Contents

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 88

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jarrow March, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James Gordon and TUC. 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) 11:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• In the media: Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism

• Featured content: Stop Press. Marie Celeste Mystery Solved. Crew Found Hiding In Wardrobe.

• Traffic report: All over the place

• News and notes: New edits-by-mail option will "revolutionize" Wikipedia and its editor base

• Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015

Many thanks for your thoughts on Live and Let Die at the recent peer review. The article is now at FAC for wider consideration should you wish to comment further. Enjoy your time away, there is, as always, no rush on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Maurice Ravel is at peer review, and should you have time and inclination in due course the red carpet will await. Enjoy your break (I crib from SchroCat, above.) Tim riley talk 17:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• In the media: Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism

• Featured content: Stop Press. Marie Celeste Mystery Solved. Crew Found Hiding In Wardrobe.

• Traffic report: All over the place

• News and notes: New edits-by-mail option will "revolutionize" Wikipedia and its editor base

• Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015

I am running a little late in meeting requests for reviews. I do hope to get to them all within a few days, but I hope the requesters will show patience. Here, in order of request, are the outstanding ones:

• Irataba (28) March) – FAC
• 1877 Wimbledon Championship (31 March) – PR (in progress)
• McKinley Birthplace Memorial dollar (31 March) FAC
• Live and Let Die (1 April) – FAC
• Maurice Ravel (1 April) – PR
• Castell Coch (7 April) – PR

If I've forgotten one, please squawk here. Brianboulton (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Here it is. Considering what British weather must be like right now, I'll give you a free (imaginary) trip to the beach, as well. Enjoy! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - weather has been a little grim but is improving. Nice TFA choices for April. Brianboulton (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks muchly. We had some good activity at TFAR, so I'm thankful for that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benjamin Morrell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canton. 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) 09:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'd be very grateful if you could give Castell Coch a read and comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Castell Coch/archive1. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll add it to my list, but I can't promise at this stage when I'll get to it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say that your comments at the FAC for this were excellent, Brian. We don't have enough people dealing with readability issues, and you always manage to strike a good balance. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/L'Arianna, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks so much for proposing to feature today's article, it means a lot to me and everyone who knew Adrianne Wadewitz. Pbjamesphoto (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Peter, thanks for the note and star. Adrianne was a brilliant colleague, who showed remarkable levels of thoroughness and integrity in her approach to writing and reviewing. She will not be forgotten. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The article on Ulysses S. Grant was featured specifically today because this is the 150th anniversary of the end of the American Civil War. Unfortunately, that fact is not noted under anniversaries; we have

April 9: Maundy Thursday (Eastern Christianity, 2015); Vimy Ridge Day in Canada; Day of National Unity in Georgia (1989); Bataan Day in the Philippines

• 1918 – World War I: Aníbal Milhais's actions during the Battle of the Lys made him the only person to be awarded Portugal's highest military honour, the Order of the Tower and Sword, directly on the battlefield.
• 1939 – After being denied permission to perform at Constitution Hall by the Daughters of the American Revolution, African American singer Marian Anderson (pictured) gave an open-air concert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.
• 1940 – During the German invasion of Norway, Vidkun Quisling seized control of the government in a Nazi-backed coup d'état.
• 1967 – The first Boeing 737 took its maiden flight, eventually becoming the most ordered and produced commercial passenger jet airliner in the world.
• 2005 – Charles, Prince of Wales, married his long-time mistress Camilla Parker Bowles.

but nothing about Appomattox. Is it too late to fix that? YoPienso (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• You should raise this on Mainpage talk, under the heading "Errors in today's or tomorrow's On This Day". Brianboulton (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to do a source review here? Shouldn't take all that long. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• News and notes: Advancement department to be created at the Foundation, milestone fixes

• In the media: Wikipedia on 60 Minutes, Kickstarter, and in the classroom

• Traffic report: Resurrection week

• Featured content: Partisan arrangements, dodgy dollars, a mysterious union of strings, and a hole that became a monument

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Christianity

• Arbitration report: New Functionary appointments

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URLorDOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brian, have now addressed all your points from the first part of the comments and made several improvements to the article.--Wolbo (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Pity you don't have time for a review of the rest of the article but your comments and suggestions have certainly been most helpful to further improve the article. Thanks for that! I have two remaining questions, one on content, one procedural, that you can hopefully help me with. In several locations in the article the word 'club' is used as an alternative for the lengthy 'All England Croquet and Lawn Tennis Club' (or any of its variations). It just occurs to me that sometimes the word is sentence-case capitalized and sometimes it is lowercase. Is this an issue for an FAC and, if so, is there any guidance on the preferred capitalization? Can an article move directly to WP:FAC once the peer review is closed, and its issues addressed or should there be a period of time, or any other steps, in between? --Wolbo (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wonky formatting, may need to re-do? [1]. Montanabw^(talk) 22:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed – sorry about that. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No worries, figured you'd want to know. Thanks for selecting it! Montanabw^(talk) 05:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, the nom has understandably been restarted due to the changes. I'd be very grateful if you could re-review and comment again. Sorry!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• NB this has been withdrawn from FAC by th nominators, but I need to keep the note on my talk, so it remains on my agenda. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Any stalkers/watchers who would be interested in contributing to the above peer review (describing an historical event of some political and social importance in the UK) are invited to do so. My warm gratitude awaits them. Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• In the media: Saving Wikipedia; Internet regulation; Thoreau quote hoax

• Blog: Single-User Login provides access to all wikis

• Traffic report: Furious domination

• Featured content: Au-delà de les Alpes, le chien lit de Sainte Bernard. Sous les pavés, les trimes d'argent! Mes enfants, suivez-moi!

After a thorough and stimulating peer review I have put Maurice Ravelupfor FAC. If you care to look in you will, as I hardly need say, be most welcome. – Tim riley talk 16:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For working on the Jarrow march, should not be forgotten when we vote! 2.26.96.250 (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• In the media: UK political editing; hoaxes; net neutrality

• News and notes: Call for candidates as the movement approaches the Wikimedia Board elections

• In focus: 2015 Wikimedia Foundation election preparations underway

• Featured content: Vanguard on guard

• Traffic report: A harvest of couch potatoes

• Gallery: The bitter end

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spectator, Christopher Sykes and Michael Elliot. 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) 09:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brian, the peer review has now been closed. To the best of my knowledge all feedback has been addressed, do you think the article is now ready for a FAC? Also if you would like me to reciprocate with a peer review of an article of your interest please let me know.--Wolbo (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wolbo: I don't have time for a thorough read-through. But you have obviously worked hard on the article, responding constructively to reviewers' comments, and in my view it's a worthy FAC candidate. During the couple of weeks or so that it's there, I'll definitely look at it again. (NB: I am moving this part of the thread to the foot of my talk lest it get archived and I forget about it). Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a notice to let you know that the article is now at FAC.--Wolbo (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've laid the above down at peer review. It may sound like coins, but I think you've read enough of these articles to know the political effects. Your comments welcome indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course, and there is Garfield I believe, at FAC, also needing a look. Brianboulton (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, if you would. Something of a convergence. I haven't yet started the reading for my next, Warren G. Harding. Saving room by eliminating the post-presidency sections.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Brian, I noticed you critically reviewed Peru national football team shortly before it obtained FA-status. At this moment its Belgian counterpart is awaiting GA review. In my opinion, the article is GA-worthy, likely even FA according to the criteria. Any comment or copyedit you would make can contribute towards FA, so I invite you to take a look. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I made a few comments on the Peru FAC, primarily to get the review going. This seemed to work, as other reviewers came in thereafter. However, my knowledge of and interest in football are pretty well non-existent, so I must respectfully decline your invitation to participate in the Belgian review. Brianboulton (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, never mind, thanks for leaving a reply. Kareldorado (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a ping ... Freikorp would prefer we push the 1 May article later in the month. - Dank (push to talk) 22:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I've responded at the thread. Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brian. Take a look at my comments on Talk:The Rite of Spring#Recent changes reverted re the rather massive addition by an IP that I reverted today. Some of it may be salvageable but not in the state in which it had been added, at least in my view. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I have added a brief note supporting your deletion; obviously this article needs careful and constant watching. Brianboulton (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Cripes! The IPs (which register to University of Colorado) have been replaced by a registered account which has re-added the material yet again. The article definitely needs eyes. I wonder if it's the target of a class project? Anyhow, I've reverted again, but this is the second and last time I'll be able to do it. I don't want to end up at the edit-warring noticeboard. I've also left a message at the registered editor's talk page [2]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Rite is probably my favourite orchestral piece (and there's a lot of competition out there!) -- I'll be happy to add it to my watchlist as well, Brian, so there's coverage on the other side of the world. ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do, the more watchful eyes the better. In my view, the repeated addition of unsourced or poorly sourced material which overemphasises one aspect of the article, coupled with a refusal to engage in any discussion of the new material, amounts to vandalism which may be reverted without questions of edit warring. Brianboulton (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with you, Brian, but "vandalism" is very narrowly defined by Wikipedia. Woe betide (!!) the editor who reverts on the basis of broader criteria. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The crucial issue, as I understand it, is that of "good faith". I accept that the initial edit was made in good faith. But the second edit, which ignored the invitation to discuss the added material on the talkpage and merely reinstated it, is a slightly different matter. Were the editor now, after your second reversal, to ignore the polite message you left on her talkpage and again restore the edit without discussion, that would properly raise issues around the issue of good faith. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I took the opportunity of the out-of-process creation to ask about deleting this at WT:CSD. Should have an answer soon. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have knocked it out of the TFA system & will scheduling for that date late today. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

And Ed has deleted it. I like to at least pose that question every now and then. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hello Brianboulton. I see that you've scheduled Money in the Bank (2011) for featuring on this date and appreciate your gesture. However I was actually considering it for June 14 to coincide with Money in the Bank (2015). I filed a potential TFA request regarding the June date to that effect a couple of months ago. Would it be possible to use another Featured Article? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• OK, I've replaced your article on 16 May. You can nominate at WP:TFAR in the usual way. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Brianboulton, I have done so! :) starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I went to drop a note on Legolas's talk page ... and saw that he was blocked in 2013 for "Evidently fabricated sources and quotes", according to the admin. Someone may want to have a close look at this FA. - Dank (push to talk) 23:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

They went through Legolas' FAs for that reason. For 4 Minutes, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/4 Minutes (Madonna song)/archive1. It may be good to ask Binksternet and Tbhotch, if they're still around, about running the article on the main page. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, all I could find was Talk:4_Minutes_(Madonna_song)/Archive_1#Partial source audit ... I should have checked the Milestones. I'll notify Binksternet about this one. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I did follow the paper trail, and before scheduling this I read through the FAR which gave the article the all clear. Let me know if there are further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I followed the wrong trail ... I assumed unwisely that there would be some mention in the talk archives of the start or result of the FAR. I'll know to check the Milestones next time. Thanks for being alert. We need more lerts. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.