User talk:Brianboulton/Archive10

Mozart in Italy
...I think I've done it. The slight typo in the Internet Archive (Exultate instead of Exsultate) meant I had missed this before.

Anywya, the Mozart family Grand Tour composition is in production, and I've finally sorted Italy, at least a bit of it. As it's going to be easier and easier to find material as Mozart matures, please continue to tell me about FA pushes related to Mozart, and hopefully speed will improve. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you think this would be a suitable featured sound, feel free to nominate it. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to join me on Agrippina (opera), then? I'd like to try and get it featured in time for us to have a Handel-related main page item for the 250th anniversary of his death. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect we have all or nearly all of the necessary information, but it could use some copyediting, and identification of weak points to fill in. Handel's anniversary is April 14, and, while Raul seems willing to be a little flexible, we really need to have this up on FAC by next week, which means identifying problems and dealing with them soon. I'll probably be a day or two getting over my current cold, but I should be able to help out reasonable amounts. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll start literature searching it sometime early next week to see if there's anything important we've missed. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind, but I started out by just doing the grunt work: Rearranging sections per the peer review, rationalising image placement, making the template less of an albatross, that sort of thing. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Another accursed Antarctica map
I have uploaded a start at File:Scratch Antarctic Map.png - is this OK? I have not yet added the letter labels. I moved some labels to avoid lines and could try to move or erase the labels for the Shackleton Ice Shelf and Heard Island and MacDonald Islands if you want. Just let me know. I made a map with OMC to check where the two coordinate points were. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I made the line a true arc of a circle and it now crosses more land, including most of Enderby land (you may have to bypass your cache to see the new version. Is this better? Before the part of the line by Wilkes Land was more or less a straight line, now it is all a curve with the same radius. Just to make sure, do you only want the four dates added? Any suggestions on color(s) for the dates? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I added the four dates in black - I made the year 1822 or 1823 instead of just 22 or 23, as I thought that would be clearer. If this is OK, let me know and I will upload it at Commons, probably at a name like "Moreell's Antarctic Voyage.png" (is that name OK?). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is on Commons now at File:Morrell Antarctic Voyage 1822.png - I switched the file names here and in the Morrell artcicle. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Morrell
I certainly owe you one, and I'll definitely provide you some comments within the week; unfortunately, I've got quite a few on-wiki commitments at the moment. Morrell's certainly added to the queue, though! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

James Nesbitt PR
Just a note to thank you for your comments at Peer review/James Nesbitt/archive1‎. I've performed a rewrite and extension of the article over the last week, hopefully taking into account all of the points you've made. Bradley0110 (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

your opinion sought
Brian, since you peer reviewed the RCC Ten Commandments page, I was wondering is you could comment on which version of the page you prefer as per this discussion here. Thanks in advance for your insights.  Nancy Heise    talk  05:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Speyer thanks
Thanks Brian, for the congrats on Speyer's appearance on the main page. I only found out yesterday when the advance edits were made to the talk page to indicate its appearance today. It appears to have been selected by Raul and didn't go through the normal nomination process - presumably because of the low number of articles in its category. Considering how recently promoted the article is, it was very unexpected. I feel quite honoured that it got on to the main page so quickly when there are so many other featured articles of long standing out there.

Once again, thanks for your assistance in getting it through the process. Now I'm off to keep the vandals at bay. --DavidCane (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kirsten Dusnt
Yeah, I fixed the info., so there should be some clarity towards it, hopefully its good... or not. But, I've responded to the criticism of it. It would definitely be a shame if the article is not promoted, especially with your help on it, to which I appreciate it. Listen, I know you are a very, very, very, very busy person, but I was wondering if you can help me with another article. If you can, I would appreciate it, that's if you have some time to spare. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed the user's queries; hopefully, its what the user wants. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

KAL 007
Brian, please let me know if you will be returning to the peer review of this article. If not, then I'll close the review now and submit to GA. Thank you. Socrates2008 ( Talk  )   08:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your reply and for your efforts in reviewing this article.  Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

New references
I'm working the material in, but can you add in the bibliographic information? It'll be easier for you, as you (presumably) own those specific books. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
It's the "New Grove". We only have Grove Music Online at the moment, and I need the bibliographic details for the New Grove to put in the list at the bottom. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean in Agrippina_(opera), sorry. I've added the information from the New Grove, bt we'll be slaughtered at FAC if we don't have the bibliographic details. I can get it online if it's a problem, but I want to match the edition you used, if possible. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I obviously missed the actual details at some point. I thought it was just New Grove p. 110 still. It's... been a rough week. It would be nice to have the Britannica authors, if Britannica lists them, or the editor.


 * I'm presuming reference 22 (as of this moment) is to the Britannica Handel article, and 31 to recitative. I wonder if I can get into George Square (the main Edinburgh University library is there) tomorrow? They probably have Britannicas there. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway, all the information is, at least, in. We're pretty much on schedule. =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Morrell PR
Yes, I'd be more than happy to oblige. I'll start this evening, but tomorrow I'll be away from my computer for most of the day. Rather than working hastily, I'll plan to finish up on Wednesday. Finetooth (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For your careful analysis and helpful comments over at the Ten Commandments in RCC theology. I am going to incorporate your, Johnbod and Xandars new comments.  Nancy Heise    talk  02:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina
That timing sounds great - I'll sort out that Music section s quickly as I can, but, well, a bad cold can slow things a little. Still, shouldn't be too bad - think I just over-summarised the source. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. I think I've wrangled this into some sort of shape. I'm not feeling that well, though, so it's probably not great writing. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, no Encyclopedia Britannica here. Eh, well. That's a minor problem, and easy to sort out later, if necessary. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't read it. I was mainly involved in various minor roles during the GA push - fixing the table, trying to fix some of the prose, that sort of thing (I've had a major role in all the existing opera FAs, though, Thespis (opera) and Trial by Jury, so it's not like I'm completely inexperienced =) ). A lot of this is by Moreschi, who's not been around in a while. Hmm. I'm near the city library. I'll run over there and see if I can find out anything. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. I have photocopies. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't give authors, but it does give the Chairman of the Board and C.E.O. Could just list it as Jacob E. Safra (Chairman), Ilan Yeshua (C.E.O), et al. Or give it as Anonymous, or whatever. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I went with just treating "Encyclopædia Britannica" as the author name. I also consolidated all duplicate references. I suppose I could use citation templates for all the references, but, God, I hate those things. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If worse comes to worse, the National Library of Scotland will probably have it. I've spent the occasional day on their computers using their rarer books to type things in. As for the peer reviewers - I wonder if it's best just to start FA - people are going to tear us apart there anyway; it's just as easy to deal with them at that point. By the way, I'd prefer you did the nomination itself, due to me being stubborn about something probably stupid. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I will be glad to take a second look and can hopefully do so in the next 3 or 4 hours. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Freezeframe.co.uk
Have you seen Freezeframe, a collection of Scott and Shackelton images put on line today by the Scott Polar Research Institute? Might be worth adding as an external link to some of your antarctica artiles. DavidCane (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I will try to get round to doing this, though things are a bit hectic at present. Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Wolters
Hi, I think I have addressed your remaining concern. I am hoping you will support once you see that this has been done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall
Was there anything else I could do over at the FA nomination for Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall to improve the article and earn your support? I have addressed and commented on the concerns you raised previously. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the quotes around "an acquired taste" and "it would be unfair to hold that against him", and I also tried correcting the grammar in the Holden sentence. It now says: "Stephen Holden of Blender called Wainwright's tribute "a fabulous stunt in which a gay singer channeled the spirit of the ultimate gay icon", and declared the album was "as good an introduction to the great American songbook as any." Is this what you had in mind? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! I appreciate your assistance. Would it be alright if I collapsed your comments for organizational purposes, or is that typically frowned upon if done by someone else or the article author? I don't want to overstep any boundaries. Thanks again! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to do it on my behalf Brianboulton (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lydia Foy
Many thanks for your review.

It's very good, and I will certainly implement the suggestions.

Regards,

--  Chzz  ►  18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Noël Coward
Your wise words in the peer review are invaluable. Thank you so much. At your service if I can ever reciprocate. Tim riley (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And the same goes for your further help at the FA review. As no good deed goes unpunished I have stuck a microscopic oar into the Agrippina review, but nothing remotely as helpful as you have been in re Sir Noel. Tim riley (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

PR for Street newspaper
Thank you for volunteering to PR this article! I might be pretty busy over the weekend but I'll try to be around if you have any questions. Feel free to take you're time, I'm not in any rush! Best, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)



r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * Thank you for the very thorough review, and all the insightful comments. I will spend some time over the next several days trying to clean things up as you have suggested; the article is already much better than before, thanks to your help.  Best wishes, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Royal Navy & Polar Exploration
I'd be very interested in assisting in the project you mentioned, although I don't know a vast amount about Polar Exploration. I can start by performing reviews on the articles you put together and maybe I'll be able to develop it from there. (Were you aware by the way that Horatio Nelson once went on a polar expedition?).--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen the picture before, that's brilliant! I did the GA review on the Nelson article but had forgotten that story and was entertained by the imagery, which has been enhanced by that fantastic picture. Is there any specific Naval information you are interested in immediately?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. When you have decided on the best way to proceed drop me a line and I'll help however I can.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you know of these, but William Laird Clowes six volume book The Royal Navy: A History from the Earliest Times to 1900, published in 1900 covers most of the Royal Navy's voyages of exploration. As is often the case with such wide ranging histories, details are often skimmed or left out, but these books provide a naval perspective and a wealth of naval details that other sources may not cover. I have volumes 4 & 5, which roughly cover the years 1777-1815 and can fact check from them, the others will probably require a library visit (they're not cheap unless you get lucky on Amazon). Just a suggestion.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is indeed 7 volumes, whoops! Take your time, I'm snowed under at the moment too, but let me know when you do make a start. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Symphony No. 1 (Rachmaninoff)
Thank you so much for copyediting Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, which came out wonderfully. Would you be inclined and have the time to do so with Symphony No. 1 (Rachmaninoff)? Jonyungk (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As you have finished with Agrippina I think you can check the article, can you? Thanks, OboeCrack (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not finished, yet, with Agrippina, it's still at FAC. I have other commitments, too. I can't promise anything on Rachmaninov just for the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Map modification
Yes, I think I can do that. If I crop just below the label "Antarctica", the continent will no longer be labeled. Would you like me to re-label it somewhere in the remaining lower half? Finetooth (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. See Image:Aurora's drift.png. Please let me know if it needs further modification. Finetooth (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The revisions will be no problem. If I had read a bit more closely, I would have seen that the pink line carried important information and was not to be deleted. I have gained a bit of confidence about map-making over the past year or so. Rather than trying to squeeze another line of type into the Ross Sea, I wonder if putting the line of type further out in the ocean and adding an arrow pointing to the 6 May 1915 spot might not be easier to read. I could do the same with the 12 February 1916 spot, using a similar arrow rather than an X. The arrows solved a clutter problem for me when I was making Image:Columbiasloughwatershed.png. Just a suggestion. Finetooth (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Second version is finished and installed. Just click on the same link above to see the results. If further changes are needed, just ping me. It is no problem to make these changes. Finetooth (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina
Yes, sorry. Had some computer trouble over the weekend. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm certainly willing to help out, and will gladly co-nom. Your timescale sounds good, I just wish I had access to some more generalist material - I've worked in a few journal articles, but can't find a libretto or score which would help with things like the synopsis. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What, in your opinion, is left to do? I'm not sure how many of the remaining complaints in the peer review are practical to deal with. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? The Opera project doesn't have a single FA on an opera, and a mere five GAs, counting Agrippina. I don't think we need pay much attention to section order, as we're being entirely ground-breaking in bringing an opera to FA, and when it was int he preferred order, it was heavily criticised because of that in the peer review. So, you know, if we break the recommendations, it's not like we're breaking any sort of tried-and-tested standard, merely a fairly arbitrary one that has never resulted in an FA. In the Gilbert and Sullivan project, we treated each FA on its own terms, and, unless the Opera project suddenly shows interest in this FA drive, I'm inclined to treat it like all the successful non-opera project opera FAs I've worked on. =)

I don't mean any malice to the Opera project by that - but it's far more geared to new articles than producing top-tier content, and the best content has to work under its own rules. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if I can interest you in another project after this - H.M.S. Pinafore is something I have several dozen books on, and which is a far better article than Agrippina (partially due to much better material - Agrippina is, after all, an opera neglected for two centuries before being re-evaluated fairly recently. H.M.S. Pinafore is a runaway hit performed practically everywhere in the English-speaking world ever since its première.) Ssilvers and I have put several months into it already; it shouldn't be too hard pushing it over the edge to FA. =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm more interested in getting Agrippina through at the moment. And I don't agree with your assessment that the Pinafore article is "a far better article than Agrippina". It may have more information in it, but that's not everything. If you think that badly of Agrippina, how are you going to defend it at FAC? Brianboulton (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'm ill, I'm saying all the wrong things when trying to get my views together, I'm going to bed. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Goodnight :) Brianboulton (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith
Is this an edit you want to stay in the article ? It seems to at least need a source. Same editor did something at Voyage of the James Caird article too. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw it and did not have time to check closely, then later saw intervening vandalism and reverts that buried the older edit. I watch Shackleton so I will be more bold about reverting. If things get too bad I can semi-protect. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
Do you have a moment to do a peer review of Jonathan Strange? It is a new kind of article for me - based on websites and newspapers (gasp!). I would appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will definitely do this - I saw it come up on peer review and mentally reserved it. It will be a day or two, due to other review commitments, but it will definitely be done.Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert Burnell
He's at PR, and he's next up on the chopping block at FAC, can you take a quick gander and let me know what needs work? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do, but it may be a few days before I can clear my present commitments. Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Gilbert can wait, if you're worried about him. He's a bit further down my list, thankfully. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do Robert next. Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks. Malleus leaving has put a hole my life. (sighs). Thanks!Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Noel Coward
Coward has been nominated for FAC. See: Featured article candidates/Noël Coward. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your new image, but I'm feeling a bit like deadweight just now as I haven't been feeling that well. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Mozart Family Grand Tour
Congrats on your latest Main Page Appearance. Have a barnstar.

Agrippina
Everything sounds good. Sorry I couldn't have been more help. =/ Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Banker horse FAC
More has been added to the article's lead. I believe that your concerns have been addressed and would appreciate it if you could take another look. --Yohmom (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Opera in FAC
Hello there! I don't have time to review Agrippina yet, but I'm excited to see it there. I recently started researching in an effort to bring Lucia di Lammermoor to FA. I will follow your FAC with interest to see how it develops. If it is successful, it will serve as a good foundation on which to build other opera FAs. May I call on you in the future for a copyedit or peer review when I've worked on Lucia? -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Will be pleased to help. Keep me posted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
Just saw a certain sea captain's FAC is being closed with a star. Well done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My congratulations as well. Finetooth (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Heavens, what have you been up to when I wasn't looking? How on *earth* do I keep missing your articles at FAC? I am going to have to come up with a way to watchlist your contributions! Off to read it now :) Maralia (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

How was your day in the sun?
Did you revert vandalism on Mozart family grand tour or did you stay away? Awadewit (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I left the vandalism to others, but dealt with some tiresome stuff on the talkpage. I begin to dread my articles being TFA. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I love the people who claim folks write FAs to get on the main page... I don't understand the motivation! At least with DYK, there are other targets and it's only there a short while. TFA is just a vandalism magnet. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ero e Leandro
Well, I've sorted it out so we don't have to redlink in Agrippina. That was... Surprisingly annoying. Evidently, it's just not a major composition, and I struggled to get enough information to link to. If by any chance you have 500 words' more to say about this, and feel like a DYK, feel free, but I doubt me that much is going to happen here. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I added in all the dates Awadewit wanted. I think I've gotten them to flow somewhat smoothly, you may want to tweak. Suddenly, I feel useful again =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barnet peer review
Hi, while you are spending time to write about those pompy composer and delicate musicians (they do make good music though), I got into the nitty and gritty, writing up about the acts of the tough men of ole England! Right, here is a darn good fight, where the prominent Kingmaker met his maker, and his protege Edward IV was the one who did the dastardly deed. Even Willie the Bard had a few words about this fight, however coloured his eyes may be about this. I appreciate it if you could pop down, take a look, and leave comments and suggestions at Peer review/Battle of Barnet/archive1. Jappalang (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I could do with a nice bloody battle. As it happens, a month ago I did a lengthy peer review on Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick so I am a bit of an expert here (for some unaccountable reason the article subsequently failed its FAC but don't let that put you off). I will get to your article soon; if someone beats me to it at PR, I'll still give you my comments. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

invitation
You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at WikiProject Council/Proposals ! :) doncram (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Robert Falcon Scott: semi-protection request
I semi-protected it for a month - let's see if that helps. I have it on my watch list now too, but please let me know if the problem returns next month. I think well known figures are just magnets for vandalism, Johnny Appleseed is in my top 10 in terms of edits, but they are all reverts but 2 or 3. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 10:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He's on my watchlist too. I have seen the rare IP edit that added useful info, but there are times when I wonder if allowing IPs to edit is worth it. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)