User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Wikipedia:Peer review/Talbot Baines Reed/archive1

Hi Brian. I'm not sure if the tb on my talk page was meant for me, but I've left a couple of comments although it looks as if the other reviewers have been fairly thorough. I hope you will be nominating the article for GA. --Kudpung (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Back for Butterfly

Hi Brian, so its been 8 days since I approached you for help with Butterfly. You told me to wait a week, so do you think you can give it a shot now? Thank you :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brian, so I see you started a few days ago, but only did a section. Are you going to do the rest of the article? Thanks--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Frederick Delius

What a pleasing message to find on my talk page! I have been pondering which musician to give my attention to next, and have been dithering between Delius and Britten. Happy to give Fred the nod - and his article is pretty awful at present. I am only a fair-weather Delian, in that I like the popular stuff - the First Cuckoo etc - but can't be having with the Mass of Life or the operas, so if you fancied looking after the musical side of the article I should be happier concentrating on the biography and discography. The next big overhaul on my list is Octavia Hill, who would, one feels, have approved of Talbot Baines Reed but not of Evelyn Waugh. Pleased to start in earnest on Delius once she, they and Signor Schicchi are put to bed. Octavia, in truth, is proving to be tough going and I may play truant for a bit and start squirreling Delian info away. I am going to the British Library after lunch this very day and may even look in at the music reading room. Tim riley (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good news! To begin with, then, I'll concentrate on the musical analysis while you do the biography, but I expect our efforts will mingle at some stage. I always begin these biogs with a subarticle "List of works", which I will accumulate for Fred in a sandbox over the next couple of months, though as I say, serious work won't start until January. The blocker in my timetable is likely to be Evelyn, a big and somewhat contentious subject. Reed is almost done, and Gianni Schicchi is relatively small fry as operas go. Good luck with Octavia, I'll watch for it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Source reviews...

I'm fully back now, at least as far as FAC. Still missing a few small things on the new computer, but amazingly managed to salvage most everything. Let me know if you need to me to look at any contentious FACs, etc. etc. I even did an album this morning to spare you! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good news at last, especially as I'm about to disappear for five days (Paris). You could do the Harry Potter thing - I spent ages peer-reviewing it, and fear it was too hastily nominated to FAC. I'm trying to avoid it if I can. Next week I'll be back on regular duty.

No worries, I'll get the ones that go up tonight tomorrow morning. I spent two hours hiking and photographing this afternoon and am tired! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Illinois (album)

You recently commented at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Illinois (album)/archive2, so I thought you may want to review its current nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Illinois (album)/archive3. Regards, Jujutacular ^talk 20:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Tracheal intubation

Hello Brian. In response to comments made by you, Jimfbleak, Colin, SandyGeorgia, and Nikkimaria, I have made quite a few changes to the article on Tracheal intubation over the past couple of weeks. Despite my best efforts, the article did not pass at FAC; there were simply too many deficiencies to be addressed within a relatively short time frame. I remain optimistic that the article will eventually be approved, but only after it has undergone critical copyediting by editors more experienced than myself. Colin speaks highly of your abilities, and he suggested that you might be able to give the article a look and patch it up a bit. I believe most of the problems with the references have been fixed, but the text is still a bit problematic in some places, especially with respect to overlinking and medical jargon. I would be most grateful if you were to take a look at the article whenever you can find the time, and either copyedit it or post suggestions on the talk page, as you see fit. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure

No problem-- I saw your request on someone else's talk, so watchlisted. It seems to have come through it's day on the mainpage just fine-- no surprise there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edward Elgar

Thanks for your kind words about the Walton article. Madly envious of your Parisian high-jinks – and with this exchange rate, too! As you rightly deduce from my flurry of activity, I am nerving myself to put Elgar up for FAC. I have, I think, more or less done with my post-GA expansion and refining, and hope to get the old boy up to the starting gate in the next day or so. I am leaving the "selected list of works" unmolested in the somewhat pusillanimous hope that the FA reviewers will give me overpowering ammunition with which to blitz it. I don't wish to provoke an edit war beforehand. – Tim riley (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

All I would advise at this stage is that you don't identify the List of compositions by Edward Elgar as the "main article" for your music section. The list is impressively complete, but is still basically an appendix to your discourse on Elgar's music. I suggest you alter the heading from "Main article" to "Further information". I suspect the selected list will be challenged on the basis of "acknowledged popularity and significance" (acknowledged by whom? significant in whose judgement? etc.). You may have adequate non-POV answers. In any event, the article would lose nothing through the removal of this section, particularly with the good complete list already in place. I'll keep my eyes open. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Verb sap! Thank you. Now nominated at FAC. Crowded in there, ain't it? – Tim riley (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dustbin Baby (film)/archive2

Hey, I'm contacting you because you participated in the last FAC. I have renominated Dustbin Baby (film) for featured article status, and I was wondering if you wanted to take another look. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Reed

I've looked over Reed and supported; very strong piece, I suspect you enjoyed his works when you were younger (and perhaps still). I'll be posting a short list of quibbles at the article talk page I hope during the course of the day.

FInished at the Nixon Library. I am hoping to find a library that has a periodical called Fortnight which is long defunct without having to go to the L.A. Central Library before I leave California, the handful of copies that Nixon has were very helpful, they seemed to have covered California politics very well. BTW, you might, for your own amusement, care to cast an eye across Bring Us Together again, I've greatly improved the images thanks to stuff I found at the Nixon Library. There is also very bad Super 8 footage (taken by, of all people, H.R. Haldeman) I am arranging to get that shows Vicki's float, though a bit out of focus.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 6, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 6, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

New South Greenland was an appearance of land recorded by the American captain Benjamin Morrell of the schooner Wasp in March 1823, during a sealing and exploration voyage in the Weddell Sea area of Antarctica. Morrell provided precise coordinates and a description of a coastline which he claimed to have sailed along for more than 300 miles (480 km). Because the Weddell Sea area was so little visited, and hard to navigate due to ice conditions, the alleged land was never properly investigated before its existence was emphatically disproved during Antarctic expeditions in the early 20th century. At the time of Morrell's voyage, the geography of the then unnamed Weddell Sea and its surrounding coasts was almost entirely unknown, making the claimed sighting initially plausible. However, obvious errors in Morrell's voyage account, and his general reputation as a fabulist, created scepticism about the existence of this new land. In June 1912 the German explorer Wilhelm Filchner searched for but found no traces of land, after his ship Deutschland became icebound in the Weddell Sea and drifted into the locality of Morrell's observation. Three years later, trapped in the same waters with his ship Endurance, Ernest Shackleton was able by similar means to confirm the land's non-existence. Various possible explanations for Morrell's error have been suggested, including intentional deception. Morrell may have been honestly mistaken, through miscalculation of his ship's position or by misremembering detail when writing the account after nine years. Alternatively, he may have made the common error of confusing distant icebergs with land, or been misled by the distorting effects of Antarctic mirage. (more...)

Per...

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Copy-editing, I'm not needed anymore at FAC, so I'm going to concentrate on writing and reviewing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand, though I personally think you are very much needed. The twin tasks of (a) checking that sources meet a reliability standard and (b) that citations are properly and consistently formatted need to be carried out, irrespective of issues of plagiarism, copyright violation or any other issue. You have over the years done more than anyone else to improve the standard of sources in featured articles by your persistent attention to these issues; other sources reviewers (such as me) are largely following in your footsteps (you have taught me everything I know in this area). Your knowledge and experience is a priceless asset which FAC will let go at its peril. For myself, the discussion on the FAC talkpage has fried my brain to a frazzle, but I will continue to pick off the odd FAC source reviews until someone tells me to stop. If you really are going to steer clear of the FAC page then I will look forward to your increased writing output (full many an ancient bishop remains unblest). But I hope you will reconsider. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully intend to pick up actually reviewing FACs and GANs more... but I'm not feeling particularly welcome at the moment with source reviews, so maybe it's better that folks see what happens if the reviews don't get done. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly welcome either, but like you I'm not going to let that stop me. What I will do though is go about things in a rather different way. No more fixing, just listing some examples of the problems as I see them and letting someone else sort it out. Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hell, maybe I'll have time for Peer Review this way! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What will happen, Ealdgyth, if you don't do the sources reviews at FAC is that they will be done less well. Perhaps FAC needs to find that out. You will be greatly welcomed at Peer Review, as of course will Malleus. Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd decided to pretty much abandon FAC in the present accusatory and thankless climate, and being accused earlier today of engineering Rlevse's departure by encouraging him to take an article to FAC knowing that it contained copyrighted text was just the last straw; I'm constantly amazed at the personal attacks administrators are allowed to get away with. Anyway, I'm going to spend more time at GAN now, which I've always felt has the potential to make a far bigger impact on the project's overall quality than FAC ever could. I've never really looked seriously at PR, but maybe I could do a bit to help out there as well, who knows. It's nice to know I'd be welcome there in any case. Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, no one has accused Malleus of anything remotely resembling that. This is typical of the situation that has been going on for a long time, where no criticism of Malleus is allowed without it leading to serious personal attacks or distortion of the kind we see above. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

SV, no one even criticized Malleus. Everyone was very careful what they said because they knew that Malleus could get irritated.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What "critism" is it that you think I deserve? Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

For having these dramatics in a crisis, that's number one with a bullet.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering when the faithful pooch would be along. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I criticized him, but not in the misleading way he described above. My criticism is simply that he persuaded Rlevse to bring an unprepared article to FAC that R had only been working on for five days. Malleus then copy edited it without looking at the sources, which were mostly short online articles that were easy enough to read. I'm noting my own part in this too: I didn't oppose the article at FAC because I saw Malleus was involved. I again didn't oppose it at TFA because of the date connection. Now Rlevse has got egg on his face for something that was (at least in part) a systemic failure.

The only reason I raised this is I've seen Malleus do this before, and I've dealt with the articles at FAC that were brought too soon. I considered speaking to him about it before this happened, but didn't because I knew I'd be attacked. And that's the core of this problem: the personal attacks that make people unwilling to say boo.

Anyway, my intention is not to go through this again on Brian's talk page. But I'm not going to let Malleus misrepresent what was said either. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That is an outright lie, no other word for it.[1] Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't provide a diff to what someone else is saying if you're talking about my criticism. Provide a diff to my criticism of you. You know that you're distorting it. Here we are discussing sources and how to represent them. And here you unable or unwilling to describe accurately what is said to you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As you well know I have absolutely zero time for you or your obsessional and nonsensical ideas, so let's just try and keep out each other's way in future? You want to criticise me you do it elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if you'd find diffs from me criticizing you before your recent Pound-related attacks, and certainly not personally attacking you even then. But I could produce plenty of diffs of you attacking me to various people, and not only me, and in a very casual way as though we're all just fodder for you to gossip about. Perhaps you could reflect on how damaging that is. If it stops, I'll be out of your hair, but if you misrepresent what I say, I'll correct you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're not going to put down your gun then neither will I. Let battle commence. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I can't contribute to that aspect. For Malleus's benefit (and for anyone else reading this) I enjoy reviewing at PR, partly because it is non-judgemental (no supports, opposes, passes or fails) and also for the chances it gives to make real contributions to improving articles. Unfortunately, the volume of articles posted to PR tends to overwhelm the meagre band of regular reviewers, with the result that reviews are sometimes hurried and superficial, which is a pity. More reviewers at PR = better reviews at PR. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Brian, you do well to stay out of these things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Brianboulton, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Brianboulton/Sandbox4. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• I know you are a bot, but for the benefit of anyone reading this page, I construct articles in sandboxes. Occasionally a non-free image gets temporarily included in the sandbox and sometimes I forget to clear it immediately, naughty criminal that I am. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Flower Drum Song

The article, I think, is complete, with Ssilver's able help. To save wear and tear on Peer Review, would you mind reviewing on the article talk page? I think that unless there are huge problems, I'm hoping to get it to FAC soon.--Wehwalt (talk)

Yes, of course. I'll be with it in a day or so. So your coin article made it, then - well done. I hope Reed will follow soon, he's 9–0 up at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have the references to do a lot more coin articles (I could stamp them out) but I never like to repeat myself too much, so I will put those on the back burner. Surprised Reed wasn't promoted. I took the opportunity to read about half (so far) of My Friend Smith, I can see why he is so well liked, the characterisations, even of relatively minor characters, is very strong indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Reed's only been on a week (it seems longer) and I must not get too big for my boots. I am finding Evelyn Waugh something of a struggle; it's the volume of reading necessary to ensure a balanced picture that is a killer. I have got as far as 1928 in my expansion, but that's probably the easier part - I covered most of the ground when doing The Temple at Thatch. One or two interesting ideas for spin-off articles have emerged, which I will keep warm for next year. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Re PR Backlog

I saw the increase last night and will do my best to clear out more of the PR backlog. Have been busy in real life, and have not made much progress on the covered bridges (the rresearch is done). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am having similar problems with Evelyn Waugh. Difficult to find time for so much reading and then synthesise it. Serves me right for choosing such an ambitious project. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think my problem is two-fold. One is that I am not getting enough sleep and also do not have enough time in large blocks, so I can be cranky and point out flaws in the work of others at PR in piecemeal fashion, but find it more difficult to sit down for a few hours and write my own material. The other is more serious. Although I have many reliable sources on Buttonwood Covered Bridge, these multiple reliable sources do not agree on the year it was built, or even on what kind of truss it uses. I have to figure out the best way to present material from sources that just do not agree with each other, and worse, do not even mention the others (so no source even says X is wrong about the date, or Y is wrong about the bridge having a Burr arch truss - it is a Queen post sandwiching mutiple King posts). they just report the date or truss and make no mention of any other possibility - finally found a newspaper article that says people disagree on when the bridge was built, which should help a bit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ulnar collateral ligament of elbow joint - answer

Re your question here, the answer is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ulnar collateral ligament (elbow)/archive1 - the article history template has now been readded to the talk page (it was missing when you asked, was which was why you couldn't find it earlier, especially with the page-name change as well). Bencherlite^Talk 12:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Brian, I've thanked Ealdgyth many times, but I also want to thank you for the tremendous work you have been doing at FAC. I do check the sources on each article I review, but it's comforting to know a second competent editor has looked at them. I'm afraid I don't always have a critical eye on source formatting, which is a weak point of mine. I constantly have to look it up and rely on templates in my own articles. Anyway, I go off on tangents when I haven't had my earl grey. Thanks again! --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. Source checking is often numbingly boring, looking at each reference and trying to judge its reliability, particularly (for me) in pop culture areas. Ealdgyth's rest is well merited, but I hope that before too long she will be back again and booming. Many hands, etc etc. Brianboulton (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Elgar

Hi. I saw your congratulations to Tim, but I see no indication that Elgar has been promoted. Is there somewhere else I should be looking for that info? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

These things take time to work through the system, but look at WP:FA under "Music biographies", and there he is (immediately after Bob Dylan). Brianboulton (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Quite so. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Want to put your articles on WP:SA

Hi Brian. I was going through your FAs to look for notable events to put on the SA section and displace lots of unsourced start-class articles that are on there with great articles. I have put up Mahler, Mahler's 8th, L'Orfeo, Frijdtof so far, but I wasn't able to find a relevant date for Talbot Baines Reed and Evelyn Waugh's burnt book (eg date of famous work being published/discovered/burnt or appointed to important post/achievement etc). Were any dates given in the sources because if they were, I would like to use them if possible (and other articles that may be missing usable dates, I haven't checked all of them yet). You could write the blurb and just add them yourself if you want too, as there isn't really any process at all, but I'll add them if you feel it is undignified to self-serve. Thanks YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Talbot Baines Reed

Congratulations on your latest FA star! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Due to some bot paralysis at FAC the star is unawarded and the review unclosed, but I dare say they will get round to it in time. Looking forward to the bridges. Brianboulton (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

South Park (season 13)

Hey Brian. When you get a chance, I was hoping you could take a look again at the responses at the South Park (season 13) FAC. In response to the "Access Denied" problem, I had initially asked a question about WP:AGF, but since then I archived the websites and included the archived links. I'm wondering if perhaps the archived link will work for you, hence solving the problem. Also, another user (Bignole) raised the point that he does not believe WP:LINKROT would require the removal of those iF Magazine citations. I didn't want to restore them, however, without your input on that one. Don't mean to rush you, but whenever is your earliest convenience, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 17:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

santana awards

hello,

thank you for your preview. I found all the awards in , but unfortunately the website was marked as a spam link, and I can't find this award in any other site, except in the website above. What remains to be done? I think the only good thing is to delete this paragraphs with the footnotes, or do you have any other ideas? Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33