Jump to content

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44

Thanks for your help

Thanks
Thank you for your help with the review of the Kennet and Avon Canal at FAC, which has just been promoted. — Rod talk 14:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm very pleased to hear this; you worked extremely hard on this article and the promotion was fully deserved. Perhaps another waterway article beckons? I used to cruise a lot on the Oxford Canal - happy days! Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Messiah, Resurrection

I think we should either use Jennens' term "general Resurrection" as a quote (no "of the dead" there), or just say "resurrection of the dead", without "general", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Taken to the FAC, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger

As one of the opposers of the first nomination, do you think Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger is ready to be re-nominated for feature article? --Boycool (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a lot of time right now. As I recall, my chief objections concerned the plot section, which I thought was incomprehensible to the general reader. A quick look indicates some improvement, at least in the first paragraph, but I still get lost a little further on. What does "Decker revokes all of Chuck's CIA resources" mean to the uninitiated, i.e. me? How come a transport is carrying Alexei when in the previous paragraph he was in prison? Can you be clearer about the sudden appearance of "Hartley Winterbottom"? And so on...And you are continuing to identify characters with actors, which has nothing to do with the plot and as I said before, adds to the difficulties. I think your main problem is that this is a pretty convoluted and fast-moving plot, much of it based on events earlier in the series of which of course I and many others are ignorant. So it is very difficult for you to write something that is going to be generally understood. One possible solution would be to write a much briefer outline plot, leaving out much of the confusing detail. I'd say quite a bit more work is necessary before he article is ready for another try at FAC, and I suggest that before you renominate it, you send it to peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Including actors is really the norm for television and film articles. Some users would actually be mad if it didn't have them. --Boycool (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Nitpick"

I meant no offence by describing your peer review as a "nitpick"; I am genuinely grateful for your comments. By no means did I mean to suggest (as Wiktionary does) that you found "fault in unimportant details", and I've amended the nom statement. Apterygial talk 23:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't in the least offended, just amused. I didn't want the delegates to think I hadn't reviewed the article properly before supporting, which is why I raised the issue. Brianboulton (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Good to hear; I for one was surprised to hear nits are considered unimportant. Apterygial talk 14:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Peer review

I nominated an article for PR earlier today, and in return I offered a review on a couple of others. I have to say I found it quite enjoyable, without any of the stress of GAN, where at the end of the day you have to make a choice; I may do more of it. I suppose the quid-pro-quo reviewing style works at PR whereas it patently doesn't at DYK and wouldn't at GAN is because there are no trinkets on offer, just observations and suggestions. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

PR needs all the help it can get at the moment, so it's good if you can do the odd one or two. I often solicit reviews from editors who I think might be interested in and/or knowledgeable about a particular subject. In fact, it so happens that I have you in mind for something I am cooking up...All will be revealed next week! Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll make a point of doing one or two over the next week. I'm tired of staring nervously at the sky over the Nixon FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
FAC is slow at the moment. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I intend to spend some time there myself, but my activities are somewhat restricted at the moment. But I honestly don't think you will need to worry about Nixon. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
If so, it will be because of the hard work everyone did at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
...not to mention the great efforts of you and other editors over the past few months. However, enough of the compliments while I bare my reviewer's teeth. Brianboulton (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know you were interested in 17th-century witch trials or steam-driven computers Brian? Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Not especially, though I can be seduced by anything that reads well (except wrestling and US TV series). I imagine that you have relatively broad tastes, too - we shall see. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for casting your eye over the big ditch and for your comments at its peer review, almost all of which I agree with. And in fact reminded me of an issue I intended to cover but completely forgot about. I think PR may be one of Wikipedia's neglected jewels. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Messiah congratulations!

Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! And ye shall reign for ever and ever! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

My congrats too. That looked like an especially tough one. Finetooth (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for your help and good wishes. It was tough, in the sense that the piece is so well-known that everything had to check out. I'm pretty happy with how the article has worked out: all credit to Tim and Gerda, too. Team effort. Brianboulton (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Very well done indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Shall shamelessly grab a share of the gold star, but I sail under the flag of Capt Boulton, who is the True Begetter of this article. Tim riley (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Well said, I came to thank you for the great experience! I still feel I took more out of the article than put in, thanks for including me. When I wrote despised and rejected I thought not only of the Messiah but also some editors who left WP. I will sing Messiah in choir (alto) - first time - on September 18. Thanks for an excellent preparation! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations and thanks to all involved - it is a wonderful work and now it has an article to match! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I have been busy with work, so I was unable to make it for Handel's ascension of Messiah... Congratulations! Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Shackleton RfC

As one of the top contributors by number of edits, I thought you might want to comment on an RfC on how to describe the nationality of Shackleton in the lead sentence. Please seeTalk:Ernest_Shackleton#Nationality Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have done so. Brianboulton (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Featured Article promotion

Congratulations!
Sorry I'm a little late to the party, but... Thanks for all the work you did in making Messiah (Handel) a Featured Article! Your work is much appreciated.

Thanks also for your reviews. Featured article candidates and Good Article nominees always need more reviewers! All the best, – Quadell (talk)

A gracious tribute. Thank you Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Larkin image

Brian, if I read you correctly, your current endeavour is Writings of Brunette Colman? In that case, I am unable to see or fathom a plausible fair use rationale for Larkin's image to be in that article. The most evident obstacle would be that the subject is his writings, not himself. Jappalang (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The article is actually Brunette Coleman; it is principally about the stuff that Larkin wrote under this pseudonym, and also about why he chose to write in a female persona. In this respect the subject may be said to be "about Larkin". Although I suspect that your view is the correct one in terms of WP policy, I may ask you to look again when the whole article is available for inspection. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay. A tip: it could be justified to include the image in Brunette Coleman if there was a significant commentary about his appearance. But then, that would invite questions over why it should not be in Larkin's own article and whether the image would be best placed in Coleman or Larkin. The final version of Coleman has to be seen to judge on this, so point for me to speculate any further. Call me when the article is done. I would gladly take a look. Jappalang (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Like a Prayer

Brian I'm not sure if you know the above song article, but I have future wishes of placing it at FAC. Since you are one of the regular reviews at FAC, what do you think are its chances. Plus would you mind taking a look at reliability of sources? — Legolas (talk2me) 15:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I will try and help you, but it may take a few days. I am behind on my commitments to peer review, and will need to look at several articles there, first. Also, your article is extremely long for a single song - over 9,000 words may be thought of as a mite excessive. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the lede is longer than Nixon's!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, thats fine Brian. I'm in the process of cutting and pruning though I would like to see yours as well as Wehwalt's view as to what would be considered an acceptable lead and acceptable readable prose in FAC? I ask this because some articles, mainly bios, are incredibly large and exceed even 15,000 words (Obama comes to mind). — Legolas (talk2me) 01:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's too long, the length of article may justify it. Just saying it's something to look at.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
My view is that there are very few articles that can truly justify over 10,000 words. 15,000 is far too long in any circumstances, even if the subject is Obama, or Jesus, or Elvis Presley. For an article on a single song I would have thought perhaps 4,000 words was adequate; rememeber, Wikipedia is in the business of summary encyclopedia articles, not exhaustive analyses. Part of the pain associated with preparing an article for FAC – I am sure Wehwalt will agree – is the necessity of stripping out yards of carefully researched and crafted prose so as to keep the article's length within summary guidelines. As Dwight L. Moody[who?] once[when?] observed, "The harder the road,[where?] the greater the reward".[dubious – discuss][citation needed] Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and more than that sometimes, I just had to drop an image I paid the Nixon Library $22.50 to digitalize. What I think we have to remember with ledes is that many readers go no further. You want to give them the full flavor of the article, but you want to be concise.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Favor

I added John Day Fossil Beds National Monument to the PR list just now, and I'm planning to leave it there for quite a while. For various reasons, I probably will not take the article to FAC until mid- to late September. If you have a chance to review it while it's at PR, I'd very much appreciate it. Finetooth (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this will be done; I should get to it in a few days. Not by any means as a return favour...but I have just sent Brunette Coleman to PR (a fine oddity). Like yours, it is unlikely to find a way to FAC before September, so if you can find time to give it a onceover, that would be most helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Is that a person or a hair colour? I suppose I will find out. I'll give it a once over once I'm finished with The Writer 2.0's needs at Mark Sanchez.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
It's actually neither, but more the first than the second. I was going to ask you to take a look, as I thought you might enjoy it. No special hurry, though. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'll comment on Brunette Coleman. And, Wehwalt, I wouldn't take it amiss if you weighed in on the fossil beds too. The basalt layer at the monument might be considered a brunette. Finetooth (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
As soon as I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I did also listen to the resignation speech last night, which may be for the first time since I watched it on TV with my parents as a preteen. It may be the most brilliant speech I've ever heard. He did not leave anything on the pitch. With Barack and the Seven Dwarves around to provide comparison (or however many), I won't try to defend his actions, but Nixon has more stature than all of them. --Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ship's library

So here we are, sailing to the Antarctic, about to be marooned in the ice for six months, with Mahler, Monteverdi and Messiah playing over the Tannoys, and Evelyn Waugh, The BOP and, God save us, this weird Larkin manifestation in the ship's library. Who is responsible for equipping this trip, and what can be done about him? Be that as it may, I shall go and read the new Larkin-in-drag piece and will report at PR. Tim riley (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you see the Grainger Prom on BBC4? Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking of setting a murder mystery in the Mint. Like Murder on the Orient Express. The victim was Barber, the only question is which outraged artist killed him? Or was it President Roosevelt? Or George Morgan, all those years as Barber's Smithers ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Fridtjof Nansen

Hi Brian - I remember asking for a pronunciation for Fridtjof Nansen back at it's FAC - I've asked at User talk:Kwamikagami, but our main concern is if there's an accepted English pronunciation of his name - could you comment? Thanks. Connormah (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, English people pronounce the names as "Fridchoff Nansen", the surname rhyming with "Manson". I have never heard the surname pronounced as "Nahn-suhn". Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
FRID-choff NAN-sən? Rhymes with rid, off, man? (not watching - let me know) — kwami (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's how we say it. A Norwegian might argue, though! Brianboulton (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. English and Norwegian pronunciations would require separate transcriptions. For proper Norwegian, we'd want the tone too. — kwami (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Brunette Coleman

Brian, I reviewed the article and added my thoughts at the peer review. I also took the liberty of nominating the article for DYK at {{Did you know nominations/Brunette Coleman}}. Is the hook fine with you? Jappalang (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about DYK, but I think the hook should say "Philip Larkin, under the name of Brunette Coleman...". Otherwise they'd need to use the link to find this out. Perhaps that's the idea, though? Brianboulton (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe the main goal is to make the reader curious enough to read the article. I am operating under the thought that "Brunette Coleman" (an unusual name seemingly female) would do well in this aspect with the quotes used. Explicitly mentioning Larkin ("Tired of the 'buggery business', Philip Larkin, ...") would work, but might prove too controversial (sensationalistic), given that the phrasing could decidedly be too ambiguous and misinterpreted (especially since the context of the "buggery business" is not given in the hook, whereas it is provided in the article). Using the pen name would avoid this direct connotation, but lose the recognition that his original name would provide. Jappalang (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll go along with your judgement. As I say, I am not wise in DYK matters. Brianboulton (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Hummel

Hey there. I replied to some of your comments at Kurt Hummel's FAC discussion. Do you think you could take a look at some of the changes I made and some things I had questions about? Thanks, HorrorFan121 (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

TFLS of Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration

Hi! Since you are the main author of that list, I wanted to let you know that I reviewed its TFL submission here. Maybe you could have a look at it and address those (minor) issues to make it ready for the main page. bamse (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll do the ALTs if that's fine with you. bamse (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. bamse (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I've done my stuff too. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Replied there. bamse (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2011 (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 August 24, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 24, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. 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.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Farthest South was the term used to denote the most southerly latitudes reached by explorers before the conquest of the South Pole in 1911. From the late 19th century onward the quest for Farthest South latitudes became in effect a race to reach the pole, which culminated in Roald Amundsen's victory in December 1911. In the years before reaching the Pole was a realistic objective, other motives drew adventurers southward. Initially, the driving force was the discovery of new trade routes between Europe and the Far East. After such routes had been established and the main geographical features of the earth had been broadly mapped, the lure for mercantile adventurers was the great fertile continent of "Terra Australis" which, according to myth, lay hidden in the south. James Cook's voyages of 1771–74 demonstrated conclusively the likely hostile nature of any hidden lands. This caused a shift of emphasis in the first half of the 19th century, away from trade and towards exploration and discovery. After the first overwintering on continental Antarctica in 1899 the prospect of reaching the South Pole appeared realistic, and the race for the pole began. (more...)

Very nice, that one has been hanging around a while, hasn't it? I haven't forgotten your brunette, it is just that I've had limited time online and that's likely to continue for another week. I'll squeeze it in piecemeal though.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about the dark girl. I'm waiting for the paralysis at FAC to resolve itself before deciding what to do with her. And yes, my gosh, I'd forgotten all about Farthest South. I remember being quite proud of it at the time. Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, I am tearing my hair out waiting for promotions. I have a wedding tomorrow (not mine), so my time over the next two days is very uncertain. No one's said there's anything tonight, but I would not be surprised to be waylaid crossing the hotel lobby and wind up going out for drinks.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bravo! Two Antarctic exploration articles on the main page in 8 days is not bad. Just to let you know I'm now working hard on Amundsen's article (a very rough draft here). Apologies for not being in touch recently; I'm now attempting to devote my full attention to the article. Apterygial talk 11:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bizet

Hello, Brianboulton. 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.

Received with many thanks Brianboulton (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A pleasure. If, in your researches, you happen to spot anything about Bizet's continuing relations with Offenbach, I should be glad of a detail or two. A well-informed contributor to the Offenbach PR suspects that I have overstated the closeness of their relations, and that Bizet later resented Offenbach. Any light you can throw on this would be most gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I will give you the wisdom of Winton Dean on this matter, when I get his Bizet book in a few days' time. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Dark hair and all that

Whoops! Missed the PR entirely, will catch it at FAC today. Sorry, I did not want to touch FAC until Nixon was promoted.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Specter/Sestak primary article

Hey Brian. You had made some early comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010/archive1 that were addressed. I'm not sure whether you had a chance to look at the article as a whole, but if so, would you consider weighing in over at the FAC if you get a chance? I'd like to get some more voices to weigh in on that nomination if possible. Only if you have the time. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 19:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

George Hirst FAC

After what seems like a very long time since you did the PR, I've nominated George Hirst at FAC. Any comments there would be much appreciated and thanks for your help on the article. And it is more cricket. Sorry! --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't apologise, cricket's a great game, especially over here at the moment! I will get to it soon. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Brunette Coleman

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet another football, that is our football, um, well, whatever

Well done on Coleman, it looks to be on the fast track for promotion. And from someone who objected to my raunchy puns in Pipe Dream! If you get a moment, could you possibly look in at the PR for Heidi Game? Yes there is some American Football and necessarily there is jargon, but at least half the article is about the goings-on at NBC. Peer review here. If you don't want to dip your toes into the football part, I quite understand.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of a bit of American footy - very educational. You currently have a coin article at FAC and another in peer review. What's the order of preference for reviews - footy first, or what? Brianboulton (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not terribly important, but put my coin PR last. I think my colleague The Writer 2.0 would like to see that someone is paying a little attention to the footy article; I would give him some material to work on, so why not do the footy first? FAC is treacly slow right now for most, so I am not in a hurry on the Bicentennial thingy.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, today or definitely tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
No hurry, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Secret opus

My opus(?) has been completed. I know not if your taste is for this (several critics hated it and it appeals mainly to hot-blooded young "bully-boys"), but Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) has been rewritten by moi. One warning, the article is huge (72kB prose size)! I believe it is warranted but as always, the author of a piece tends to believe the necessity of everything he did... If you are willing to take on the task, Wikipedia:Peer review/Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)/archive1 is available for your comments. Jappalang (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Brian emailed me that he has to be off WP to take care of some RL issues for a few days. I'm not sure if he is gone or if he will be back for a brief time in the morning UK time, but I doubt he'll be able to review it until he gets back.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm still here for a bit, though not after tonight. I will be happy to review Conan the Librarian if it's still on PR when I resume normal duties in or around mid-September (it's a little long for a quick runthrough) Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(My "joke" falls flat; there is a C the L article!) Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with waiting. I have been working on this one for a long time, I can wait a bit more. (heh) Speaking of the Conans (Republican, Librarian), have you heard of Conan the Bacterium? Jappalang (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Peer reviewing

I will be glad to take care of the backlog listing - hope all is well with you and let me know if there is anything else I can do to help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Arlen Specter

Brian, just wanted to let you know I responded to you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010/archive1, and if you could respond when you get a chance I'd appreciate it. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 14:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll try and look later today, but I have a few difficulties at present so I can't be sure of getting there. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making Brunette Coleman a Featured Article! Please accept this barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Quadell (talk)

Ron Hextall PR

I have opened a second peer review of Ron Hextall, (Wikipedia:Peer review/Ron Hextall/archive2) now that it has been promoted to GA. I'm looking to clean the article up before trying to move onto an FAC and was hoping that you could look over it. All comments and advice would be greatly appreciated! Harrias talk 11:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Brian is on Wikibreak for the next week or two. I will cover for him on this one as time permits if you desire someone else's viewpoint, but I expect it will be at least four or five days before I can get to this one. Warning: I'm a Devils fan.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Royal Opera, London peer review

On your return to diesen heil'gen Hallen you may like to look in at the Royal Opera article, which I have been overhauling. No rush. Hope your break was hugely agreeable. Tim riley (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_44&oldid=1139155879"