Jump to content

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 102

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Bach Cantata

Please move the Bach cantata back to the way it was in the FAC (which was also the way it was started, and what you read on critical editions), to be consistent with the lead. I think I should not do that myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I can do this. I've explained why I restored the version of the article that existed before the disruptive editing began. It's now up to all editors with an interest in the article to discuss and decide what amendments are necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Not sure that I understand that. Moving it back to the name it had when approved would be part of restoring that state, imho. It was also the name under which it was created, and the name from 2011 to the recent move. I am sure that I should not do it, because I reverted once already, and try to adhere to 1RR. - I am happy that Reger's Requiem made it to FA, the second time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Gerda, I tried to make the move as you requested but was refused. I got the message: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move." So the current name seems to be under some form of protection. I suggest you ask an administrator (which I am not nor ever will be) to assist. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for trying, - I didn't think of that. As for adminship, you and I are in the same position ;) - Dr. Blofeld once kindly said it would make a princess a janitor, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Baton

TFAs scheduled January to June 2016

@TFA coordinators : I've updated the table which plots our scheduling against unused stocks. Nothing alarming – our proportioning is generally pretty close. Brianboulton (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

TFA scheduling January–June 2016 Target share Actually scheduled + or -
MilHist 33 31 -2
Biology 24 23 -1
Sports 18 16 -2
Media (films, tv etc) 16 15 -1
Music (all) 15 15 0
History/Politics 13 14 +1
Video gaming 11 11 0
Literature, theatre etc 10 11 +1
Transport 8 8 0
Meteorology 7 8 +1
Geography/geology 5 6 +1
Art, architecture etc 6 5 -1
Royalty and nobility 4 4 0
Business/econ/coins 4 4 0
Physics/astronomy 3 4 +1
Sundries (Religion, Law, Ed, Culture etc 5 7 +2
Total 182
Thanks for doing this Brian. It's always nice to see people taking their job seriously and enjoying the work. - Dank (push to talk) 14:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Glad to see this. I would say to not schedule any sundries for the next two months, if possible. We had three last month (a bishop and two laws, both TFAR) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In other news, I'm getting some pushback on the June 28 article from the FAC nom ... nothing to worry about, I'm discussing it at WT:MIL. I'll report back when I'm in a position to make a call. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr No

Hi Brian, Just a quick note to let you know that Dr No is now at FAC, so if you happen to be passing through at any point and wish to make further comments, I'd be grateful to receive them. No problems if you are still in your review 'purdah', obviously. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

  • New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
  • Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
  • New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Dooley

As I predicted I would do, I've left this at peer review. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you (and some assistance)

Thank you Brian for the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851/archive2. While I have now cited all the statements, restructured one-line paragraphs, and removed the weird usages you had pointed out, I realise there is much still to do in the article. I have written to the editor you recommended; haven't had a reply yet; will request the editor again. You have mentioned over detailing as one of the issues; Casliber had mentioned earlier that I should jot down all that is available and then we could work on it. That's one reason I think I ended up doing excessive detailing. I will reduce it in the coming days. I just wanted to know if you could help me and point out the exact things/statements/paragraphs I should work on. I am ok if the current FA nom doesn't pass. But I wish the article does improve. So whenever you have time, it would be wonderful if you could just point out the lines/paragraphs that are not up to the standard and I will work on them. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. My WP activity is somewhat limited at present, and I am unlikely to be able to find time in the immediate future to help in the way you suggest. I think that the extent of attention that the article requires is a matter for a second peer review rather than this FAC; the previous PR was carried out before the article's expansion, and FAC was never intended to be an article-building forum. I'd say your best chance of getting it through would be to withdraw it from FAC for the moment, and open a peer review. If you can be patient I'm sure that help will come your way – in a few weeks I'll have more time and will definitely be ready to help then. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Brian. I will try my best too to improve the article. And will come back to you in case I have any doubts. Xender Lourdes (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Profumo affair may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • .<ref>Quoted in Profumo, p. 204</ref> Mandy Rice-Davies died in December 2014, aged 70.<ref>((Cite news|url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/11303169/Mandy-Rice-Davies-obituary.html|
  • Davies - obituary|newspaper= The Daily Telegraph|date= 29 April 2016||accessdate= 22 June 2016}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

2008 vs 2016 "how TFA works" article

Good idea to do this, but I wonder whether it would best to find a new page for it rather that rewrite a 2008 archive. Maybe the 2016 Signpost would like to run it. If not, it could go to somewhere like Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Choosing TFAs, and then we can compare and contrast the old and new. BencherliteTalk 23:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You are undoubtedly right, but whether I'll get round to it... Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of compositions by Alan Bush, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patrick Hamilton. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Sarastro1. You two nominated this one at FAC ... how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me – did I not ping Sarastro? My apologies - I intended to. Brianboulton (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Great. On pinging, I'm not sure ... I always ping all the noms, unless they already know about it. - Dank (push to talk) 09:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't pinged (the horror!) but looks fine to me too. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Archive 95←Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_102&oldid=803691998"