Jump to content

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 83

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82Archive 83

Francis Poulenc

I have the old rogue up for peer review, should you have time and disposition to look in. Tim riley talk 11:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Most certainly. And later today I shall have Miss Wilkinson there, should you feel inclined to spare her a minute or so. A brighter version of Bonders, I'd say. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Your gentle touch on the tiller in re quoting at unjustifiable length is greatly appreciated. On the debit side, I can see I'm going to have a hard time converting you to the cause of Poulenc's music. At least try the Flute Sonata, which blends wistfulness, serenity and gaiety in the space of a ten-minute span. Well, dammit, I've listened to "Pur ti miro" from the Coronation of Popeye! Fair's fair. Tim riley talk 15:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no aversion to Mr Plonk, I've just never really got round to listening to him, like for example I've never read a novel by Ian Fleming, seen a play by Alan Ayckbourn or been to Norwich. Life is only so long. After reading your enticements on Plonk's behalf, I am certainly inclined to give him a go. I'm sure there'll be something on YouTube that I can sample. Incidentally, if his music is anything like Jaques Ibert's Divertissment, I'll have no difficulty in enjoying it! Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Try this Tim riley talk 18:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This is to inform you that Harold Larwood, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 14 November 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. 00:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

  • DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
  • Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
  • British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
  • Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
  • Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
  • JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

BNA access

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.

Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Xmas

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.

- SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Another round robin missive re the above has gone: hopefully the date is a good one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Would like your opinion

Hi Brian! If you are interested and can spare the time, I would like to invite you to comment on the Spokane, Washington FAC. You are an experienced editor and reviewer and I would love to have your critical eye. Have a nice day!:)G755648 (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

My time is limited at present, and I have much to do. I don't like turning down requests for help, but it seems you have managed to get assistance from both Tim Riley and Dr Blofeld, wise editors both, so you are getting some useful help. I will have to sit this one out, though. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hensley Henson

You were kind enough to say at the PR of Ellen Wilkinson (promoted today, I'm pleased to note) that you'd be interested to see my take on Henson. He is now available for inspection on presentation of visiting card. I haven't put him up for PR yet, as I still have Poulenc there with outstanding points remaining to be dealt with. I'm not sure that Henson's article is quite substantial enough for a shot at FA, and I'd be glad of your opinion on that point. There is absolutely and positively no hurry for this. Tim riley talk 11:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Re Henson, I knew that he and I had something in common: "The son of a zealous member of the Plymouth Brethren..." – and so indeed was I (on reflection I'm not really sure that "zealous" is appropriate for my dear old dad, but PB he certainly was – I escaped at an early age). Back to Henson, I have numerous sources relating to him which might bring forth fruit: Hastings's History of English Christianity 1920–85); J.G. Lockhart's life of Lang; Iremonger's Life and Letters of William Temple (hard going); and lots of references in my politics books, mainly to his anti-union outbursts. If there are particular areas of HH's life that you think need thickening out, I'd be very pleased to comb through these to see if they can help fill any gaps.
As to my own current activities, I had intended on finishing Wilkinson to deal with the inadequate Jarrow March article, but I am bored to the knickers with politics (5 of my last 8 articles have been political to some extent or other) and I have decided to bump that down to next year and do something more enjoyable meantime. So I am working on Evelyn Waugh's delightful A Handful of Dust, one of my all-time favourites. All in the sandboxes at the moment, but watch out in a week or so. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
There is one thing I'd be glad if you would look up for me. Lockhart (p. 76): my notes made at the BL are not quite clear, and if you could confirm (or not) that Lang actually visited Henson's parish at Barking, I'd be grateful. A Handful of Dust is a fine novel, but the ending with poor Tony shanghaied by Mr Todd gave me the shudders when I read it. I have another clergyman languishing in one of my sandboxes: F W Dwelly, first dean of Liverpool, but I can't quite raise the wind there. Or chez Otto Klemperer, also stranded in Riley sand. Un bel di! Tim riley talk 14:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, p. 76 confirms the visit to Barking. In addition to the words you quote, Lang added that Henson had "an unruly tongue" and "a power of denunciation and sarcasm", but forecast that he would become "a great cleric". Lang caught the edge of this tongue when, in 1908, he was named Archbishop of York: "I am of course surprised", wrote Henson, "that you go straight to an archbishopric. But you are too meteoric for precedent. I am sorry, of course, very sorry that you are so stiff a High Churchman". (Lockhart p. 179) Brianboulton (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Good! Thank you very much for that. Tim riley talk 13:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

A Handful of Dust
added links pointing to Scoop, Spectator, Christopher Sykes and Peter Fleming

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Small nudge

Hi Brian, giving a small nudge regarding this query at the Nativity, in case you missed it. If you're too busy to get back there, I understand completely. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 14:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Source review request

Incomplete citation at Discovery Expedition

Dear Brian, In 2009, you added the reference "Markham, pp. 233–42" to Discovery Expedition [1], but no further details of the book. It's just listed in the sources as "Markham". Do you have further details? See Talk:Discovery Expedition#Sources. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting this. The original error was mine in forgetting to list the book; the omission came to light two years later when an editor took it upon himself to alter the citation method, but didn't alert me as to the missing detail. I have now added the book, and also checked out the reference; the page range was a little bit off for the information being cited, so I have altered that, too. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

Leo Frank peer review request

Hello Mr. Boulton, I wanted to ask if you would mind peer reviewing my article on Leo Frank. My request page is here, and I originally requested this review on October 29. I added some specific comments that I wanted feedback on, as well as any other comments that you might have. Your peer review of Liberty in North Korea a while back was quite helpful, and your work with articles like Ellen Wilkinson were impressive. Thank you and congratulations on your latest FA promotion! Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, Mr Stewart (you may call me Brian, otherwise I sound like my dad). This looks an interesting if somewhat disturbing article. I will do my best to review it, although it will take me a few days before I can get going, as I am very busy at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Brian. No rush. My ultimate goal is to make it Today's Featured Article on the 100th anniversary of his death (17 August 2015).Tonystewart14 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This is to inform you that Carsten Borchgrevink, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 1 December 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. 18:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

FGM

Hello Brian, I just wanted to thank you again for everything you did to guide FGM through the peer review and FAC process. Your support meant a lot to me, and your advice was invaluable. I'm extremely grateful for the time you spent reading and reviewing, and for your encouragement at every point, which helped a great deal. All the best, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No email

This is to advise anyone that at present my email service is not working. I can't open anything or send anything, so if you need to contact me best leave a message here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Another email

Hi Brian, I know your email is playing up but if you can read the subject lines then there may be something of interest in your inbox. BencherliteTalk 09:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Handful of Dust, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgetown. 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) 00:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yet another email - fingers crossed it's working by now...

Afternoon Brian, If your email is up and runing now, could you have a glance at the note I've just sent you? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What can this mean? The mystery deepens... Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

TFA coordinator

Dear Brian, I'm delighted that you've agreed to allow your name to be put forward here for this position. You, Crisco and Dank will make a formidable team, and I'm sure you will not only do an excellent job but you will have great fun doing it! I hope I can toast your appointment soon, perhaps even next week, although I may not be able to stick around for long (if at all - I have a three-line whip to attend a meeting about closing the village school, which is perhaps more important...) Best wishes, BencherliteTalk 12:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Brainy Brian, I am also delighted that, this time, your willingness to serve coincided with the wish to always have you on board somewhere on the FA pages! I know we had crossed signals in the past about your availability, desire, etc, and this time, the Gods of FA smiled. Have you been able to access your email yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, nice to hear from you, and thanks for your good wishes. Nothing is simple at WP, and you will see that there is a process discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. My email is working well at the moment, but it is a capricious beast, and can't be wholly relied on. Brianboulton (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, then have you received by now all of your emails regarding the TFA Coordinator? Or does the capricious beast drop some correspondence? If so, should I resend a summary of anything that might have been lost? Best as always, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I have a fair number of emails regarding TFA, but not from your quarter, so better resend/summarise. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Misunderstanding :) I have not sent you an email, but I am told that answers to emails from others are pending still. Perhaps I should email you. Would you email me first to make sure your email is working? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I like you serving the TFA process! Thank you for today's Carsten Borchgrevink, precious again! I invite you to check if your first link on this page is still useful, look ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Linking postnominals

I notice that at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Margaret Bondfield/archive1 you said "It is normal to present and link postnominals in this way." However, WP:OVERLINK says that post-nominals should not be linked. Now, that seems to be to go against the overwhelming common usage on Wikipedia, as evidenced by Template:Post-nominals. Anyway, I removed it from the guideline, but my edit got reverted per WP:BRD. What do you think? StAnselm (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Guidleines are just that, not canon law. When they act against common sense, I tend to ignore them. In this case, non-Brits are unlikely to know (for example) the difference between a CB and a CBE, and why should they? Many Brits don't know, either. Postnominals are emphatically not in the category of stuff that everyone can be assumed to know. If someone is prepared to provide a reasoned rationale why they shouldn't be wikilinked, then I'll listen, but not if the argument is merely "it's what the guidelines say". Brianboulton (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) As someone who writes many military bios, I fully agree with Brian's statement above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Brian and Ian, this is one data point in a bigger issue: FAC standards and MOS have been diverging lately a bit more than I'm comfortable with. I can't tackle this problem yet, I've got a lot on my plate with copyediting and preparing for TFA. But I'll have to tackle it some day; see for instance WT:MOS#Unexpected bolding in response to redirects. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it's a issue that I find myself addressing as an editor and a FAC coord. It's never been my goal to see FAC as having different standards to MOS, but the question has been raised from time to time. I believe FAs should follow MOS rules, but when something is simply a guideline or it's recognised that there are cultural variations that should be left to the main editors of an article, or if it isn't specifically addressed at MOS, then I'll go with what's generally accepted at FAC or at relevant wikiprojects. I'd certainly value someone exploring the question in more detail. What do you think, Graham? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
My approach was similar (agree with Ian and Brian's positions on the issue raised). MOS changed too often to keep up with, and didn't always make sense. On long-standing, well-known MOS items, I had nominators fix them before I promoted, but I never let obscure, little known, or debated MOS issues hold up a nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Lend me your eyes!

Any reader of this page, casual or otherwise, is invited to visit the peer review, here, which I have opened for A Handful of Dust, Evelyn Waugh's sublime novel. Any suggestions or comments will be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Emails on the fritz

Hi Brian, I just got an email from you that starts "Hi, Dan: I am not certain if my emails are reaching their destinations" ... I'm certain, they're not :) I got an email from you yesterday that said that you and I had both sent an email at the same time, and another would be coming within an hour ... and I didn't get either of those emails. I had seen the note in your userspace that your email was unreliable, so this wasn't a problem, I was expecting it ... but now that we've got the initial discussions out of the way, would you be okay with on-wiki communications except in special circumstances? Is there anything in your email today that you'd rather I not quote? I think it sums things up nicely. - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

  • My "sent" box shows that it left at 1512 hours, one minute before the identical text was sent to Dan & which he evidently received. But not to worry; I think, as Dan suggests, that we can continue our who-does-what discussions on-wiki, and to this end, to save clogging up our talkpages, I have set up this page as a working area. I have posted the text of the "missing" email there. Brianboulton (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82Archive 83
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_83&oldid=1138951624"