User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Need Help

Dear Brianboulton, as an experienced wikipedian, I pray your kind assistance for the article Dhaka Residential Model College to be featured. The article is yet to be good articlebut I have already nominated it for the WP:GA status. But nobody is coming forward to reviewing this article. I expect that you will review the article and give me constructive suggestions for obtaining GA status and as well as WP:FA status. I will be indebted to you if you consider my request. Please don't forget to inform your thoughts on my talk page. Thanks, Tanweer (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Brianboult for your reply and suggestion. In accordance to your suggestion, I have already withdrawn WP:GA nomination of Dhaka Residential Model College. But I can't find out where are the problems, anyways as you are more proficient and experienced than me; I think you will certainly help me to develop the article. Please tell me what to do next. Thanks, Tanweer (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Franz Josef Land Map

From the Nansen peer review has come a request that we add a couple of locations to the Franz Josef Land map, since these locations are mentioned in the text. These are:-

• Cape Felder: This is on the west coast of the island immediately north of Frederick Jackson Island, where the red line skirts the coast'
• Eira Harbour: This is found on the tiny island on the 80° latitude line, just west of Cape Flora.

I almost hestitate to ask whether these are possible...? Brianboulton (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Added, thanks. Is this OK? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • All fine, now, a great job done. I will continue to tinker with the prose, await more PR comments - and catch up with reviewing work. The main map stays at the top, I reckon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I have several questions, none super important. 1) Do you want to add the very inaccurate Payer (?) map of Franz Josef Land to the article? 2) Should we transfer the old maps / images that are not already there to Commons too and make a Nansen's Fram Expedition category there? That way all the old maps and such would be available to the interested reader (I can do this if you want) 3) Niagara offered to convert my PNG maps to SVG format. I think they are fine as is, but SVG seems to be the wave of the future. Let me know what you think, and I will try to revoew some more PRs too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

On these issues:

• The Payer map will tend to clutter the article unless we drop an image, which I am reluctant to do. I think I would prefer to add a footnote which gives a link to the map, but not include it directly with the text.
• By all means transfer the maps and images to Commons (my Vardo photo probably doesn't belong in a Fram expedition category)
• Let's take the SVG offer - nothing wrong with your maps but, as you say, SVG seems to be expected in potential featured articles.

Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Agree on the Payer map and clutter issue. Will transfer the images over the next few days (titles will remain the same). Will ask Niagara next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the two SVG maps Niagara has made so far. I also found a stray line of text - seemed like it could be deleted, but I just commented it out for now - see diff. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Remain in Light

Hi, I've nominated this article which you kindly peer reviewed at FAC. I'd love to hear what you think and any possible comments/verdict. Thanks, RB88 (T) 19:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review: Galveston Bay Area

Note: The article has three major cleanup banners, all dated September 2009. Peer review requires that articles be free of such banners (see Nomination procedure on WP:Peer review page). If you are in dispute with the editors that posted them, could you find a non-involved editor to determine whether they are still valid? Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

To make a long story short, this article has been the target of various attacks. Though during an earlier failed attempt to have the article deleted numerous editors supported the article, there remain some editors with interest in the Houston area that, for whatever reason, seem offended by the very existence of the article (I could go into why I think that is but suffice it to say I believe that the reasons have little to do with Wikipedia and a lot to do with regional biases). I added numerous references since these most recent banners were added. To be frank, the neutrality banners IMHO are without merit and I don't believe were put forward in good faith. Among other things, though I had requested more clarification and justification the editor who left these has refused to comment further and so I feel justified in saying that adding these banners was more an attempt to block progress than an attempt to improve the article. The "references" banner I could remove since I have improved the referencing but I was hesitant to remove any banners given the obviously bad feelings surrounding the article right now.

I have mostly refrained from further edits for the last few weeks hoping that once this editor calmed down he/she might rethink his/her behavior but nothing has happened. I put out the Peer Review request hoping to at least get some useful feedback while giving that situation time to resolve itself. I have sought help from other editors with interest in Houston-related topics but, honestly, because this article has become such a hot potato, I think most of the editors just don't want to get involved (i.e. not worth making people you need to work with angry with you over one single article).

So what you are in essence saying is that this editor is successfully getting his/her way in blocking progress. Any other suggestions would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. As a non-involved editor I will look at the article and determine whether there is any merit in the banners. If this is not the case I will proceed with the peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! FYI: Most of the previous discussions on the article's talk page I archived because the talk page was getting a little long and the discussion was ugly to boot. On the current talk page I recopied the last editor's complaint (sans my response since I gathered the editor felt insulted). You can read some of the earlier discussions if on the archive if you like. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of being a pest ... A sore point in the discussions on this article was the definition of the topic. Since the area is not specifically recognized by any official U.S. government body I had to present an imprecise definition based on multiple sources (c.f. West End of London, South Side (Chicago)). I think the way I approached this is reasonable but a neutral perspective on this would be much appreciated. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your efforts in the review process! It is much appreciated. To answer some of your specific questions:

• Does this lead provide a complete summary of the article's content? It seems on the short side. - You are probably right. I was trying not to make the lead too long but maybe tried too hard.
• Again, the map and its caption are very confusing to people (like me) who are unfamiliar with the area's geography. What is the significance of the different colours? - Very good feedback to get from somebody not associated with the region. So the issue that kept coming up in the discussions was that the term "Bay Area" is used in different ways by different sources. The red area indicates the region that all sources refer to whereas the lighter colors represent areas that some sources might not be referring to. In general the article is discussing all of the communities around the bay but since there was such violent disagreement among editors about putting any single definition above the others I was hesitant to put too hard a stake in the ground on that. If you would like to venture a strong opinion it would be much appreciated as, obviously, yours would be unbiased. Personally I'd rather just should all of the communities around the bay a single color and call that the "primary" definition (which I kind of imply in the text without absolutely saying so).
• Also, again there may be an issue with the title - can 1901 really be considered as in "modern times"? - I guess this is a tomayto/tomahto sort of thing. In some contexts "modern" could mean 15th century. I could use "20th century" if you think that is preferable.

I'll start working through your suggestions.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Press request

Hi, there ! I have an e-mail from a reporter at The Washington Post, wanting to interview me about Epicadam (talk · contribs)'s work on the featured article, Washington, D.C. I'm uninterested in talking to the press :) I see you were heavily involved at the peer review; might you be interested in talking to this fellow? If so, I can forward the e-mail to you. If not, can you suggest any one else (possibly Aude (talk · contribs))? Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing that I was born on the 4th July, I suppose that I'm yer man, but...well, OK then. After today I shall be away from home for a few days, with only limited online access, but if that's not a problem send me the email, and I'll see what I can do with it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I shall remember to wish you happy birthday next year ! I'll forward the e-mail now ... or actually, how can I forward if I don't have your e-mail? Can you e-mail me first? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Er...how do I email you? I don't have your email address either. Other users (Awadewit, Slim Virgin, Ealdgyth, Ling Nut, Yomangani etc) have emailed me in the past, but I've never initiated the process. Sorry to be so helpless. Brianboulton (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Go to my talk page, and click e-mail this user on the left in the toolbox and e-mail me something (like Hi, don't forget my birthday next year:) ; that will give me your e-mail, and I'll forward the reporter's e-mail. Thanks, Brian !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, it's at Special:EmailUser/SandyGeorgia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[1]--Wehwalt (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Brian. By the way, I know your user page says you're not interested in adminship (smart man), but there are backlogs everywhere, and Wiki really needs admins. Any chance you'd reconsider? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought I'd show willing by browsing the WP:RfA page. My God! I don't stand a chance. For a start, my honest answer to the inevitable first question: "What administrative work do you want to do"? would be "No idea, really". Then there's all those other difficult questions. And the voting - the horror, the horror! Another thing is that if by some insane twist my RfA proved successful, this might interfere with the one substantial bit of administrative work that I do at present, which is helping Ruhrfisch and Finetooth to keep the Peer Review process afloat. This takes up an immense amount of time, and eats into my preferred activity of article building. If I became an admin, and actually did something admin-worthy, then either my PR work or my article-writing would suffer. So that's my case, m'lady. Things are probably best kept as they are. Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, look at my RFA]. I survived despite having no plan for work in Admin areas, hardly any work at articles for deletion, and losing fifteen no votes to an ill-considered comment. I think you'd do considerably better.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'd honestly feel happier at the moment sticking to my peer review work and trying to get a few more articles together. I'll bear this conversation in mind for the future, though. Brianboulton (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Lydda

Yes, I'll be ready to start work on it then, and I'll do a few things in the meantime too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Nansen et al.

I am fine with that time line - I need to check on the svg maps as I think there is a template to add to both the png and svg versions that says one is a different format version of the other. I can also do the PR backlog update as needed. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I converted the final image to svg myself (badly), and after Beao kindly fixed it on Commons, added it to the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The svg Franz Josef Land map still has the latitude lines, but they are a pale shade of grey and do not show up well. I will ask Niagara if they can be made darker - I tired to just now, but was unsuccessful. If worse comes to worse we can go back to the png version. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Niagara has already changed the lines so they are darker and more visible. Do they look OK to you now? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the lines now. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) I did not see the FAC template on the talk page, so I was BOLD and added it, which seems to have fixed the problem. Thanks for co-nominating me. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with moving the map back to the journey section and the Fram image to the lead. Do the new arrowheads on the map look OK? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I know you are busy, but Dincher and I finally have Upper Pine Bottom State Park at PR with an eye to FAC. Would you be able to take a look at it sometime? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll move the map later tonight (see if anyone notices). I saw Upper Pine Bottom State Park at PR and will certainly give it some attention, probably tomorrow. On a slightly sobering note, although PR additions are quiet for the next couple of days, no less than nine requests were added on 22 October, and will hit the backlog on Monday night. Ouch! Brianboulton (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I will work on some PRs. For what it's worth, I'd gladly support if you ever had an RfA (and there are a fair number of admins (like myself and Moni3 and Geometry guy and others I am doubtlessly missing) who have the tools but don't do tons of admin work. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can help with these. If need be, we can move them back to Wikipedia from Commons. I added a map to Upper Pine Bottom. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I was working from memory and kept seeing 1893 in the photo dates and made the mistake. We'll see what Awadewit says. I note the image of Colin Archer is already also used on the French WIkipedia too (in the few days since being moved to Commons), so I am reluctant to move them back here (but can do it if needed). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Galveston Bay Area

Just FYI, RJN reverted your removal of his banners on the article.

I may have made an error in judgement. I went ahead and began making edits based on your feedback. I guess RJN had been staying quiet because we effectively had a truce. But when hesaw me making edits he went on a rampage. Hebegan arbitrarily removing whole sections of text from the article that he had problems with and ended up removing your comments and comments of another editor from the talk page. I repaired most of this but I am not sure what's going to happen next.

--Mcorazao (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm refraining from further edits now. As I had mentioned before, though certainly I accept that the article still has issues, the acrimony in the past and now strikes me as regional bias issues (suggesting that some of the things the Bay Area has going for it can be subdivided from the rest of the Houston metro area takes away from the other communities in the area). But I just don't know what to do about that.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If it means anything I grew up on the opposite side of Houston and have never lived in the Bay Area (and don't even live in the Houston area now). So I have no personal stake here other than my investment in time. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, I have requested mediation and am at the moment not editing further. RJN, however, is making some further edits ...

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether you still have an interest but for what it's worth, the acrimony surrounding this article has been "resolved" to the point where progress is again being made on the article albeit with difficulty. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Evangelis Zappas PR

Thank you for your time reviewing the article. I believe it has a potential for reaching 'ga' status. I will make the appropriate corrections/adjustments and post my comments the following hours.Alexikoua (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Sabina Poppea Fontainebleu.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Sabina Poppea Fontainebleu.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ZooFari 05:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Brian, I added {{PD-art}} and removed the 'no license' template from the file, so it should be OK now. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing that - a complete oversight on my part. I am normally ultra-careful about licenses and have no idea that the {{PD-art}} wasn't there. By the way, any comments on the L'incoronazione work-in-progress would be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends/archive1

I took care of most of the suggestions you put, but am unsure about some of the comments. Could you explain the one's I've expressed confusion on? Thanks. The Flash ^{talk} 19:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Philip Larkin

I'm helping some editors take Philip Larkin through FAC. Of course, I suggested a rigorous peer review first! I was wondering if you would be willing to comment here? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be glad to comment on the Larkin article's peer review. It may be a few days; apart from the current FAC I am struggling with L'incoronazione di Poppea, and am also helping another editor with a problematic article. But I like Larkin (the poetry not the man), and will be pleased to help. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Awadewit (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks

I just saw that Nansen's Fram expedition made FA! Congratulations and thanks for including me on the nomination. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was a pleasant surprise! I didn't expect it to be that quick. Your contribution with the maps was absolutely vital, so please congratulate yourself too. And good luck with the next Parks article. Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations to you both! - Hordaland (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well done indeed! I admire your work greatly. (Ice Explorer (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Congratulations to you both. I saw that you were working on it but missed seeing it go to FAC. I look forward to reading it, which I'm going to do right now. Finetooth (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Which I now have. It is riveting, a wonderful addition to the encyclopedia. Finetooth (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I think you are in the main responsible for (now) yesterday's FA on Cosmo Gordon Lang. Huzzah! What a beut! Stunning. You and the team all get a gold star from me. Now, to his father, John Marshall Lang. The Cosmo Lang is "protected" I believe. You suggested that I wait until more published material on John Marshall is available for citation. Brian, I don't think that is ever going to happen. My family papers, prepared by a professional genealogist, have details that aren't in the DNB. I think. What to do, Brian, what to do? P.S. I'm such an infant I can't remember, for purposes of searching your talk archive, when we had our exchange. Too bad we can't meet--I have the "Lang nose"! Well done. Ann.landrey (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. 'twas I who popped in the "William" back in the day. What an SD I am, eh? Now you know I'm Canadian. Final bowl--how could he have abandoned the Scottish Presbyterian Church??Ann.landrey (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Poppea

Looking good so far. My one quibble would be the the description of the work as an opera seria. As far as I know that genre only started in the late 17th century after Monteverdi's death. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. That description is unaltered from the unexpanded article ad I should have spotted it. The correct label is baroque opera. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Grimaldi

Hello, Brianboulton. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Poppea theatre illustration

Are you sure that floor plan is from the Teatro Santi Giovanni e Paolo? In my source [2], it is labelled Teatro Farnese, Parma. The floor plan by Fontana for SS Giovani e Paolo is to the right. Plus the illustration you've got looks like it doesn't have boxes, and is more in an arena style with raked seating. SS Giovani e Paolo had boxes. Worth checking. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Brianboulton. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Congrats!

Way to go on another TFA to shortly be. Also, I've taken Khrushchev to FAC, your views welcome, especially on the comments about sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that was a bit of hit-and-run opportunism on my part. As you know I originally wanted Lang as TFA on 31 October (his actual b'day), but then realised that this was Hallowe'en so forgot the idea. Then yesterday I saw that the 30 Oct slot was free so I went for it. Good for Cosmo. Yes, I will get to Khruschev: whether I can help with the sources issue is questionable as I am not a historian. But I will say my piece. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That is all I ask. I just need to know what the expectations are on a history FA, right now they seem a bit undefined.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rugby articles

Hi Brian! I'm a new editor and I've just completed a page about Tom Roberts, an old Welsh player. I see that you are quite an experienced editor and I wonder if you could give me the odd bit of help from time to time , so hat my articles improve. OwenHurcs (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Image cleanup, TFA, UPBSP

I deleted the images in question - thanks for the heads up. Everyone makes mistakes - I found that I spelled "Pferdsdorf" in an image I uploaded on Commons today as "Pfredsdorf" here.

Also wanted to congratulate you on Cosmo making the Main Page in a few hours.

Finally I wanted to thank you for your very thorough peer review at Upper Pine Bottom State Park, which is now at FAC. It was very helpful. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Giovanni Francesco Busenello portrait

Hi, found a much better quality portrait of Busenello (File:Gian Francesco Busenello.jpg) today and added it to his article. Just a heads-up in case you want to use it for Poppea. If you'd like me to crop it to rectangular version to use in your article, just give a shout. Re the Teatro Farnese image. I might upload another version for use in that article. But I'd have to expand it first. There's no room there now. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The new Busenello portrait looks fine as it is in the L'incoronazione article, thanks for finding it. I will re-upload the Teatro Farnese drawing for eventual use in the theatre article. Brianboulton (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Me again. I also found a portrait of Anna Renzi File:Anna Renzi.jpg, but you may have enough pictures by now. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sure we can fit Anna Renzi in somewhere, thank you for the suggestion. I would really like to include an image from a modern or semi-modern production of the opera, and the one I like best is this from the historic 1962 Glyndebourne production, partly because Cuenod is such a legend (he was sixty at the time of this production and is still alive!, aged 107). It would have to be on a fair-use rationale, but I might float the idea with an image expert. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly worth a try. It's a marvelous picture! Voceditenore (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Zappas

Sorry for my delayed response. I had a tough shedule these days. I've done a number of correction/adjustments in the article's first half which was peer rewieved. Any additional suggestions would be vital. Thanks a lot!Alexikoua (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Fancy reading about a diet?

No, not a fad diet for celebs. A diet that is used to treat epilepsy. Awadewit mentioned your name wrt reviewing and maybe copyediting. Ketogenic diet is at peer review. I've had some good feedback from some WP:MED friends, plus Awadewit has copyedited the top half and given her comments too. I think I've dealt with all the comments to date, which have really helped. I'd love to have some more comments from non-medical folk as I really want this to be engaging and accessible to all. Do you think you could have a look, red pen in hand? Thanks very much. Colin°^Talk 20:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be normally pleased to do this, but at the moment I have some extremely heavy current review commitments, and I am struggling with an article of my own that is giving me headaches. I see that Ketogenic diet has had some stellar attention at peer review; some articles that have been there almost two weeks are still in the backlog waiting for their first review comments, and I think it only fair, when I have time, that I ought to help out there first.. I will keep an eye out for your article and will comment if time and opportunity permit. Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. I have some good wiki friends and am grateful for their reviews. Thanks for the offer, if you have time. Colin°^Talk 21:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thamks for the letter you sent me. I am going to be editting a page about Bentley (Suffolk) railway station soon I hope you will be able to have a look when im done. OwenHurcs (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

York Park

Thanks very much for reviewing the article. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Congrats

Thanks! I'm going to work on the other Inns in a bit. Ironholds (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

thank u

i have seen u r comments on the article- Tourism in Puducherry.thanks for the suggestions. i will restructue the article and get to u. Varun_swm

Khrushchev redux

I think I've got it all done. The only thing that I really couldn't find was much about preschool education. There is some discussion in the Encyclopedia Brittanica about it, but I can't find anything else.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Found a brief reference in the Cambridge History. I think that should be enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That looks good (I should never have thrown those essays away). I'll be looking through the article again, a little later tonight. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the last quibble about WWI? I can't find it. Thanks for the support. These mega-articles are a tremendous pain. After I finish Chamberlain, I think I will stick to shorter stuff. I was in a bookshop in Wales when I was in the UK two months ago and happened to see Smart's new book on Chamberlain and thought, hmm, wonder what his Wikipedia article's like ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wales is a dangerous place, it can lead you down strange paths, so I never go there. The remaining quibble on Mr K, buried in the review somewhere, relates to WW1 and reads: "As now written, you have the Germans "invading" the Donbas after the conclusion of the peace treaty. Shouldn't this be "occupied" rather than invaded?" Ignore, by all means, if you don't think it worth bothering with. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Smart man, that, on both counts. I'll make that change. Too much singing in Wales anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17