User talk:Brianboulton/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Seinfeld Chronicles

I've tried to carry out the measures that you asked for in The Seinfeld Chronicles article. ISD (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried expanding the references section. I'm confused when you say, "Have you been able to confirm your right to publish?" As far as I can tell, I've added the fair-use rational, and as far as I've experienced, that tends to be enough. I can't recall having to contact anyone before using an image. ISD (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Again, for finding errors in my poor little bishops. Better watch out we'll convert you to a medievalist yet. I suppose as a thank you I need to look through my Antarctic photos for things you might like? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We cruised in a big ship down from South America, around Palmer Station and that area for four days. Never landed (I'll do that when I'm not traveling with my mother who is in her 70's and gets seasick, she hated the Drake on the big stabilized ship, I can only imagine an icebreaker). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Passing articles for GA

Hello, you recently reviewed and passed the Good Article nominee The Seinfeld Chronicles and added the updated template to the talk page. You did not, however, remove the article from the list at WP:GAC nor add it to WP:GA, which are the two other steps in passing GAs. I went ahead and finished the process for you. Just a note for the future. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats again!

I see our friend the dog-hater made FA! Good work! I spent a good bit of time editing pictures tonight, I have some barely acceptable shots of some polar stations (Polish, Brazilian, Chilean, and Palmer) plus icebergs, birds, penguins (yeah, they are birds, but still...) and amazingly enough, not that many icebergs. Hopefully can get the wiki ones up by Friday. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Beecham

This is looking good to pass the GA...your thoughts? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


A pleasure; pleased to see that you'll be involved in more FAs. Oops, and I see curly quotes in the lead (Noetica will be onto his pet hate and MOS breach if he knows—I'll say nothing!). TONY (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

On the deletion for the section "Some ground for a comparison" in Captain Scott's article

I read that section on Scott's article and found that quite informative, particular its more detailed expositions on the background of both Scott's and Amundsen's trips. Not that its current more concise version on Scott's posthumous reputations is not desirable, but is it possible to re-include those bullet points in the earlier version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken l lee (talkcontribs) 13:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I made it clear on the article's talk page before starting to revise the Scott article that the "Some grounds for comparison" debate would have no major part in my plans. I suggested that the detailed material, if of interest to someone, could be taken out and used as the basis of a separate article entitled "Scott-Amundsen comparison" or some such title. No one has as yet come forward to do this - perhaps you should? However, it would be absolutely inappropriate to re-introduce this material into the the current article, which has just been given Featured Article status.

I have pasted this reply, and your original query, to the article discussion page. Brianboulton (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


We went near some of those places. I didn't get pictures of any of the monuments, unfortunately. And I'm mainly a horse/wildlife/landscape photographer, so I'm not sure how much use these will be for you. I'll try to get them up on Commons today, but I make no promises. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures on Commons Ealdgyth - Talk 21:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi, Brian. The last major effort on Middlemarch was a complete rewrite of the plot section, first by User:Victorianist and then by me. Victorianist seemingly left the project soon after, and I lost my copy of the book! (Dumb, eh!) So yes, progress has stalled somewhat. You're more than welcome to make whatever contributions you'd like.

If some progress is made on the Middlemarch article, I might get a copy from a public library and help out again. It also appears that Victorianist has come back (at least for today), so I'll cross-post your original query to Victorianist's talk page to see if s/he can help out, too. Thanks for your interest. Liveste (talkedits) 23:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review: Thomas Beecham

Many thanks for your helpful pointers and for passing the article as GA. At your service should you ever want a proof-reading etc. Tim riley (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Teatro Colon - I removed the image. I agree that it might be difficult to convince the fair use patrol that it is needed. BTW, I thought your input was extremely valuable and most helpful in improving the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sporty girls

External links placed inline are a no-no for FAs, so I can't think how we could put it directly in the text without drawing objections. Yomanganitalk 13:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

William of York

I think I've got your concerns addressed, let me know if that took care of things. Thanks for the good review, it's great to have someone outside the subject matter come in and point out my assumptions. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Better watch it or I'll have you doing copyedits of bishops all the time! Took care of those, I hope. I did change one "on" to "at" for a date. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thankee, thankee. What article are you working up for FAC next, would you like me to take a look at it? I'm in between dioceses at the moment, and don't want to start in on the Bishop of Exeter just yet so I have some free time to do coypediting, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


What DID those explorers have against dogs? Everytime I turn around they are eating the poor things... Anyway, I'll mosey on over in a bit and take a look. (I got started on another horse article Go Man Go so it'll be a bit later this afternoon) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It'll be in the morning before I get to your latest Icecapade. My eyes are shot from checking sources on Thriller (album). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Color boxes

Just wanted to say thanks for improving the Shackleton map and other maps with legend templates. I much prefer them to colored text, and I used them today in a stream course map for Johnson Creek (Willamette River). Finetooth (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wagner's rhinemaidens

As far as I know, Wagner's Rhinemaidens derive from Nixies in the Niebelungenlied, but your present solution looks fine. As for Nix, titles are usually in the singular per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns.--Berig (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Prose size script

Don't know if you have this yet but User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js is very useful. As are some of his other ones. (The ref editing one has been very helpful to me). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you figure it out? Sorry, I went out to the library today. No, no ice articles. Just medieval and ancient stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ernest Joyce

Will gladly give the article a careful going-over. Am in Spain till Thursday, doing battle with a Spanish keyboard: more soonest. Tim Riley... heaven knows where the tildes are on this computer.

Back in England, I've had a good look, as asked, and made a very few minor changes. It seems to me that the article as drafted is well balanced and clear, and I don't think it needs much doing to it. I like the way you put a lot of supplementary material in your footnotes, but I ask - without knowing the answer - if this is WP house style. More generally, both the stalwart and the self-aggrandising sides of EJ's character are fairly set out, and - which seems to me the crux of the matter - the sequence of events is well-paced and easy to follow. - Tim riley (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


You might want to consider giving a brief introduction on your FACs - I think it helps draw people in to reviewing from the FAC page. Then again, the mysterious approach might intrigue them, who knows? Yomanganitalk 11:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I got all the is/iz and made them all "iz" (the only "is" was in organisational which you changed earlier) but there's no harm in checking again. Yomanganitalk 17:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Peterloo Massacre

I'd like to thank you for your very helpful comments and suggestions at this article's FAC review. I've gone ahead and broken up the larger sections with subsections, and I think the end result is a distinct improvement. There's nothing to beat a second (third, fourth ...) pair of eyes. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

John Peckham

Thanks for the comments. They are all pretty valid and I'll try to get to them after I meet with my accountant this afternoon about taxes (blech!). That'll put me in the right frame of mind to deal with Mr. Peckham, the theologian and philosopher. (I don't like philosophy or intellectual history much, so having to deal with that right after taxes will be perfect (grins)). And no, he didn't like the Welsh, but mostly the sources just say "he didn't like the Welsh". He's a bit out of my normal time frame (we're pushing up on the 1300's here) so I have less sources than usual. Also, no one has really written a good biography of Henry III yet, so that makes some of the early stuff more difficult. I did get a couple of books in recently that may help with expansion on your points. At least I have something article related to work on today! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I got it all. Hopefully didn't introduce too many new errors. Let me know if the changes explained things well enough or not. I'm going to switch the pictures in a moment, but if I don't get to it, feel free to. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Be on those in a bit. YOu just want to read about the things that monks did while the bishops weren't looking! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Think I got all of it. Your google books question is confusing me, I'm not sure what you are asking, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Excellent article. Not sure why 'Niebelungen' though. Isn't it Nibelungen? Tim riley (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Hare coursing

Many thanks for all your help on this article. You write what you think is a good article, and a second person finds so many ways to improve it. Thanks again. MikeHobday (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Valley Parade and administration

Thanks for your help and support. Just one quick note on the administration - I won't bog down the FAC with what could easily be a long discussion. I'm sure the costs of Valley Parade must have had some influence, but from my recollection has never been cited. The main reasons the chairman gave were - "six weeks of madness" on signing various players for substantial amounts of money, the eventual relegation, a television deal collapsing, and paying one player wages four times the self-imposed previous salary cap. They are probably the tip of the iceberg, and the millions spent on Valley Parade must have had some influence. I'll check the news sources at the time, to see if those costs were ever cited. If not, I feel it's akin to OR. Peanut4 (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review

Thank you for choosing Authorized King James Version to review. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the editing. We are taking your very good advice and slashing the article to a more appropriate size. Nothing is being added...just a lot removed. If possible, could you hold off reviewing for 24 hours and then the major carnage will be complete. Thank you for your efforts. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The text is now at 6,500 words and the lead is at 450 words. This is now within appropriate guidelines. Unsourced text has been removed. The text has been tightened up with tangential topics excised. It is now ready for a second review. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice you put in a request for a 2nd opinion. However, you forgot to update the Wikipedia:Good article nominations. I've done it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


I think I've addressed most of your content concerns. Can you take a quick look at them ASAP? I'm heading out of town and will be leaving the library behind, so any content issues need to be dealt with in the next few hours or wait until next Monday when I get back home. Prose tweaks/copyediting, I can deal with on the road, I'll have internet, just not the 400 or so medieval books. (Airlines are getting SO picky about weight these days...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Got them, I think. I'll try to look at Aeneas tonight at the hotel. Thanks again! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Be scared

Be very very scared. I have just discovered Wikipedia:Featured topics and I could do a series of Archbishops of Canterbury. Scary.... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Name dropper

A little birdie just told me you've been talking about me behind my back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

With Yomangani stalking your edits, you're in good shape :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? Read the section above on my talk page; Yomangani was joking about your edit summary invoking my name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


I'd be glad to help with the Aeneas Mackintosh map. Putting three letters on the base map will not be difficult. Just post your instructions on my talk page. I'll need to know which letters (A, B, C or a, b, c or others), what color(s) the letters should be, and where you want them. Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's done, at least the first version. Rather than messing around with e-mail this time, I uploaded the revised map to the Commons. See Image:Mackintosh walk.png. Further modifications would not be difficult. Just let me know. I should probably add something to the Commons image description about what the A, B, and C mean, but I can pluck that later from your description in the article caption. Finetooth (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Dotted line from A to C has been added. Glad to help. Finetooth (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

I would be delighted to assist. I will get on it in the next few days. IvoShandor (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have made you wait so long, I got another request from someone who had waited several weeks for other volunteers whom had committed to editing for them. I will try to get to your request today or tonight sometime. IvoShandor (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad to hear I have yet to dissapoint. I will still take a look, I usually make some copy editing and general notes/comments on the peer review when one is open. So even if it is looking pretty polished I am sure to have something to say. :) IvoShandor (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nablus suggestions

Thanks for bringing up those points in the Nablus article; I've addressed all but one of them: The person/group who claims Christianity was well established by the 3rd or 4th century. Its from that same website that gave us the info on Jifna.[1] --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


I'll be glad to, will do tonight while I'm stuck online in an online meeting. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Imperical Trans-Antarctic Expedition II

Hi, Brian!
Sorry for being impatient, but how are you advancing? ;-)--RedSolution (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm currently writing something about Amundsen's expedition, but this time it is my own work and not just copied from you. ;-)--RedSolution (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Richard Wagner

Hi, Brian. Your Rhinemaidens article has got a mention on the project talk page. Care to join us? (Or indeed WP:WPO for opera in general?) You're the sort of contributor I (and no doubt others) woudl like to see involved in the projects. Even if you prefer to work on your own, it's probably worth watching the talk pages.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rhinemaidens: Categories

Hi. Have a look at Category:Opera. You'll see that it is the over-arching category for all sorts of sub-categories. The only individual articles shown there are those that are about opera itself. An article about the Rhinemaidens in the Ring falls into the area covered by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Richard Wagner, and, as you will probably have noticed, I sought help from project participants about the most appropriate sub-category for it.

If every article connected with any aspect of opera was put into the category Opera, it would have an enormous number of entries and would serve no useful purpose. A number of us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera have spent a lot of time organising operatic topics into useful sub-categories (and sub-sub-categories, and so on). Feel free to air your views at the Opera Project's Talk page. Best. --GuillaumeTell 00:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

GAN question

Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Changing_the_name_of_a_nominated_article - ping :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Congratulations on having one of your articles on the main page!--Berig (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


I've always taken 'Devonshire' to be a mistake? Sorry if I was wrong, just I've never heard it officially called that. Tom walker (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Map disaster

Brian, you've probably seen by now that the map I made for Discovery Expedition has been deleted for reasons discussed on the article's talk page. Reviewers at the Commons have deleted my original for the same copyright reasons. I'm very sorry about this, and it caught me by surprise. The base map that I uploaded from the NASA site was not copyrighted, but the scientist who made it was able to use a copyrighted British database to create the edge boundaries. People who know much more about Wikipedia and copyright law than I do not necessarily agree that the British firm can place copyright restrictions on my derivative work on this basis, but I gather that the Commons administrators must stay on the safe side. That's what I would do if I were them, so I don't blame them at all. This leaves us for the time being without a map. It's possible that a way may still be found to use the map I made. Alternatively, we could look for another base map and start over. Finetooth (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The database manager doesn't say this specifically, but the copyright no doubt prevents commercial re-use of the map. I think this means it can't be published on the Commons, which does not allow blocking of commercial re-use. Our use isn't commercial, but other people might decide to put our map on a T-shirt and sell it. Exceptions are sometimes made on Wikipedia for one-time use of low-resolution images, but that does us no good in this case. Some other way to use the map legally that also satisfies the Wikipedia rules may exist, but I can't think of one. I hasten to add that I've been a Wikipedian only since last summer, and my level of ignorance about copyright questions and some internal Wiki workings is still high. That said, the loss of my work is merely a slight nuisance, and I'd be glad to cooperate in making a new map if we can find a base map that's safe to use. I don't know how easy that will be, though. Antarctic ground surveys do seem non-trivial, as the manager put it, and photos from above might not capture the level of detail we're looking for. If we can find a way, though, I'm up for another try. Finetooth (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Saved from disaster by User:Howcheng. All's well that ends well. Finetooth (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

South Orkney map

The URL you sent me returns a 404 error, but here is a link to that site's main page, and this one links to a page with a South Orkney map. I doubt that the government of Argentina has released the image to the public domain, but an e-mail address for the webmaster is given at the bottom of the main page: You could ask directly. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can find any South Orkney maps in the public domain. I still consider myself to be in map kindergarten, so I can't guarantee success. Finetooth (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the same one I found. I'll bet the webmaster speaks English. Finetooth (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
On the Commons I find Image:Orcadas.png, which is part of a collection called Atlas of Antarctica. Something here might be useful depending on what you need. Finetooth (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that you got no reply to your e-mail to Argentina. Perhaps one will still appear. I haven't found another South Orkney map in the public domain, and I even have doubts about the one on the Commons. It is not currently being used in any articles, and it was generated using software called Generic Mapping Tools (GMT). The software is freely available on-line, but the finished Orcadas map includes mention of GMT and OMT (whatever that is) and the name of the man whose OMT web site includes and explains GMT. This overlapping of people with various and possibly commercial interests in GMT-generated maps worries me after our unfortunate experience with the NASA map. As I say, I am still in map kindergarten. Perhaps User:Howcheng could advise you or User:Kmusser, who knows a great deal about Wikipedia cartography. If the licensing is OK on the Orcadas map on the Commons, and you decide to use it, I would be happy to modify it to show the location of the base. Finetooth (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown upon Brianboulton for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Terra Nova Expedition - very nicely done, looks like you addressed quite a few points in the WP:FAC discussion, and the article is quite comprehensive. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


I've had a look at the lead and copy-edited it, leaving a few inline queries. The writing is not bad, but needs copy-editing throughout. It has the potential to be good writing with a few changes in strategy: (1) need to identify sentence snakes and awkward structures; (2) could use a few more commas in this register; too many instances of "but". Cheers. TONY (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Brian, I notice your FAC is languishing a bit, just sitting there without notice. I got to it because Maralia threatened me with violence, and I'm very afraid of her. However, it might help if you spruce up the reason for nomination. As Giano's FAC guidelines for fools suggests, make it sexy. For this article I translate that into - why did you choose to write about this? Why are you so emotionally invested in all the work that goes into it? What inspires or angers you about the topic? If you can state that without coloring people's reviews before they read it, they might be more inclined to read and review it. Or, you can just include "sex" in your reason, but that might be somewhat random. What do you think? --Moni3 (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi Brian, I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your review of Pied-Noir. I've addressed the simpler parts of the review and am going to take some time to work on the more complicated portions, such as the references and the need for history past the 1960s (thanks for pointing that out, by the way...I have no idea how that never occurred to me). Anyway, just wanted to thank you! Lazulilasher (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I added something to User talk:Mauvaisegraine - hopefully it is the right tone. I see Lazulilasher has added something to my remarks there now too. Thanks for the notice Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd like to add my congratulations too. Your series of Antarctic expedition articles is quite wonderful. Finetooth (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Cook maps

Sorry I was so lazy about it. I finished the maps some time ago, but I just hadn't uploaded them. I put a link to them under your last comment on Talk:James Cook. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I left you a reply on my talk page and I also left a message on Mauvaisegrain's talk. I did this prior to reading the peer-review comments. I wanted to apologize to you that this has occurred since you were, actually, only reviewing the article and not actively contributing. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

G.A. Review

Many thanks for reviewing the Vanguard article. As I've very limited time right now for wiki it looks like a fail unless another editor can work on it. I'll leave some comments on the article talk page. BR, Valenciano (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the time spent on the review. Iļl have a go at it again next month when I've more free time here. Valenciano (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


I was wondering if a browser issue might be involved. I use Firefox most of the time and Internet Explorer as needed. They have always "seen" the columns, and I was unaware that everybody wasn't seeing them. A software "fix" might be available that would allow you to see them on your screen. Finetooth (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was partly wrong about this. When I double-checked today, my Firefox browser showed the two columns, but my Internet Explorer only showed one. I just never noticed this difference before today. Meanwhile, I see that the column visibility issue is being discussed on the FAC talk page. Finetooth (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review George H. W. Bush

Hi Brian, I am writing to inform you that I have completed the list of recomendations at Talk:George H. W. Bush. Please see my comments at the bottom for more. Thank you very much for taking the time to provide us with such a detailed list. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm writing to let you know that I have finished with your second list at the GHWB talk page. Thank you, truly, for all your help. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)