mention that Aly Kahn and Rita Hayworth were very close friends of Peter Beatty. We hope (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
WH, would you like to receive the two books I have on the Ritz? I've got them through the grant, but once i've finished with them I can easily send them back to WMUK and they'll send you them if you give them your address by email. Free to send them back too, Wikipedia Freepost. They're a good read, the second book which I'll start on tomorrow has some beautiful images. If so I'll leave the last two chapters of the 1980 book and go half way with the other book so you can continue and read them yourself. If not, no worries, just an idea.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
As long as they don't mind sending them to the US and you'll let me know how this is done. We seem to have two different stories about the Baron's murder-suicide. My news stories say he slashed her throat and the room was a bloody mess. I have 2 accounts saying he strangled himself with his suspenders. How do we solve this one? We hope (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
They won't mind nope, they sent the Streep book to Krimuk across the world! Also WMUK have the Morehouse III Waldorf book which I sent back to them, they could also send you that at the same time, I think it has more details on some of the other employees and Oscar which you might find useful. I recommend giving it a read, I think you'll like it! You can keep them for as long as you need, no rush. All you have to do is just indicate that you've managed to add something to improve wikipedia from them. Yes on the Baron I also read that he hung himself rather than swallowing a sock. Weigh up the sources and decide which is more accurate and footnote other explanations.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I am interested in reading both books! It might take a bit to find a photo of Peter Beatty (to make sure I have the right person)--there might be one in one of the news stories. I have more to add to his page re: news stories. Have found a story with photos of the Baron and Ms. Hill that can be put into Wayback Machine and linked. The news story that accompanied the photos says he was a smuggler and had been brought up on said charges by the French government just prior to the murder-suicide. We hope (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Khan[edit]

Hi Dr. B. I'm currently doing some work on the Khan article. So far, it's mostly pretty good, but there are always small things to fix here and there in any article. Is there some place where I can leave comments for the author(s) to address? For example, I found some unclear wording which will need to be addressed before any FAC, but I'm not sure where I could leave comments or to whom I should direct them. Thanks in advance for your time.-RHM22 (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If there isn't an open GAN or peer review you can always leave comments at the associated talk page. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
RHM22 Yes, can you leave them on the talk page? Cheers. Bollyjeff will be watching.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that. It occurred to me, but I don't like cluttering article talk pages except when necessary. However, since there is no other venue, it does seem most appropriate.-RHM22 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm finished with my review of Khan. It looks pretty good to me. It's not really laden with trivia, but there are a few things which reviewers might point to. Overall, I think it would stand a decent chance at FAC.-RHM22 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Arribajuventudshot1.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Arribajuventudshot1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Arribajuventudshot2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Arribajuventudshot2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Aren't they both PD Argentina We hope?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I wish that was so, Doc. These are both screenshots from films and there's a different criteria for films than for photos: {{PD-AR-Movie}} "for Argentinian cinematographic works 50 years after the death of the script writer, the producer and the director." Both of these are from 1971, so 50 years hasn't passed yet to consider the deaths of any of these people. We hope (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

this site often has photographs taken on set of films which aren't screenshots. [1] This definitely isn't a screenshot.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree--this was a photo taken during filming but not part of the film. You could use {{PD-AR-Photo}} if you can determine where it was published-"for Argentinian photographs first published more than 25 years ago. A proper source and date of publications has to be provided." Or you could license one of the screenshots as non-free because we have nothing to illustrate the film-no poster or similar. We hope (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tân[edit]

Hello, Dr. Blofeld, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Tân, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! Inwind (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PaoloStoppa.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PaoloStoppa.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Boo![edit]

I'm sure you don't remember me, but I do (I'm kidding, I know you do because I'm simply unforgettable LOL :)).

Well, I'm not actually back to editing, don't have much time for that, but I do get reminded of the days we were working together and communicating on a daily basis, sharing our cultures, likes and dislikes. In the middle there were even fights, arguments and some short instances of anger, like in a regular and normal friendship, but they had faded away. This often brings a smile to my face. To think that on a website you can befriend someone you hardly know anything about, someone you've never seen in person, not to mention seen his face or heard his voice. It's all about the imagination, and you still know who he is, you know it's a wonderful human being, by just witnessing the cheerful attitude, the power of giving, and the rare kindness of eagerly wanting to share knowledge and distribute it all over without expecting anything in return and just for the sake of goodwill. I appreciate that greatly, and that's the reason I wanted to take the time and ask for your well being. With best regards. Shahid • Talk2me 21:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine, thank you very much. What about you? How's your life been going? Shahid • Talk2me 21:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Assholes are to be forgotten, and that's what you have to do - forget him. :) May I ask questions a little more private? Are you married yet? Girlfriend? What's up in general outside of WP? Shahid • Talk2me 22:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Now why would you say that, it's not very true, there was nothing to be secretive about in the first place, at the end of the day it's not as though I am appearing here by my real name or anyone really knows who I am for me to be too discreet. That's actually the reason I see no point in discussing my life when the person on the other side of the screen does not really know who I am, and to be fair (to myself) I'd never be picky and would never ask overly intrusive questions (which anyway anyone could politely refuse to answer). But you, on the other hand, have been quite open as regards your private life, where exactly you live and what you do for a living, so I thought there would be nothing wrong with asking a very basic yes or no question, to which you replied quite directly. Congrats to your sis, wish you to marry ASAP because, in reference to what I said before, many good girls certainly deserve to have such a good and intelligent guy as their partner. Shahid • Talk2me 22:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

RIP[edit]

Today I felt I had to write about Bach scholar Martin Petzoldt who just died - only to find out afterwards that it been about the time of his memorial service in the Thomaskirche, - felt chilling, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

And you didn't know? Eeks that's scary indeed! There's been a few articles I've started on old actors and later died and that feels unpleasant enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I knew that he had died, but not the the funeral was today. Several of my subjects were living when I wrote, but no longer, for example my third article ever, Richard Adeney. The one who taught me about Bach was hardest, and not long ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Started Carl Seffner, might want to proof though, is that really true about finding Bach's skull?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I expanded CS and nomed. Started Sadie American‎ with a copy/paste of a PD article; needs work if you're up for it. I'm headed to bed. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda. You're treading on thin ice when you accept and encourage snide comments by the likes of Alakzi and make them yourself on Ched's talk page poking fun at the preferences of the two editors who got a core article to FA status. It shows a complete lack of respect and shows how two faced you are. You're officially banned from this talk page. Please don't post here again. I'm taking you off of my email list too. Enough is enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Re; Piccadilly[edit]

I can also look through what HathiTrust has because they appear to have a lot that's related to Britain--but won't allow those living there access to it. :/ If something comes along, we can do the same thing as with the London Ritz and The Tower House--I'll copy and upload. Please tell me how to let WMF know that I'd like to borrow the books. We hope (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, our friend Samuel William Fores (Albion Mills illustration) had his shop at the corner of Sackville and Piccadilly back when. We hope (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about him!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

More re: Burges[edit]

I think we might have enough to possibly expand the Golden Bed; know we have some of Burges' drawings at our disposal from the 1916 article on The Tower House. There are some interior photos of Castell Coch at this site: The Victorian Web. Castell Coch photos are by Jacqueline Banerjee, who gives her e-mail addy at the end of this page. Have a look around as you might want to try e-mailing her for permission to use. She gives a "blanket" permission for scholarly and educational purposes for credit and a link to the site and might be open to giving permission for WP to use some photos. We hope (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW-the Cardiff Castle copies are in the Burgess folder for viewing. ;) We hope (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What Burges folder?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

this one We hope (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Cardiff Castle I think we'll bring to FA status at a later date, Castell Coch is the main focus at the moment I think!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: poster upload[edit]

File:Alla En El Norte poster.jpg See how this is. I put it into the article because some people get very eager with orphan tags on the non free images.  ;) The reason you couldn't copy it is because this apparently is no longer on that website. I grabbed it because it's not watermarked, but found another page for reference with a watermarked copy. We hope (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers WH, LOL is that Nicole Kidman on the poster for Cumbres de hidalguía ? :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe from a time warp! :-) We hope (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Another list of Somerset scheduled monuments at FLC[edit]

As you have previously commented on one or more of nominations of the lists of scheduled monuments in Somerset, I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look at the List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset which is now nominated at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset/archive1?— Rod talk 21:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Racism[edit]

Posts removed from Cassianto's talk page, having been blocked for a week. I'll try to comment on the PR on the weekend. That is if I can avoid being shot down by a monkey admin with a gun for merely breathing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Like me? Although in my case, that would be an insult to a monkey! CassiantoTalk 20:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Our competent administrator then proceeds to brandish the racist stick here. Bang out of order given that there was no mention of race or creed, has he never heard Sacha Baron Cohen compare the competence of people to a monkey with a gun or flying a plane? I've asked him to remove his offensive edit summary but he refuses to do so. I take accusations of racism very seriously. I was about to post a light hearted remark linking Chimpanzee minkey and saying that perhaps Clouseau is a better comparison then but the post was removed before I could continue.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've seen some idiocy on here in my time, but this is the prize winner by far. Funnily enough I have friends in the north I call "Northern monkeys" (they're both white, and they call me a "southern numpty" or "soft southern twat" by return). Still, it's always good to block someone with an opposing opinion when you're in the midst of a disagreement. Sense of perspective? Common sense? They are sadly missing elements here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm British, I've never called a black person or a minority race a "monkey". The edit summary was bang out of order, and it's just wrong that Cassianto is blocked and his edit summaries removed by this admin who can't also accept fault in the heat of the moment and remove the racism remark. It's one thing to remove a comment from somebody's talk page but to do so with such an edit summary is disgraceful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to help the admin here, it'd be worthwhile dialling it down a notch to see how it goes folks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Bringing racism into the equation is a serious matter and really offensive to me. I might be many things, but one thing I'm not is a racist, especially towards black people and I'm sure User:TonyTheTiger would vouch for me on that one. I made a mild remark about the competence of the admin who blocked Cassianto for an entire week for what looks to be something very minor after a series of preachy comments hounding him. A monkey with a gun or flying a plane simply means giving power to a loose cannon or somebody of dubious trust. It's not OK for him to remove Cassianto's edit summaries and then refuse to remove that which is surely more offensive on a personal level. How would I know what race he is anyway? He could be pink with yellow spots like Mr Blobby for all I care. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Alrighty, let's just take a timeout. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, but I think this discussion is just getting things more heated. If you'd be so kind, just pause and we can try to resolve something. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but if he'd agreed to remove his offensive summary in the first place instead of telling me I was no longer welcome on his talk page I wouldn't be continuing here. Kindly remove the offensive edit summary and that part will at least be resolved.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure edit summaries can be removed by normal editors, or even admins, it would need the work of an oversighter I guess. But that would be a good thing, as it seems to be not quite what is needed in this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Really?? How exactly did he remove Cassianto's edit summaries in the Laurence Olivier talk page then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The Rambling Man If you want to diffuse this situation an admin can kindly remove the edit summary from here which very wrongly links it to racism. It's really not acceptable. It's clear that Galadriel isn't going to remove it so if somebody could I'd appreciate it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 01:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Because I'm sure Gamaliel will remove this from his page[edit]

Dr. Blofeld: You made a legitimate criticism of Gamaliel's actions but by claiming racism, presto-chango, what began a discussion of his mistake became a lecture on improving your cultural sensitivity. Don't fall for it. "Silly little monkey" is a common American saying. And Gamaliel is hispanic. He also has a history of selective admin action in articles where he has strong personal beliefs; he plays the "ref" while his buddies (see above) run the field. Regards, An American. 169.57.0.216 (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I'm not forgetting what has happened here. He's lucky that it wasn't Eric he blocked, otherwise he'd be half the way to being desysopped by now! I could walk out in disgust at being branded a racist, but somehow I think more admins value somebody like Galadriel then myself here (as evidenced by the response highlighting my faults not his) so there's no point. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 00:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I suppose this American film needs to go for speedy delete The Wizard of Oz (1939 film); there were flying ones in it. We hope (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Let's delete PG Tips too, the adverts featured a chimp family, our racial minorities might get offended! Johnny Vegas especially ought to be sacked for Monkey (advertising character). How dare he call it a racial slur!! Seriously can you believe the response from that lot.♦ Dr. Blofeld 00:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Mike Malloy-this American radio talk show host has referred to those in the extreme right as "flying m-ys" for years. Wikiquote-You Tube ref host's web page. He's in syndication now, but I've never heard that American Broadcasting Company objected to the term when he worked for them, nor that he's lost any clients as a result of it. We hope (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Found it. Clearly a piss take of Arabic men rather than women, and certainly not black people!♦ Dr. Blofeld 00:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
He's used the term for years--explained it once on the air that it came from having the hell scared out of him when he saw the flying ones in Wizard of Oz as a kid. We hope (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
While we're at it, I guess this old idiom better hit the bricks. Someone needs to tell Oxford that it's not nice. We hope (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The way a lot of admins function on here is rather like Admiral General Aladeen competing at the Wadia Olympics. He runs a very sloppy race, anybody who challenges him gets shot down, and then the other admins run towards him with the finishing tape and congratulate him!! Where are the abundance of good admins when you need them to state that it isn't acceptable to accuse people of racism? And of course not to mention Cassianto blocked for a week for what exactly?♦ Dr. Blofeld 00:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Another variation would be Mister Big (Rocky and Bullwinkle). ;) We hope (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Haha, yes indeed! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 01:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The whole situation is becoming ridiculous. It was inferred just a couple of days ago that Hafs was sexist. Looks like we need to check every word we type in case someone might perceive offence? SagaciousPhil - Chat 04:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I just looked and it's Galadriel who accused her of it too. It's just wrong. He needs to be warned about this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I call my sixteen-month son monkey, or cheeky monkey. I guess I'm racist too. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be the duty of an admin to diffuse conflict, not provoke it. Episodes like this again illustrate that the pointy blocking of well established content contributors and the double standards which exist in civility enforcement actually inflame a situation instead of diffusing it. Not OK to refer to admins as monkeying around but acceptable to call somebody both a racist and sexist. Sadly there are precious few admins who can stand out from the crowd and see what is wrong here. You're one of them Rambling, but the edit summary still remains, it's for more offensive to me than anything else that has been said and removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever precipitated the unfortunate discussion across talk pages of what are and what aren't traditional racist insults, I sure wish we didn't have to undergo it. There do exist rather standardized commercial online trainings for people working in international/diverse settings to help avoid getting bogged down in these painful discussions and misunderstandings, and if our community can't manage to solve its problems amongst ourselves, that could be the next step. Perhaps you could attend the next editathon at Howard with us, if you are in fact interested in African-American history, and get to know people who work with the community, or attend another outreach event near you with an African/African diaspora community. In the meantime, I would like to request you remove the photo at the top of your page, as it comes across as much worse than what you are intending, and can be interpreted as an overt attempt to make African-Americans unwelcome. --Djembayz (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It is really appalling to even bring race into something on wikipedia. I'm the least likely person to intentionally use a slur against black people, I've started articles like African-American history of agriculture in the United States and Pod's and Jerry's and am very much into jazz and its history. As an art form I think it's pure genius how it evolved, and that's largely an African American development. It's more racist to me that somebody would even think of blacks when the word "monkey" is said. Aren't we all something like 98% genetically the same anyway, whatever the skin colour? Gamaliel knows it wasn't intended that way, but his talk page trolls do.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Castell Coch[edit]

There's now a report on the state of Castell Coch and what Burges intended to do with the property in the Burges folder. The files you're looking for start with nyp. There's a drawing by Burges of the castle in 2 parts. (I can take care of that later.) There are also plans now in the folder for the Cardiff Castle stables because I found them in the same journal as the Castell Coch material. Here's the information for citing:

So we'll now hear from the man himself! :) We hope (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if Burges had a pet monkey? He liked animals I believe!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We hope I've reached page 72 of the Binney book now, roughly half way. It resumes with details on the construction, before moving on to the cuisine and details of the bedrooms. A fair bit of material left to cover but nothing extreme. Only 2 chapters left in the other Ritz book but it is OK if I leave that material to you? I'll send the books back to WMUK next week if so and ask them to send you the books afterwards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll be glad to go to work on it as soon as I have the books.:) We hope (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The book has tons of beautiful images and some old plans, not sure if they'd be uploadable though. The Binney one is spectacular to look at, looks like a royal palace inside!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@We hope:, do you mind if I do a bit of work with a couple of Coch images from the folder tomorrow morning? Hchc2009 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

She'd be delighted I'm sure Hchc2009 Use all the material you want.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26[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.

Patolandia nuclear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Juan Díaz and Tito Gómez
Carl Seffner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Wilhelm His

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

ROFL[edit]

The yellow monkey picture literally made me ROFL! And I live in Singapore. :P --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, yes, "yellow" and "monkey" together are certainly questionable! Aw I miss Yellow Monkey, he was the best wasn't he? Or was he around before you arrived? A great contributor and also a very decent administrator who fought against injustice. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Never interacted with him, so maybe before my time. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It's almost five years since he left, how time flies..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I miss him too, for his wisdom, knowledge in several useful fields, hard work and fearlessness/dedication to IAR. Sadly, it seems he took the latter a bit too far, which is a shame. --Dweller (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

He was one of the very few admins who enforced civility evenly with a fair outlook on everything. He didn't care if making a decision would make him unpopular unlike all of the other sheep on here. And he wasn't one of those editors who exist on here to purely criticise people and rub the back of other admins while contributing nothing to the encyclopedia. He was one of our best contributors to boot. Unfortunately as you say his method attracted the trolls who eventually weighed so heavily on him he could no longer edit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know about Lhasa. More could be added. It is in a floodplain, with hidden canals and wetlands. There is the old city architecture, Mao-era brutalist blocks and modern stuff. The economy is a bit mysterious. I read somewhere there are a lot of hookers to service the migrant laborers. But I am a bit disgusted with the argument over city versus prefecture. I have a growing list of topics for articles that nobody will ever read, which I find much more relaxing to write. Also I am wondering if there is any way to formulate a proposal with any hope of passing that would make it harder to bite the newbies. See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 16#Discouraging biting the newbies. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure there's details about Lhasa which are at odds with the romanticized historical city. It looks dirty off the main streets, and I don't just mean rubbish. Good luck with the don't bite the newbies. The problem is that some newbies really are quite annoying and persistent, I had one trying to hijack Little Ditty the other day, it's difficult to be polite to such people. How do we spot the difference between persistent POV pushers and poor quality new editors and those who are working in good faith but don't yet know how to source. Difficult to distinguish at times. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • AGF I suppose. Scenario. The "Apsley Eagles" are a successful sports team that merits a Wikipedia article. A high school teacher asks her class to write them up in Wikipedia. A student gets a userid and starts a first version of the article that reads, in its entirety, "The Apsely Eagles are the best team in the state." Two minutes later the article is nominated for speedy deletion. The class sees the huge pink warning message. While they are discussing it, the article is deleted. 30 potential editors are lost, not counting friends, relatives and readers of the Apsley Inquirer. The damage would have been avoided if the biter had explained the problem instead of immediately tagging for deletion. I got an orphan tag the other day on a new article with only two inbound links. A newbie could see that tag as really hostile. I would prefer to welcome the occasional POV-pusher than turn off potential productive editors. Maybe I feel strongly because my wife's first article (Calton weavers) got speedied as blatant nonsense. It turned her right off. With what she knows and how well she writes, that is a real loss. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, a great loss. Can you let her know that I've left a message on her talk page. I want to do something to try to resurrect the unfortunate situation and prove to her that once she learns the basics there's little chance somebody will delete a starter article. Especially as a female editor who seems to have a great knowledge of crafts, not many men edit those sorts of topics, this is the sort of editor we need in droves, right Rosiestep?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

English writers[edit]

That will come, in due time. There's a lot of work to be done in categorizing writers, and I'm doing what I can, but it's going to be rather a long slog, I'm afraid. Right now I'm basically laying some groundwork for what's to come down the road. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll do what I can in the next few days, but I'm going to be unable to do much editing for a couple of weeks after that. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

,[edit]

Holy smoke. Ahem, no, it is not good for a FP, cos - inappropriate digital manipulation... Hafspajen (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey listen, Dr. Blofeld - did you really created 95,034 articles? It looks like you are the Nr one... on the list of articles created owerall... ON the whole English Wiki. WOW. Hafspajen (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's nearer 100,000 now, that's an old list. Not really, nope. Most of those were pretty empty stubs on various world topics like villages and landmarks created at the rate of about 5 sometimes 7 articles a minute. Basically the first few years on here I functioned largely as a bot on here, I saw a massive bias in coverage and tried to do all I could to just set it on its way and get us working towards even coverage around the world. Annoying really for the readers in places looking for information and few of them really get expanded decently but in the long term they were all mostly articles we'd really need to be the most comprehensive resource possible. At the time it felt like the right thing to do as it was early days still on here, which at times attracted some hostility and misunderstanding of my way of thinking at the time. Still, I've done a great deal towards coverage and addressing systematic bias and there's a lot of half useful or decent stubs created among those, but if you really count the start class-B class articles created it'll likely be under 10,000 and a more normal figure.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't think I've hit 1000 yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Spin the wheel of WP[edit]

and see who will be blocked next as we play "Punishment Without Crime". We hope (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

To the arb committee[edit]

As it is clear that HJ Mitchell is going to shoot down an opponent here is my statement. And it's completely true. Do I really need to provide diffs over cases you've imposed sanctions on pigs on the wing and Gerda over. People know I'm right:

I'm aware that my statement here is a waste of time given the power of certain people here but from my perspective this looks like a clear stitch up and about as corrupt as you can get. I've watched (from my perspective) HJ Mitchell and Ched play this like a chess game in recent days meticulously thought out and plotted, weakening the opponents: [2] [3] (admitted to off wiki discussion), [4] (Six reverts in 48 hours before [5] and the inappropriate use of admin tools by HJ to lock a page down without the note himself, despite being involved), [6] (the questionable blocking of the most outspoken editor against it), "little creeps" [7] (Personal attacks, one by email which they were told was inappropriate), [8] (Attempts to censor talk page comments half of which in this edit shouldn't have been deleted), [9] (An attempt to close this key thread because of the ancient incivility of an IP), [10] (HJ blocked SchroCat less than an hour before opening the case here over this which is a very questionable block given that he'd toned down the note and didn't edit war), and finally the general hostility, stirring and accusations here and here. HJ has confessed that he is a friend of Mabbett's (see Gerda's last arb case) and Olivier has been the target for infobox enforcement for quite some time by those individuals arb imposed sanctions on previously, clearly acknowledging there was a problem. I knew what was happening a few days ago, I found it suspicious that a mere note over infoboxes was gradually turning into a discussion about consensus to have an infobox (Gerda) [11]. When HJ arrived to block the article here it seemed inappropriate for him to intervene, knowing that he is in contact with Andy in real life. Whether or not Schro and Cassianto were heated in their response, I think it's out of frustration that every article taken to FA without an infobox inevitably becomes a target for enforcement. Talk:Frédéric Chopin, [12] etc, need I really cite every case where Mabbett and Arendt have been involved with Schro, Cass, Tim riley etc? There's obvious canvassing and plotting behind the scenes ([13] [14]) and it displays a lot of disrespect for the people who brought this core article up to FA status. They contributed a magnificent article and they're essentially made to look like criminals here. Very sad.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Gamaliel "Also, if editors are going to squabble over infoboxes, discretionary sanctions might be helpful. " Let's be clear on this. Tim riley, Cassianto and SchroCat are not squabbling over infoboxes. When they write articles they agree on infobox or no infobox and promote it like that. John Barrymore for instance makes it clear that they're not completely against them, but disagree where they're of very limited use. They move on constructively and develop other articles. The squabbles result from several editors magically turning up on the article talk pages to mention infoboxes. Olivier has been on that target list for a while now, in fact he tops the list. I think something should be passed which respects the editor's view who promote articles to FA, whether or not that implies ownership or not. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell They're not baseless personal attacks. They're an account of what I've witnessed over the months and recently on here. Do I really need to provide diffs over everything that I've claimed? The arb have imposed sanctions on Andy and Gerda, in fact Pigs on the wing was banned from infoboxes. We all know what I'm saying is largely true that they go through articles adding infoboxes. By asking for my statement to be removed it looks as if you're trying to override the opposition and win out. My statement is on my talk page should it be removed here. If it is removed it will prove how corrupt the premise behind this is, I would ask the committee to give this case a fair look, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel I wasn't involved in the editing dispute. I did comment on the talk page though that the actions by HJ were suspicious. You and I had a personal run in, but that was over comments made over the blocking of Cassianto and your false perception of racism. I'm outspoken on this largely because I see a repeat pattern with infoboxes and I think it wastes a lot of time and causes unnecessary hostility. I'm of the opinion arb should recognize that infobox disputes are becoming a major problem and that in practice their ruling of infoboxes being an optional thing by the article writers in practice doesn't work. In fact HJ's very case here is contrary to their previous ruling I think. I think before an article is promoted to FA a formal consensus needs to be made very clear on the infobox situation and that seen as final once promoted and to find a way to stop people trying to enforce them after promotion.

@Gerda and Ne Ent Fact: "the article had an infobox until [15] until a couple editors decided to replace the entire article". Yes it had an infobox between 2006 and Jan 2015. But that was before the article was fully developed. "Decided to replace the entire article" happened to be extremely productive and resulted in a featured article on a core topic, the holy grail of actors. The decision to exclude an infobox on the weight of things is an extremely trivial one, yet you seem to view these editors as having done something destructive in their editing of it to FA. The arb have previously ruled that infoboxes are optional, why isn't their ruling being respected here? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement re arb case request[edit]

Hi Dr. Blofeld, I've removed (with arb clerk hat on) a bit from your statement which seemed to be needlessly aggressive and unnecessary. Could you please add evidence (eg diffs) for the sentences after "them upon these FAs". Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I don't think I was overly aggressive although I see your point about my reference to the people adding infoboxes. I'll try to revise it and support what I say, but I think it's very clear what is happening here.. I'm about to go to bed here but please allow me to gather the evidence in the next 24 hours, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries, thank you. I'll just add a note in your statement that you'll add evidence within 24 hours (feel free to remove my note when you do). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou, I don't usually comment in arb cases but what has happened here really concerns me. If it's too long or needs further edits let me know tomorrow, signing off now, hope you'll bear with me, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually I might put it in a html (hidden) comment (irony aside) so that other people don't comment on the fact that there's no evidence. As before feel free to unhide when you add evidence. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but already there is at least some evidence there to support what I'm saying. Signing off.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Hopefully I've provided enough evidence of what I see as gaming the system here and abuse of admin tools and contacts to muscle in on the situation. I can't see why HJ would take this to arb other than hoping that his contacts and good standing will win out, I would sincerely hope that this is looked at fairly. I'm very disappointed with HJ on this, an editor who I otherwise think highly of in terms of content production. HJ and Ched are otherwise in very good standing here, I'm not sure why this infobox thing is so important. If HJ truly doesn't care about infoboxes I have no idea why he'd get involved so much here, other than as a favour to a personal friend. Believe me, I'd rather not have to be outspoken on this, but I think the time has come where something needs to be passed to respect the decision made before it is is promoted to FA and eradicate the persistent challenging and enforcement at a later date. We need to stop disputes happening period, and I think people should be banned from disputing infoboxes in featured articles at least for a year after promotion. It's upsetting that people put in so much hard work and then have to deal with this. I think I've avoided direct personal attacks at the arb but please prod me if you want anything else altered, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: You may want to check the tone of Pigs on the Wings remarks, particularly the "He also seems so sling mud " and "Dr Blofeld and others make a number of accusations about or involving me; most of which are egregious breaches of WP:NPA". The general tone of it is blatantly hostile rather than a constructive counterargument and he also needs to provide evidence of "mud slinging" or have his remarks removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Laylā al-'Uthmān[edit]

I'm afraid you already covered this lady in Laila al-Othman which you started in February 2011. May I suggest a redirect, incorporating any additional details into the older article. I've come across quite a few of those so-called red links in the missing article lists which should never have been added in the first place.--Ipigott (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Meh, you can merge it if you like, I need some fresh air now. Funny I had a feeling that she was familiar too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Kuwaiti economist[edit]

I'm not surprised - our coverage of the Middle East is often sorely lacking, I fear. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: film poster-[edit]

If this is it, I can download it, reduce the size and get it uploaded. Just let me know if this is the one you want. ;) We hope (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That's it We hope yup!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

OK will grab it and get it in the article in a few minutes. :) We hope (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Got it now! ;) We hope (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Well done! I tried to pick up one but it said "access denied" or something! This is better quality too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow Amelia Bence is still alive and is 100 years old! I believe when I started her her birthdate was originally given as 1919. She's about as glamorous as you can get I think, Golden Argentine cinema is comparable in many ways to old Hollywood on that side of things. Great article on Spanish wiki here. Haha I see that also like Hollywood some of them are not immune to the surgery :-) File:Bence-Gelber.jpg. Still, at least she doesn't look like Jackie Stallone! She once looked like that!! .♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
She looks a bit like Gloria Swanson in her "maturity". :) Personally, what I think is sad is when the older actresses try to cover the years with too much makeup. Then they look garish and nothing at all like they did when they were younger.
On a totally unrelated note, I've found some photos from TH. Yes, they're in the circa 1870s-1880s time frame and are listed as being out of copyright; in fact, the one of the studio may be of Burges himself at work there. The bedroom is a better copy of the shot we have, so that's no concern. My concern is that the site has marked them with copyright after the claim of out of copyright. They've come from a by sobscription website, so if you aren't a member, the link is closed for you. The site gave me print copies (PDF), so I put them in a Tower House folder.
Crisco 1492, would you mind having a look at the above and the PDFs in the folder? My mind says they're not copyrighted any longer but that notice at the bottom bothers me. Thanks! We hope (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Can't claim copyright on something that's PD, unless you've changed it significantly. No sweat of the brow in the US (where our servers are). Is the photographer IDed?
BTW, Dr. B. Imagine a mosque overrun with monkeys. Saka Tunggal Mosque is almost there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
LOL!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Crisco 1492, re: sourcing this--the site won't let you in if you're not a member. OK to source through the folder? I believe the photographer is his B-I-L, and he died a few years after Bugress (1881). We hope (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do they at least have permanent links? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep-the permalink is listed at the bottom of each PDF as a persistent link to the entry. We hope (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Use that, and note that a subscription is required. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Those are good WH but I can't save them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me go to OneDrive and change something just a bit and you can. ;) We hope (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
New Tower House link This one should let you copy and save. We hope (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried a right click and it didn't show the save file option. I can download the entire PDF but not save just the image.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The PDFs need to be converted to jpgs and then you can crop out just the photo. I do my conversions here. You're able to select an excellent quality for the jpg. I left these as PDFs because there's the issue of being able to show source since this is from a members-only source; if you're not signed in you can't view the page with the photo. The site only allows you a "print" option and that's given to you as the PDFs. When we've been working with photos that have come from jpgs, this is where I've done them. We hope (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)-My second post of this--it shows up in history but not on the talk page for some reason. We hope (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

KJP1 do you know how to do that? I don't!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hang on, folks--I'll go over and do it and put the finished photos into the Tower House folder. We hope (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
OK-the photos are cut and in the Tower House folder linked above. The bedroom photo is identical to File:Burges bedroom, Tower House.jpg. It can be uploaded over that file--it's better quality than the present one. The dining room is a different photo than the one we have now and the photo of the studio is now large enough to take a good look and see that this is Burges at work there. We hope (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow that last photo, priceless! What is the full source so I can upload them in the commons? Crisco 1492 can you expand Marini (singer), surprised to see she wass missing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Might have a go, but I'm currently working on a series of articles for the pictures I took during my vacation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries on the bedroom--just upload it over the present one.
  • Artist: Burges, William (1827-81)
  • Location: Private Collection
  • Credit: Dining Room at William Burges's House (photo), Burges, William (1827-81) / Private Collection / The Stapleton Collection / The Bridgeman Art Library
  • Date: 19th c.
  • Medium: photograph
  • Copyright: Out of copyright


  • Artist: English Photographer, (19th century)
  • Location: Private Collection
  • Credit: The Studio, 9 Melbury Road, Kensington (b/w photo), English Photographer, (19th century) / Private Collection / The Stapleton Collection / The Bridgeman Art Library
  • Date: 19th c.
  • Medium: black and white photograph
  • Description: the house of architect William Burges (1827-81); built 1875-80;
  • Copyright: Out of copyright

I believe the photographer is his brother in law, Pullan. We hope (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the studio is/was on the flat portion of the roof (see 2nd floor plan). Will try to see if there's anything re: refs that state where sometime later today/tonight. We hope (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dr. and We hope - the photos are superb; a magnificent piece of investigative work to unearth them, along with all the other wonderful things you've found. The image of Burges's bedroom is vastly better than the one we had. I think the photographer is actually Francis Bedford, he did them for Pullan's book, The House of William Burges ARA. The copy of that held in the Royal Collection was recently used in an exhibition of Bedford's work at held at Buckingham Palace. A couple of issues: the photo of the dining room is the Summer Smoking Room of Cardiff Castle (Crook p=245) so we'll have to switch that back. The other one that troubles me is the one labeled Burges in his studio. I'm concerned for a few reasons. First, there is no mention of his studio in any of the works that I have and, if he had one, I'd have thought it would be mentioned. Secondly, I'm just not sure it's Burges. Notably image-conscious, he allowed very few drawings/photos of himself and Crook details them. But he doesn't mention this one. Lastly, it just doesn't look like a Burges room at all. It's tidy, ordered and plain. But it was originally No. 9 so the label's right. All very puzzling and interesting. KJP1 (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
If it's the summer room in Cardiff Caslte it's probably not a reliable source. Quite an error to make. The studio does look like its on the upper floor. You can't make out too much of the person, perhaps Burges allowed that one? I'm optimistic, if you're dubious probably best changed back.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm available to move and change file names at Commons, if needed We hope (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at this 1885 photo File:Tower House south front 1885.jpg. To the left of the home you see a separate building of glass--it could be taken for a greenhouse at first glance. From the old north front photo, File:Tower House north front 1885.jpg, you see a bit of the "glass house" at right. I think this was where the studio was. Now look at this modern photo of the property. At some point, a garage and small apartment over it were added. The "glass house" has disappeared. We hope (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it's the same one as in the photo? I'd thought initially that was part of the upper house rather than ground. Perhaps that was where all the stuff was made, like a workshop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I zoomed in as much as I could on the workshop image and to me it looks like Burges, similar facial feature to the main portrait of him and not too dissimilar to the side portrait.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

At first I thought it was on an outer upper level of the house, but after I remembered seeing the 1885 photos with the glass house in it, I began to think that the studio was once in there. All accounts say that he gave up his office to work from his home. I wonder if RIBA might be able to answer a question about the photo and Burges' studio at home? We can see by the 1885 photos there was a building there and at some point it apparently was razed. There should be some record of the building being taken down on the property records. We hope (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
File:Room at Cardiff Castle.jpg The Cardiff Castle room is now here and in the Cardiff Castle category. We hope (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The photo labelled the Dining Room at the Tower House is 100% the Summer Smoking Room at Cardiff. So that should give us some cause for concern. Now, as to the studio, the "greenhouse" to the left of the Tower House when facing it from Melbury Road just doesn't look like the studio. The studio has an apex roof and the greenhouse doesn't. Moreover, the picture I have, from the Builder of 1895, suggests the greenhouse is attached to the house to the left of the Tower House, not to the Tower House itself. I'm trying to upload this to Commons but it is being difficult. So if not there, then where? Referencing the plan, I think it can only be E, the hall on the first floor, or one of the rooms on the second floor. None seem likely. All very fascinating. I shall try some more digging myself. KJP1 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm being very picky but this [15] also causes me concern re. Bridgeman's. Labelled a "chair" it is actually the headboard of the Red Bed. KJP1 (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
This [16] on page 10 explicitly states that the Tower House had no studio.
Dr., I see Ian Rose has put the Tower House up for image review. I wonder if it would be prudent to switch the studio photo for the time being. We can, of course, continue to dig and switch it back at some latter point. I'm not trying to be difficult but it would be unfortunate if it were found not to be what we are saying it is. KJP1
I think this [17] shows that the greenhouse is attached to the neighboring proprty. KJP1
Go ahead, switch it back! I thought it really looked like Burges too though but if the source says it had no studio..♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Enthiran PR[edit]

After Sandy's and RHM22's reviews, no one has made comments at the article's PR? I have made a few requests. Have you got someone to make any comments at the PR, doc? Do let me know and thanks for your support in all my endeavours. BTW, Veerapandiya Kattabomman is currently being copyedited. Do let me know if you are interested in conducting a GAR on this 1959 film. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, SRK is suffering from the same lack of input. Nobody is interested, even those who are pretty liberal with helping out usually find the subject matter disagreeable. Most "western" editors are totally not interested in Indian cinema. We can't force people to review it! Yup, I'll review that one for you, give me a bell once it's nommed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Doc, Veerapandiya Kattabomman is nomnated for GA. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Mother India[edit]

Has this article on the film been added? It contains some good deatils which can be used in "Themes and influences", "Music" and "Critical reception" sections. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't think so, but I can't see anything of value we haven't already said.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Gaelic-language[edit]

Category:Gaelic-language, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful[edit]

Thank you ever so much for your hard work on Tower House. It's been such a pleasure to see my work endlessly loved/pulled/rewritten/sharpened and expanded. The page looks amazing now :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gareth" . Well, we've all help improved it together I think, just shows how much a good peer review and FAC can really improve an article!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Djangofilm.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Djangofilm.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jana Aasthalogo.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jana Aasthalogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SOKO 5113.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SOKO 5113.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly handy link[edit]

  • Database of 19th Century London photographers and allied trades 1841-1901. The database is now archive only but it has listings on many people who were photographers, lithographers and the like in London during this time. I backed into it this AM and it was how I was able to prove when Akerman (TH litho) died. This may be helpful when it comes to many of the old photos. We hope (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We have a copy of Burges' drawing for the mantelpiece with the statue pictured--would that be helpful to have as an upload? We hope (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Tis OK to say different things under one thread, but my earlier comment was on messages left at threads half way up the page! Once it starts to disappear best to start a fresh one!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Domoni[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Domoni - can you expand it? There's more content in some of the refs I introduced. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Patrick Fairweather[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Požganica[edit]

Nice template, sir!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Požganica requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cnbr15 (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy declined, although it could use some expansion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

I believe we can discuss this before reverting each other. Shahid • Talk2me 16:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not willing to discuss Taran Adarsh since this would be just your or my personal opinion.
As regards the stuff I'd added, I removes some bits of it, but I believe there's nothing journalistic about it. This is a media image section where we have to write how she is perceived in the media, how different people perceive her and how she perceives herself. Just like we have legacy sections in many articles, for one. I believe there should be more than just sentences without evidence, there must be analysis as you see in articles like Jolie, Davis, and many others about Indian actresses. Shahid • Talk2me 16:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed the whole world opposes thing, which might look a little too much. Shahid • Talk2me 16:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Now we have - she asserts having no qualms about speaking her mind, remaining undeterred by controversy as long as she stands "by what’s right". sounds quite simple to me, does it not to you? Shahid • Talk2me 17:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I actually found quite some info about people talking about her, like Amitabh Bachchan, Shobha De and others. This could support the text and give it more flavor. I think there should be analysis, not just stated facts, don't you think? Shahid • Talk2me 17:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
So how would you reword that - "she asserts having no qualms about speaking her mind, remaining undeterred by controversy as long as she stands "by what’s right"?
The point that I'm trying to make is the controversy part and her attitude towards it, not how brave or great she is. Shahid • Talk2me 17:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Part of my research includes:

Author and columnist Shobha De, while supporting her molestation complaint against Ness Wadia, believed her feisty nature could eventually play against her: "India is not terribly kind to strong-willed, outspoken women who are dubbed 'trouble makers' if they dare to raise their voices, especially against men. Zinta is such a woman."

Film actor Amitabh Bachchan expressed his admiration of Zinta's "drive and guts in a world that can be most cruel to a single girl", describing her as "frank and painfully honest and outspoken to the 'o'"

What do you say? Shahid • Talk2me 17:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Re:Book cover[edit]

Sure--just give me a couple of minutes to get it done. :) We hope (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done :-) We hope (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, makes the infobox look a little bit more worthwhile now hehe! Hopefully Eleassar who does a lot of great work on Slovenia can further add to it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dr._Blofeld/March_2015&oldid=1079684822"