User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) FAC3

Thanks for the New Years greetings that included an express statement of your willingness to help my Chicago boosting efforts. You have previously been involved in Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) as the WP:PR reviewer. It is now on the FAC fence with 2 supports and a weak oppose. Feel free to come by this very mature FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year!

All the best, and if you get a chance to look at John Diefenbaker, currently at peer review, that would be great.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Seen it, will do (but give me a couple of days, I'm still trying to catch up after my French interlude). By the way, I've just seen on your userpage that among your upcoming projects is Ruddigore. That's a change - I'll certainly look forward to reviewing that, or anything else operatic. Brianboulton (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been there for a while. I've got the refs but just haven't felt like doing it, probably to the frustration of Ssilvers. There's always something jumping the queue. Haven't been to France in over a year. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sacrifice (video game)

Might I trouble you to have a look at Sacrifice (video game)? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sacrifice (video game)/archive1 seems to be lacking in the number of reviewers for the week it has been on. Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My expertise on video games is roughly zilch, but I will give it a prose review and let others judge the technicalities. Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(PS) Just started reading, realised I did the peer review. This should be a breeze after all. Brianboulton (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I made some tweaks and given feedback to address the issues you have raised. You might want to strike them or offer comments at the FAC. Thank you for the informal degree! Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Many thanks for the card, Brian, and all the best to you for the new year and new decade. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 11:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lock Haven, Pennsylvania

	<font=3> Thanks again for your helpful peer review and support. Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, made featured article today! Ruhrfisch ><>°° and Finetooth (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Heywood

Thanks for your kind words on Lock Haven. I weighed in on the Heywood FAC. I seem to recall reading somewhere that when the breadfruit plants finally got to the Caribbean they did not work out as well as hoped, but could not find that here, so did not mention it in the FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right. "When the breadfruit matured and multiplied and fruited, the slaves would not eat them, finding them distasteful and insipid, and preferring their own homegrown plantains." (Hough, p. 232). But that is part of Bligh's story rather than Heywood's, so I haven't mentioned it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - agree it is not worth mentioning in the Heywood article. I was bold and added the map to three articles (on the Bounty, mutiny, and Fletcher Christian). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Eve GA

This user helped promote Arthur Eve to good article status.

Thanks for your involvement in the development of Arthur Eve which has become a WP:GA in recent months. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

.

Glad to hear it; I enjoyed that article. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC request

Hi Brian, I'm wondering if you have any interest in helping to review Muhammad al-Durrah incident for FAC. The nomination page is here. It has been a difficult article to write for a number of reasons. There are many strongly held POVs, and the wrong turn of phrase can significantly push the POV too far in one direction or another, so the writing suffered because of that (necessarily so, I believe). Also, the media has tended to ignore some of the recent developments in the story, which makes it difficult to evaluate what the majority POVs are. If POV X dominated news coverage of the issue in 2009, was that because it really did become the majority POV, or because most journalists thought it was nuts and didn't bother to offer rebuttal? Impossible to know.

Ideally, we need experienced reviewers who have no view one way or the other, but that is difficult to find. People are who disinterested are often uninterested too, understandably so. I thought I'd ask you because you indicated you'd be willing to help out with reviews, and I know from past experience that you're very thorough. If you can't or don't want to, or are too busy—I believe you currently have an FAC up yourself—I'll completely understand and you should feel free to ignore this request entirely. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My FAC looks possibly past its peak (five supports, no opposes) but you never know. Due to two quite long absences before Christmas, I owe some time to WP:PR and to the guys who've carried my share there. I've also started another project, and have some long-term work to do in connection with Gustav Mahler's 150th anniversay in July. So yes, I'm busy, but never too busy to overlook important articles such as this one. I don't think it would be helpful for me to weigh in at the FAC page immediately, but over the te next few days I will read the article carefully and let you have my views. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be very helpful, Brian, thank you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

New PR

Hi Brian. Hope you had a good holiday and a nice time in France. I've just sent Rumours to be reviewed and would appreciate one of your dissections. I'm sure you've heard/bought/loved this one. Cheers. PRB88 (T) 23:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There is quite a backlog on PR at the moment, and I must help to reduce that. In addition, I am having browser problems which are slowing me down. So it may be several days before I can get to Rumours, but I'll bear it in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's alright. As long as you have your say, I'll be fine. I'm still going through the final stages of Is This It at FAC. Also you might want to use Mozilla Firefox or even Google Chrome if you're not doing so already. PRB88 (T) 13:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem has been with Mozilla Firefox, but I think it's fixed now. By the way, if you could help shift the PR backlog by picking out an article and reviewing it, that would be very helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for a brilliant review as usual. It should be up at FAC shortly. If there's anything I can do to help (with anything), let me know. RB88 (T) 01:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wife selling at FAC

Thanks for your comments. I've hopefully managed to address your concerns if you'd care to take another look. I didn't believe wife selling was true when I first came across it, but it surely is. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy to support (see FAC) but if this turns out to be an elaborate piss-take I will be very cross indeed! Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So will I Brian, so will I. Cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die it's perfectly true. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you self-revert and retry that edit, you wiped out everyone else's commentary. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your reputation precedes you

I was wondering if I could trouble you with a request to copyedit Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, whenever you have time? I think it would benefit from your keen eye (especially since as a film and film technology buff many sections may be a bit hard to understand for the layperson.) I will be at your beck and call if you need a favor :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How can I refuse? At present my peer review priorities are John Diefenbaker which I am doing, and Rumours which I have promised to do, so if you can wait a couple of days I'll be ready. Are you going for a formal second peer review, or is it just on the talkpage? Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the most critical issue is that it needs a good stiff copyedit, it's just an informal thing. If you have issues, bring 'em to talk and I'll get right back to you. Many thanks in advance, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you want me to do the copyedit or just bring up issues? Brianboulton (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I have to pick one, a copyedit :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy to do that. Brianboulton (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine to me... if it "works" better to you in that format, by all means go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, not to be impatient, but are you finished with the copyedit? If so, I'll take a look at the sections you felt bogged down and solicit some other opinions as to whether they should stay, go, or be chopped up. On another point: do you think is makes more sense to say "[Part] plays [Role]" or "[Part] played/portrayed [Role]"? Following your lead I was converting the cast section of Star Trek: First Contact to prose, but was a tad confused on which worked better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Join a worthy project...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Magical Realism Reconsidered! Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Jay Pritzker Pavilion FAC notice

Thanks for your involvement in Wikipedia:Peer review/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive2. The article is now listed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1. Feel free to come comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image query

Generally, the "no known restrictions" requires further investigation. For the Bains collection, I am in favour of declaring those photos that were created/published before 1922 safely in public domain; basically Bains (as the news agency in possession of those photos) had bought them (hence already published then) or created them to sell to newspapers or journals (self-publishing). Concensus on Commons favours glass negatives held in the Bains collection as public domain, and their assumptions seem sound since the Library purchased those negatives instead of Bains's deposit of a copy.[1] All in all, the Bains Collection photos are likely safe for use. Jappalang (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bayreuth canon

I've not gone away after all, so I'm going for FLC today. Thanks for you input.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll catch it there later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I had said tha I was going for FLC in a pre-exising thread at WP:Wagner but I have now made a separae thread there and a WPO.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dief

I've nommed it for FA. I think it is ready to go. You might want to read my comments in response to yours at PR, especially as regards "articling students"! Thanks for the help. I'm getting ahold of a couple of books on Douglas-Home and will see if he strikes me as interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixing links on oggs

Hi Brian. In the PR for Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, I was told that the links for the ogg "Flight of the Bumblebee" were broken and to fix them. This is a new subject for me, as I have never used oggs before and do not have sound on my computer, but your name was referrred and here I am. Also, do you know of any other oggs of Rimsky-Korsakov's music that could be used in this article? Again, it was suggested that I ask you. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am a novice at soundfiles – I don't have the software for making oggs. I got Raul654 to find the Bartered Bride overture; the other Smetana soundfiles were already listed here (we are helpfully informed that the list is "incomplete" but given no guidance on locating the missing items). There don't appear to be other Rimsky-Korsakov compositions listed – you could drop a note to User:Magnus Manske who created the Bumblebee ogg. Or Raul might help. Beyond that, I don't really know how to assist you. Moral: look at the sound list first, and choose a composer that's well represented! Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and the advice. I contacted Mangus about fixing the ogg, so we'lll see what happens. BTW, did you have any copyright problems with the performance of the Bartered Bride that you chose, or how did you get around that? Jonyungk (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't choose the Bartered Bride recording, Raul did, and I took his word that it was OK. As I remember, the file was initially queried on copyright grounds by Jappalang, who then reversed himself and pronounced it all right. All this was above my head - I let the experts decide. My general understanding is that a recording is free for use if beyond a certain age, or if created by an individual or group that renounces its rights; there are performers who do this. I also think you can use up to 30 seconds of a copyrighted work as a sample, on a non-free rationale. But these are the limits of my knowledge, scrappy bits I've picked up. Let me know how you get on, I'd be interested to learn more (what with Mahler coming up soon). Brianboulton (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Magnus gave me the information on how to fix the link, but that was all—no response on creating any other R-K oggs. I might try Raul once the article is more stable condition—so far it looks good but I'm starting to be concerned about overdetailing in a couple of spots. PR is still open so we'll see what others say. BTW, if you need help with images, Ruhrfisch has been extraordinarily helpful. He created the composite images for Tchaikovsky and the Five and Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle as well as the lead image for Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov Jonyungk (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch and I are well known to each other; he has frequently helped me out with maps and other image issues. On the Rimsky thing, try Raul, by all means. Another possibility is to look for recent uploaders ("submitters") on WP:Sound/list and ask for their help. That is probably what I'll do with regard to Mahler. Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I was a little premature about Magnus—he just left me a message letting me know about a ton of MIDI files and some oggs at a couple of sites. I'll also keep Raul in mind as well as the recent uploaders. Thanks again. Jonyungk (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done!

Let's hear it for the mutineer who got away with one and his chronicler!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

My congratulations too! Very well done! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for help in getting it there. Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Brianboulton. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 03:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Have you had a chance to finish reading the article on Johann von Klenau? Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read it all. Will report back later, expecting to support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hunky guy

Hey wow! I just saw your userpage picture - I didn't know you were such a hunky guy : ) Actually I just came by to thank you for your New Year wishes. I hope you have a Happy New Year and I hope your Christmas was Merry as well. NancyHeise ^talk 07:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Slightly grayer at the gills now. "Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May/And summer's lease hath all too short a date." Do let me know what your article plans are and whether you think I can help. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Whitechapel murders

User:Hunky Guy is not yet registered—Now's your chance to change user name—Seize it!

Many thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Whitechapel murders/archive1. I was wondering whether you've run out of steam? If so, I may take it through GAN to get a third perspective. Best wishes, DrKiernan (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't run out of steam, was waiting for responses to earlier comments. I wasn't watching the page, but I now see multiple edits on 2 January. I'll read and comment on the rest today or tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah incident

Thanks, Brian, and thanks also for the encouragement. I'm flagging somewhat to be honest. It's a big topic, and practically every word has the potential to backfire. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Royal Standard of Scotland

Hello Brian. Thanks for your time and effort re. the WP:PR for this article; very much appreciated. Regards Endrick Shellycoat 19:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pritzker Pavilion

Hi Brian, I am working my way through the Jay Pritzker Pavilion article and have been trying to think of a different name for the "Controversies" section. The best I have thought of so far is "Disputes", but that doesn't seem quite right. I also thought of Kerfuffles but imagine that is good old AmEng rearing its ugly head - no wait, I see it is BritEng! Anyway, if you (and perhaps your thesaurus) have any better ideas than I (and mine) did, I would be glad to hear them. Am still working on the rest of the FAC comments, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We need a wording that doesn't overstate, which I think "controvery" does. Possibly "Dissension", "Discord", or "Contentious issues" (it needn't be a single word)? I'll keep thinking. Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I like "Contentious issues" best (plus it sounds like it could be the name of a band). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your support and all the help with PR and edits at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging our efforts and for your assistance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you so much for all your help, and your kind words now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Shackleton

Thanks, I have protected Ernest Shackleton for a month. I had noticed some of the vandalism as it is on my watchlist. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Karluk

Nice job on the revised article. I took the liberty of restoring the Christian Theodore Pedersen link. The best single piece of secondary-source evidence that this is the same guy is in Jenness, Making of an Explorer, where it is stated (p 141) that C.T. Pedersen, captain of the Herman, was the same man who had bought the Karluk for the expedition. Diubaldo Stefansson and the Canadian Arctic has him as C.T. Pederson; once (in a quote) as C.P Pederson. National Maritime Digital Library "American Offshore Whaling Voyages: a database." has him as C. Theodore Pedersen in 1908 and subsequently as C.T. Pedersen. He is the only whaling captain named Pedersen, Pederson, or Peterson in their database. Dankarl (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to delete this, thanks for pointing it out. Any other comments welcome on the talkpage as the expansion proceeds. Brianboulton (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a really impressive article; thanks so much for taking such time and effort on it. I was wondering if it might not be a bad idea to have a final section on survivors; Ruth Makpii Ipalook, the last surviving person who was on board the Karluk, only just died in 2008 (see http://64.26.166.116/archives/2008/807/80725/opinionEditorial/columns.html). I'll be watching and will look for ways to contribute -- this seems to me as though it would be a candidate for GA status, and could well be worked into a Featured entry. Clevelander96 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. The "Aftermath" section, as yet unwritten, will include brief details relating to the survivors, including of course "Mugpi" of whom I have an image. When the draft article is completed, and I have had the chance to edit out inessential and repetitive material, I will nominate it for a general Wikipedia peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wally Hammond

Hello. YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) recommended you to me. I would appreciate it if you could have a look the the Wally Hammond article. I am considering taking it to FAR and would like any advice. I am aware of a few issues already, but any comments would be gratefully received. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to help with Hammond; historically he is very interesting. However, the article is scarily long at 11,200 words – 2,000 more than Bradman and roughly twice the length of Barak Obama – so there is a question of time. If it is going to peer review I'll try and review it there, otherwise over the next few days I'll read through it and leave comments/suggestions on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Put Hammond up for peer review in the end. Any help would be appreciated and very gratefully received!--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Will get to it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sacrifice (2001)

	<font=3>While James, the God of Earth in this video game, is busy celebrating Sacrifice's promotion to featured article with multiple castings of Bovine Interventions—resulting in a crazed cow as it landed too many times on its noggin—I want to thank you for your enormous help in peer reviewing the game and supporting it during its FAC. Without your suggestions and comments, it would not have made FA! Jappalang (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Page size

I have to confess that I do not recall seeing this in my toolbox before - in any case it sounds more like a software issue than something an admin can fix. I have a possible short term solution - you can turn on Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups (go to my preferences in the top tabs, then gadgets, then click the second check box for popups and click save at the bottom of the page). This gives a preview of any article when the cursor hovers on the wikilink to it, including the article's size.

I will copy your query to the Village Pump Technical too - imagine someone there will know what is going on. Sorry not to be of more help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is here now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a script in your monobook.js file - see the Village Pump talk. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your trouble. As it happens, the toolbox has, somehow, reformatted itself and the Page size tool has reappeared. Strange are the ways of science. I'll bear the above in mind if it happens again. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Glad to help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

L'ange de Nisida

Hi Brian, I am hoping I can pique your interest in reviewing my article on the Donizetti opera L'ange de Nisida. I have requested a peer review here. It started out on a whim to make a stub for a red link, but I quickly became fascinated by this unperformed opera and its backstory. I'll be more than happy to knock an item off the PR backlog as a return favor. Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It will be a pleasure. Give me a brief while to get organised and I'll be there. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brian, thank you again for the peer review. I'm not sure if you customarily revisit the PR page after providing a review, but I believe I addressed all of your items. I am not requesting a re-review unless you think it necessary; otherwise I will archive the PR. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I usually revisit if asked. I'll take a quick look in an hour or so. Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've checked it out. You appear to have adopted most of my suggested rewordings and as far as I am concerned the article is good to go. Excellent short opera article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. If I can ever return the favor, please don't hesitate to ask. I reviewed something from the backlog and I'll make an effort to get in there more often. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Gunsmoke

I've responded to your suggestions to the List of Gunsmoke television episodes. Care to take a second look? Jimknut (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm going to archive the peer review now and go for featured list status. Jimknut (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

George? Bling.

• Just saw your user page. Has anyone ever told you that (in that photo at least) you look a heckuva lot like George Harrison? Not that that means anything.
• You deserve a barnstar for your FAC work. I'll find a nice one. Or just use the one I made for Sandy – yeah, that works:

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		...the Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia is bestowed upon Brianboulton for bringing content review of an ethereal calibre to Wikipedia: Along thy wild and willow'd shore Where'er thou wind'st, by dale or hill All, all is peaceful, all is still. Walter Scott—The Lay of the Last Minstrel (Canto Fourth). • Ling.Nut 04:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ling bling: Thank you for the double honour (Harrison lookalike/Superior Scribe). I will endeavour to live up to the second, though the first may be beyond me (and him, indeed). Brianboulton (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20