User talk:Brianboulton/Archive15

Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?

Meaning the Archbishop of Canterbury, of course! Unfortunately, the URAA restores the copyright for this painting. Laszlo's works did not come into the public domain of UK until 2008, so the US gives copyright protection for any of his works that have been published. This painting of Lang was published in The Art of Philip de László: An Appreciation; Apollo, July 1933, p. 16, and hence its US copyright is 95 years (up to 2029—1932 + 95 + 1). Jappalang (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there will be PD (either US or UK) pictures of the man in his Canterbury garb. However, I found some (PD in US only, could still be copyrighted in UK) of him in his stint as the Archbishop of York. I will upload them later. There is this postcard of him, which I think can be uploaded (probably do it later). Also, a postcard of him as the Bishop of Stepney is up for bidding at eBay... would you want to buy it (heh)? Jappalang (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I give you File:Cosmo Lang, Archbishop of York (1918).jpg and File:Cosmo Lang, a Peer.jpg, not high-quality images, but at least PD as far as concerned in US (not to be moved to Commons unless their authors cannot be reasonably identified, or can be proven to be dead beyond 70 years). I am still in two minds whether to upload his 1910 postcard photo; it is the best quality image so far, but I have no reliable sources to back up that it is published in 1910 (no sure inferences either). Jappalang (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Archbishop of York, c. 1910; young looking, eh?
• 
  Perhaps 1911–1916?
• 
  Archbishop of York, 1918; getting old here... lost his hair in 8 years?
• 
  Participating in the procession
• 
  For the Archbishop of Canterbury section (as it faces to the right)?
• 
  Ward's caricature of the man
• 
  Larger version but more dots

Actually, I think you could do with the 1910 and the 1918 photos to show how much he has aged in those years, perhaps. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Brian, the actual record for that image in MS Murray 636 is here. It is part of a manuscript and the artist is unknown, but most definitely dead before the turn of the century. Unfortunately, the manuscript, and hence, the drawing was not published before the University of Glasgow put up the digital copies: "It is not known whether Hopkirk intended to publish the manuscript which contains an important collection of ink drawings of Glasgow buildings by an unidentified artist.".[1] UK copyright law is clear that in such an event, the previously unpublished work is copyrighted 70 years after it is made public (1998, according to webarchive—http://web.archive.org/web/20000829161357/special.lib.gla.ac.uk/msslst.html); hence, the drawing in MS Murray 636 is copyrighted until 2069. However, see below. Jappalang (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• 
• 

By the way... it seems that this building is terribly unloved... everyone seems to call it an "unsightly" horror. Only one (a Londoner) praises it as a beauty (probably a fringe view or "paid editing"). Jappalang (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Another by the way, Couch boy licensed File:Glasgowbarony.jpg under a non-commercial Creative Commons license, so it is not a "free image" per the project's definition. Jappalang (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

File:AbpCosmoLang.jpg seems okay for use; the earliest known publishing I can find is 2005, and Lupo showed the artist to be Laszlo. If evidence turns up that its earliest publishing is before 1978, then it would be a candidate for deletion, but thus far, I think it is quite doubtful. Jappalang (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to soothe my curiosity; if you have the time, could you take a look at volume 4 of the Dictionary of British Portraiture (in a library) to see what portrait of Lang (if any) is published there? Jappalang (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Darn it, looks like this turbulent priest cannot be ridden of... Lang's looking away from the text at the start is not a troublesome point (either of the contradicting guidelines for Infobox/facing is correct for this instance). So far, an issue I can see here would be File:Dioceses of the CofE.png. It has no sources, so as to speak of (even the map it was transcluded from is unlocatable). This can be easily rectified though. Either get a public domain map of England with the dioceses (a Crown Copyrighted version published before 1959 will do), or state several sources that can be used to construct this map. I will try to take a look at the article sometime later. I am sort of recovering from a Wiki-burnout (that was what the break was for). Jappalang (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I added a larger version of Ward's caricature on Commons. It is larger but have more "dots". You might want to use it if you find it more preferable to the smaller smoother version. Both are shown above. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the concensus on the projects is that the US holds signatures to be ineligible for copyright; I think the reason is that they are simply typefaces. It should be safe to use Lang's signature under {{PD-ineligible}}. Jappalang (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Voorhis's ancestry

Jerry Voorhis was a descendant of Steven Coertan Van Voorhees (1600-1684), who was born near Ruynen, Drenthe, in what is now the Netherlands, and who emigrated to Long Island, New York. His descendants slowly emigrated westwards, and in the late 18th century, changed the name to van Voorhis and then to Voorhis. Got that from the Voorhis archive at the Claremont Colleges in California. Hope that answers your question.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries

Not a problem - Finetooth has been a PR machine of late and I have been trying to do my part. I will have less to do for PR after tonight, as I am stopping the semi-automated peer reviews (as User:AZPR). That should give me an extra hour a week or so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Review/copy-edit

May I ask you to put your (outstanding) writing skills to use for the article Chinese classifier. The article has a lot of potential but needs a language face-lift. GeometryGirl (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would love to do this - the article strikes me as inherently interesting even though I know nothing of Chinese languages. Unfortunately, I can't get to it quickly; I am struggling with my own article about an archbishop, I have two promises on hold for copyedits/long reviews, and I have my routine contributions at PR and FAC to monitor. If you are in no hurry, perhaps in 10 days or so I will have some time, otherwise it might be wise to look to someone else (I wish my writing skills were outstanding - in fact I struggle like everyone else). Best wishes, Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • 10 days is fine, I'm in no hurry. Thanks :).
    • The article is now at FAC again. I hope you will have a chance to give it a look. GeometryGirl (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Your review has been much appreciated. Thank you. GeometryGirl (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"New" Mozart works

Assume you saw this? Not often that "new" works by Mozart are found. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• More often than you would think - once every 10 years or so, something crops up that may or may not be Mozart. A symphony turned up in 2005 and was to be performed in Vienna, but I think it was not authenticated. There was the famous Odense discovery of 1983 of a "new" Mozart symphony which turned out to be spurious. On the other hand, some recent discoveries have proved genuine. The provenance of these latest finds looks good, and they seem to have had some exhaustive analysis before their revelation. So here's hoping. I might even to an article on them... Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Glad to hear it - reading the news story, I was glad that I already knew who Nannerl was from your articles. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC

As I said on FAC (but it may be lost), I found this comment very helpful - 'All ambiguity would be removed if the sentence began "The poem has three stanzas, each of eleven lines, that describe..."' - It is one thing to find a problem, it is another to come up with a great solution. A rare trait. : ) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a good principle in reviewing to suggest solutions when they come to mind; after all, we should be working together. If that sounds a bit pious, rest assured that I don't by any means always live up to this ideal. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

But it is very true. I was happy that at GAN it says that they openly encourage the reviewers to help fix any problems. I always try to put forth suggestions about different things I see and explain the mechanics behind it. Some people still don't like it, but yeah. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Changed per your strong suggestion. The year was 1819, not 1919 by the way. Also, to help decode Fry a little - 1. Keats was a radical but stopped being a radical in his later poems. 2. Some people think that Keats didn't stop and that his poems had a political interpretation. 3. Fry seems to claim McGann is one of those people and that Keats was not browbeaten into not mentioning his views in his poem. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

HMS Endeavour

Thanks for your detailed review of this article. I think I've addressed all the points, but feel free to let me know if I've missed anything or there are additional issues. Euryalus (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

The Democratic Left Movement (Lebanon), the first article I've ever written, which you reviewed, reached GA status in no small part due to your help. Thanks a ton for the help and in sharing this experience with me or some other over-the-top emotional statement of which it is too early to write. Until we meet again, Mnation2 (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Just to say thanks for peer reviewing the Gateway Protection Programme article. I haven't had time to enact the changes suggested yet, but I'll get round to it soon. Thanks again. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review of Zoroastrianism

Could you peer review the article on Zoroastrianism. The archive can be found here. Could you please comment back on my page. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

At the moment I'm not peer reviewing. I expect to resume in a few days, when a current project is finished. If the article is still unreviewed by then, I'll certainly take a look. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be away...

Hey,

I just wanted to let you know that I am and will be away from Wikipedia for some time. I am going to school in another country and don't expect to have much time or internet access.

If you decide to evaluate or improve Irving v Lipstadt anyway, that's great. Just know that I won't be there to respond to your review. Others might be though, so if you have the time, it wouldn't be a bad idea to give it a peer review and post it to the talk page.

Sorry I didn't let you know sooner. I just sortav ran out of time.

-TachyonJack (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Trump Tower PR

No worries. I have not finished responding to your last review. Cleaning up the citations took a while and I have been tracking down some FA-class article quality photos.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you strike issues that you consider resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If the PR gets close, we can work things out on the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the bot looks to see if there were any edits in the prior 48 hours as opposed to in the prior two calendar days because the PR has been closed. However, I have resolved most of the remaining concerns. There was one solicitation of a comment however on the images. Please give your opinion of this matter and not any concerns that you do not feel were adequately resolved on the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I intend for this to be my next FAC nomination, so I would appreciate it if we could wind down the PR issues when you get a chance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

My hands are a bit full with Lang at FAC (commas, meticulous reviers etc) but I will get to this later today. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Butting in - a closed peer review is just not transcluded on the main PR page - in theory if you want to, you can keep working on the PR page itself. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

On the article talk or at the peer review?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 11:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Either one is fine, but I meant that it is OK to still edit the PR page itself. Closing the PR just means it is no longer transcluded at WP:PR, but it can still be edited if desired. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If it has to be merged for FAC I will do so. I really think a building like this in this location will be a bigger part of pop culture very quickly. I think there was only one other remaining issue. I have addressed it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PR maintenance

I will be glad to do it tonight (and whenever you want or need a break). User:Recognizance has said kind things about our work on PR on my talk page (in case you missed it). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Snow Patrol discography/archive1

It was in complete good faith! I wasnt expecting someone would pick it up so late, I was getting nervous the 10 days would pass. Suede67 (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I'm sorry, but my intention of saying that wasnt bad. English isnt my first language so I can screw up here and there. And thanks for clearing out the 10 days thing. I thought a peer would close if it reaches 10 days without activity. Sorry again. Suede67 (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad things resolved themselves amicably. I left an explanatory note about the PR backlog and archiving on Suede67's talk page. Hope it is a better day tomorrow, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Brian, I had some more doubts which I put up on the PR, can you please check it? Suede67 (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:1894 Weddell Map.jpg

File:1894 Weddell Map.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:1894 Weddell Map.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:1894 Weddell Map.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

File:CadetMarkham.jpg is now available as Commons:File:CadetMarkham.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Brian, I was surprised to see that you don't have rollback permissions. Would you like me to turn this on for you? It makes reverting vandalism in your watched articles much easier. Karanacs (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know I was entitled to such power! Actually, as a couple of my old FAs are subject to pretty constant vandalism, and I have to check them constantly, this would be most useful, so please turn me on. Brianboulton (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've turned this on for you. <begin standard lecture>As you probably know, rollback is only to be used for vandalism reversion. If there is any question, or if an actual edit summary is needed, please use the undo feature instead.</end standard lecture> Let me know if you have any questions. Karanacs (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How to use rollback: when you look at an article's editing history, you will see a [rollback] button by the most recent edit. If you click on that, that edit will be reverted with an automatic edit summary along the lines of Reverted edits by user x (talk) to last version by user y. Cheers, Dabaomb87 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dabomb. There is further explanation at WP:Rollback. One key point is that it will revert a block of edits by a single user, until you get to a version edited by someone else. If random IP makes 4 edits in a row and you click rollback on the most recent edit, all four of those edits will be reverted. However, if random IP makes 2 edits, then I make an edit, then IP makes 2 more, only the most recent two would be reverted. Karanacs (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Just be careful when browsing your watchlist, as I know all too well that a minor misclick can result in accidentally revering legitimate edits. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for these useful instructions. I think I understand fully, now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Pre-FAC check..

Can you do me a major favor? Chicado V, which is on a race mare, is my next planned article for FAC, but I'd greatly appreciate someone checking it over for intelligability for non-horsepeople. I'd be very grateful if you could. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be pleased to do this - anything to get away from clergymen. Expect something on the talkpage within 24 hours. Brianboulton (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest in Nixon series

I've listed California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 at PR after it passed GA yesterday. Wanna take a crack at it? Greatly appreciate it. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Lang and Trump

I will be glad to look at Lang though it will take me several days as I have made several other review commitments. As for the Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) PR (and as I explained on TTT's page) since the bot archives PRs all that needs to be done is to make a (non-minor) edit at least every two days to the PR and it will stay open past 30 days indefinitely. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:JohnQuillerRowett.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

PR updates

I will be glad to keep an eye on it and should be able to make some comments on Lang in the next day or two. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the PR for A J M Industries, LLC from the backlog as it is nominated for deletion (and I archived the PR too). They can renominate if it is kept, but it looks as if it is going to be deleted. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Translated FA

As far as I've seen, three FA you made were translated into Spanish. I give you my congratulations for the effort given to the project and I cannot wait for your next collaboration. Yours sincerely, 80.244.52.83 (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Covent-Garden

Hi Brian. I was wondering if you felt the concerns you brought up at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Covent-Garden_Journal/archive1 had been adequately addressed. Ottava Rima responded to some of the sourcing questions, and I'm wanting to know whether that's all cleared up, since those were the only non-trivial issues. Thanks for your time and review. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't feel that my response is too harsh. However, I want to stress that articles should only attribute something directly in the text if it is a controversial point or a unique argument. The statements about the Covent-Garden Journal being an opinion driven and purposefully biased is held in every work and even in Fielding's letters. It is a polemic work and was sold as one. The whole idea of a "Paper War" was to start a polemic war at Grub Street. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

James Nesbitt

Thank you very much for your help and support in getting this article to featured status! Bradley0110 (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Werner Mölders FAC review

The article received a major overhaul since you last reviewed it. Could you please re-check? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

How do i close a peer review. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Go to WP:Peer review, follow the instructions under "How to remove a request" Brianboulton (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sean Bennett PR

I'd be interested in hearing the rest of your comments now that I've fixed most of your original complaints.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Not "complaints", helpful comments (hopefully). I will take another look shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, of course. That was my poor attempt at humor.--Giants27 (c|s) 14:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup on the PR aisle!

Yes - I agree and if you would archive it, that would be fine with me. I also noticed that the nominator has frequently nominated articles to which s/he has made no or very few edits. I was thinking of mentioning this directly to the person, as well as raising this as a possible issure on the PR talk page. Just as FAC does not allow drive by nominations from editors who have made few or no edits, I wonder if PR would be helped by such a limit. If we do so, it would help to add the FAC tools to each PR too (so we could check contributions and everyone could check dabs, external links, and alt text). I think the rationale could be something like if you want some else to review this, make at least 10 or 20 edits before requesting the PR. WHat do you think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

PS The header is based on what you hear in supermarkets in the US - do they do this in the UK too?

I've archived the Silver surfer nom. I think it would be an excellent idea to require nominators at PR to have edited the article significantly. My instinct would be to say a minimum of "20 edits, or 20+ percent of the total edits, whichever is lower" (some articles may have relatively few edits). It would also be most helpful to have the FAC tools at PR, and this would undoubtedly save time at FAC. If you want to raise these issues on the PR page I will chime in strongly.

As to the PS, no, the message is unfamiliar to British ears.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like I've been using PR entirely the wrong way, for the most part. I imagine you could also close Graphic novel for that matter. From now on, I will try to stick with articles that I have worked on. BOZ (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I was basically building up a centralized location for other editors who were looking for articles to work on, but I'll cease at that because I don't want to give the appearance of misusing the system. On the bright side, peer review recently helped me to get Pool of Radiance up to GA, so I will definitely be using it for that sort of thing again. :) BOZ (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I took a stab at starting something for the Dispatch section of the Signpost here (which I mentioned to you long ago). Any ideas or contributions are welcome. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and give this some attention in a day or two - got my hands a bit full at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no rush on this, take your time. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I, too, will give this some attention when I can pull myself away from Columbia River and a couple of other things. Finetooth (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)