User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 48

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Calvin  &bull; Watch n'  Learn 14:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And again. Calvin  &bull; Watch  n'  Learn 19:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And agiannnn Calvin  &bull; Watch  n'  Learn 14:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Agnew FAC
Hi. Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the time you took looking at the opening paragraphs and responding in such detail. You make a lot of excellent points - I've responded in detail at the FAC. --Dweller (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Brian, and let me echo the comments of Dweller above. It may not be your style but if you're still prepared to review the article, you could put comments on the article talk page so Dweller and I can attend to them post-haste?  I understand you'd prefer to see this go through PR (which your review would be equivalent to) but now we're here, I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to help us in this slightly different way to the way you would normally approach FAC?  If not, no worries, Dweller and I will continue to attempt in improving the article, but your comments, however they're delivered, would be much appreciated.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind adding review comments to the talkpage, as you suggest, but the problem is one of time; you really need my further comments quickly, within the timescale of the current FAC, and I can't promise how soon I could get down to this task. At present I have an article of my own being prepared for FAC; I have another which I am preparing for TFA; I am also trying to tackle the rather alarming backlog of articles waiting for reviews at PR, as well as responding to other requests for help - not to mention my involvements in other FAC reviews. My offer to review the Agnew article at PR was primarily to use the breathing space between FAC archiving and renomination, when I could tackle the job in a more systematic way. I will do what I can, but it may not be much within the next several days. Meanwhile, if you or Dweller could see your way to knocking off a couple of reviews from the PR backlog, that would help me a lot (though they are not a particularly compelling bunch of titles at the moment!) Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

(PS: though you may fancy Jack Crawford)

Hello Brian, I've done a couple of PRs today, both list related, I have broad horizons when it comes to that sort of article. Hopefully aiming to do a couple more in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I'm pretty chocka today, but will try to get to PR tomorrow. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done this one from the backlog. Tomorrow, I'll get back to Aggers (there are some outstanding issues that have been waiting for me) and then I'll probably do another PR to help out. --Dweller (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Brian, I've done eight peer reviews in the last couple of days including knocked a few off the backlog. Hopefully you can see your way to having a look at Aggers if you get a moment?  Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for you efforts on the PR page. I will try to get to Aggers later today (though I am having to monitor TFA) Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for some perceptive and detailed points at the article talk. I'll get there as soon as I can. Standing offer: please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page with a PR you'd like me to help out on. At worst I'll say no. --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Relook at Brabourne Stadium
Hiya, This refers to your peer review of Brabourne Stadium earlier this year. Have tried to address the issues you had flagged. Wondering if you could take another look? Cheers, Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 06:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You have addressed many of the points that I raised. But the issues relating to the lead have not been dealt with; there is still substantial uncited information in the "Cricket matches" section; you still have "p." and "page". There are other small fixes needed. So I think that overall there's still a fair amount of work needs doing, though you are making progress. Brianboulton (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Tosca
Could you review this edit? Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems OK; it's what I do, now, per Gianni Schicchi (and Les pêcheurs de perles). Unless there's an issue I'm not seeing? Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I was uncertain and since I monitor it, I figured I'd check in with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer review of Jud Süß (1940 film)
Hi Brian, Thanx for your initial comments on Jud Süß (1940 film). I have addressed the points you raised and would like to ask you to give the article another look. I am hoping to push this article to become a featured article candidate. Please let me know if you see any other issues that I should address before bringing it to FAC. Thanx again.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at the "Plot" section. It's screaming red messages. Brianboulton (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, just my luck that you took a look at the article just at the moment that I was in the midst of an overhaul of the plot summary. Since I had not written the original plot summary, I decided to go back over that section with a fine-tooth comb to source every bit of it.  The screaming red messages were due to an error that I made with the references and fixed in short order.  The article is now back in a stable state.  Please take another look.  Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I have taken another look. You seem to have dealt with the points that I raised at the peer review – although as I pointed out then, because of shortage of time my review was more superficial than I would have liked, so I didn't necessarily pick up everything that requires attention. One thing I didn't comment on was the non-standard article structure. I have looked at a number of film articles that have become featured. They differ in many ways, but one factor common to all is that the "Plot" section comes at the top of the article. It seems to be standard that articles follow the general sequence Plot, Cast, Production, Reception, with various supplementary sections thereafter. You have Plot and casting at the end of your article. To conform with the standard your final three sections ("Plot", "Analysis" and "Cast") should be moved to the beginning. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I was aware that the points you raised were "initial comments" and not comprehensive. If you have time to give it a closer look, I'd appreciate it.  If not, I could wait a bit if you thought you might have more time soon.
 * --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, analysis cannot be presented until the plot has been presented and so it will go wherever the plot goes. It is a trivial edit to move the sections to the beginning as you recommended. However, I was wondering if the article is more useful to the reader in the current format. This film has such a high profile as a symbol (arguably even the symbol) of anti-semitic Nazi propaganda. The sources spend relatively little time on the plot details except to the extent that they need to point to something to illustrate a point they're making. In fact, most of the scholarly sources provide very few plot details. The plot details came from a German cinema program of that era. In light of these points, how critical do you think it is to move those sections to the beginning of the article?
 * --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've moved the "Plot", "Analysis" and "Cast" sections to the beginning of the article as you suggested. Do you have any other suggestions or comments for improving the article? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Any further comments? How does a Peer Review end? Does the reviewer close it? Do you think this is ready to go to FAC? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You can close the peer review yourself (see instructions on WP:PR page), when you think you have enough comments, or when you think you probably won't get more comments. Good luck with it if you decide to take it to FAC. One issue that might arise there concerns the plot section, which at 1,200+ words is rather long, and some might think overdetailed. You should be prepared to defend this. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is my first Peer Review and I've never taken an article to FAC so I really don't know what to expect. You initially indicated that your comments were "initial responses" because you didn't have time to give it a closer look.  Then you took a closer look and had only a few structural suggestions.  I'd like to think that your lack of extensive comments is because this is a darn good article and there isn't much more to say but I don't want to be too smug and over-confident either.


 * Your point about the plot summary being over long makes sense to me. I'll look at it to see what can be trimmed.


 * I wasn't sure if a Peer Review was supposed to involve only one reviewer or was supposed to get comments from multiple reviewers. You're the only one that has commented so far so I'm a bit cautious about assuming that this means the article is ready to go to FAC.  I'm thinking about asking Karanacs to take a look since she and I have interacted on other articles before.


 * --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

US 2 FAC
Your comments have been addressed, and have the entire article an full and independent copy edit. Can you revisit the nomination?  Imzadi 1979  →   01:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do so shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a question at the FAC based on your last reply. Can you please revisit the comments made since your last reply?  Imzadi 1979  →   23:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And another
Being in a writing mood, I have landed Garret Hobart at PR. Do not bother with the Assay Commission article, that is so far down the list it may never surface. No hurry on Hobart, just if you feel like it and no one gets there first!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I must be one of the few Englishmen alive who knows – without using the link – who Garret Hobart was, having gleaned this info from your excellent Mark Hanna article. My review may be several days down the line (the PR backlog is looking unshiftable at the moment) but I will get to it eventually. Brianboulton (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the praise, Hanna is only waiting for a delegate to promote the half dollar. As I said, no hurry. I am going to check an archives on him on Thursday, mostly for images.  I know they have some, it is just a question of provable copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Les pêcheurs de perles
I'd be glad to. It might take me a few days to complete the review, but I look forward to it. Finetooth (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Stanley Holloway
Hello, Brian. You participated in the peer review for Stanley Holloway. The article has now been nominated at FAC, but it has only received one set of comments there. If you can review the article and comment here, it would be much appreciated. If you know of anyone else who might be interested in doing so (other than Tim, who knows about it), that would be super. All the best, and enjoy the holiday season! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will look at it soon. You could ask Malleus; he gives good value if you can get him but I'm not sure if he is reviewing at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Amundsen's South Pole expedition
This is a note to let the main editors of Amundsen's South Pole expedition know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 14, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 14, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



The first expedition to reach the geographic South Pole was led by the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen. His party arrived at the pole on 14 December 1911, five weeks ahead of a British team led by Robert Falcon Scott. Amundsen and his companions returned safely to their base, and later learned that Scott and his four companions had died on their return journey. Amundsen's initial plans had been to explore the Arctic, but he decided to go south on hearing that both Frederick Cook and Robert E. Peary were claiming to have reached the North Pole. However, he kept this revised objective secret until after his departure. The expedition arrived in Antarctica in January 1911 and after months of preparation the five-man polar party set out in October 1911. The route from their base at the Bay of Whales took them across the Great Ice Barrier and up the Axel Heiberg Glacier. The party's mastery of the use of skis and their expertise with sledge dogs ensured rapid and relatively trouble-free travel. Although the expedition's success was widely applauded, the story of Scott's heroic failure and tragic death overshadowed its achievements. For his decision to keep his true plans secret until the last moment, Amundsen was criticised for what some considered deception on his part. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer review backlog
It was some time ago (so long ago in fact that the section is no longer on your talk page), but I had kept the peer review backlog in mind. Are reviews like this helpful? Also, I left a note on the nominator's talk page as it had been a few days since it had been opened. If there are ever any history of science ones at peer review, I'd be happy to help with those. I think I did once add myself to a list of people willing to review on that subject, but didn't always respond to the requests that resulted from that. Should have more time for that now. Carcharoth (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Any help you can give at peer review will be greatly appreciated. The extent of the backlog, and the general shortage of peer reviewers, means that many articles are getting shorter reviews than hy should, but often a relatively brief summary of the main issues requiring attention can be helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
No offense intended. Bottom line: I really don't want to lose this guy; I could be wrong, but I believe he has a lot to offer us. But the experience he's had so far on Wikipedia has been frustrating, and it's been difficult to watch that and not be able to do much about it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No apology called for. I have the greatest respect for your frequent and often selfless efforts on the FAC page. I do think, however, that nominators need to respond directly to issues raised in respect of their nominations. I also have a separate concern, after reading the early sections of this article, that the prose is at [resent generally below featured standards, and will require a lot more work to bring it up to scratch – more than can be done within the framwork of the nomination.  Brianboulton (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks kindly. Well, as I say, because of my bias, I'm only going to offer "qualified support", and let you guys thrash it out.  Let me know if I can be of help. - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Crawford
Thanks as ever for the review and very helpful comments. I've addressed most of the points but I will need to do a little more hunting around to answer some of the questions. There are a few places to look but it may take a while so this article may have to go on the back-burner for a while; if it's ok, I will let you know when I'm done (successfully or not!). --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Farthest South
Carcharoth raised a question at WT:MIL about the Milhist tag. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The Constant's FAC
I doubt you're going to get much in the way of thanks for asking me to take a look at The Constant's FAC nomination, and I doubt that I will either, but c'est la vie. Malleus Fatuorum 03:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, at least the nom gets some feedback instead of just being archived, and then renominated, so thanks anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Your Christmas Greeting brought some much needed cheer to me - I laughed out loud when I read it. My greeting will follow in a few days, but I wanted to say thanks now for what was much appreciated. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Aggers at WP:FAC
Hello Brain, thanks for your help and comments at the recent FAC for Jonathan Agnew. Unfortunately it was closed earlier today as it received no support within three weeks. Seems that your concerns were realised, and we headed to FAC too soon. As such, we'll need to wait a while before renominating the article, some time in the new year. This is just a quick note to thank you for your help up to this point, have a good seasonal period, and look forward to working with you in 2012. Best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - and I particularly appreciate the "Brain" bit. I am fairly sure that, with the extent of my review involvement with the article, I will have no difficulty in supporting it when it returns to FAC. If you want me to look it over before you renominate, I'll be pleased to do so. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Brain, that's tops isn't it? My last day at work for the year, my exhaustion has leaked into my keyboard, so my apologies.  If you don't mind, either Dweller or I will nudge you when we're allowed to renominate, please don't take it as an attempt to canvass a support, it will be a polite request to re-review and comment, nothing more.  And in the meantime, thanks again, have a good Christmas.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Congrats
Merry Christmas and congrats on the promotion of Les pêcheurs de perles to FA moments ago. Finetooth (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good news! Thanks for all your help. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jivesh Here
Hi. My name is Jivesh. One month ago, I contacted Sandy to ask her for some very good copy-editors. Some of her friends suggested you to me. I would be very grateful if you could help me with "Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)" before I take it to FAC for the fourth time? A friend of mine took it there the first free times. Are you good at paraphrasing big quotes (four lines or less)? Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 12:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Jivesh. You seem to be quite busy around the encyclopedia these days. Who is this "fiend" of yours? Unfortunately, I will not be able to copyedit the Halo article; first, because I have too many WP commitments all pressing for attention at the moment, secondly, because I am not very competent at these "song" articles being, by your standards, quite old (not perhaps as old as Malleus or the great Tim riley, but still relatively aged – I can remember Elvis being alive). There are better editors than me for putting song article to rights; have you contacted User:Melicans? Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the typo. Lol at your message. It made me laugh a bit. Well, I have always loved editing Wikipedia but I edit only articles related to my eternal queen. Well, coming to that friend of mine, he is User:Tbhotch. A very nice, kind and polite editor. Melicans is busy right now. And when he will be free, I won't be here. Can you please suggest me another very good copy-editor? Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 10:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you speak French? Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 15:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed these two posts. If you've had no joy yet in finding a copyeditor for your article, I'll put you on my list; you may have to wait for a week or so, but I will get to it eventually. I don't know why my French language skills are relevant; if you want me to order a meal for you in a restaurant I can probably oblige, but if you want something technical translated you'd better look elsewhere. Meanwhile, Bonne Année! Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. I saw French on you page. That's why I asked. I know French very well. Though neither English nor French are my mother language. I will be happy if you have a look at it. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 15:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas...
...and a very Happy New Year, Brian! Thanks so much for all your wonderful articles. All the best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hobart
All done, though a few I gave explanations rather than changes. Many thanks and happy Boxing Day.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

1740 Batavia massacre at FAC
Hi Brianboulton, thanks for the review (I hope the brandy agreed with you). I've addressed your comments at Featured article candidates/1740 Batavia massacre/archive1 and would like further feedback if possible, as some of my edits were not entirely in line with your suggestions. Thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've dealt with your comments. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Len Hutton
HI Brian. Sorry to bother you yet again, but I've another favour to ask. I'm hoping to nominate Len Hutton at FAC but as you can imagine its quite a big topic and I've been working on it for ages. I'd really appreciate it if you could have a look at the PR and see what you think. As usual, any advice appreciated. Please let me know anything I can do to repay the (many) favour(s)! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good subject choice, longish article...I'd like to peer review it, but it will be a few days before I can get to it, as I have a number of commitments at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry if it takes a few days; I'd greatly appreciate your comments and there is no great rush. I've a few things to be working on already. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No rush, and tell me to go away if you are too busy, but do you think you will have chance to take a look? I would really value any advice, but no problem if it won't be possible. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Walking away resolves nothing...
Thank you. Your words have hit home. I can see I have p****d not only you off, but a host of others to by abandoning the FAC at such a critical stage. I'm very sorry but I had my reasons (which I have explained to Tim and Ssilvers). Your opinion of me is evident within your message but to be fair I won't lose sleep over it. I always try to stick to the rules so will omit to breach WP:CIVIL in my reply to you, so just to say many thanks and have a great new year! Cassianto (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is expressed about your actions, not about you personally. I don't know you; you seem like a competent editor with much to offer the encyclopedia, but you need to keep a lot calmer, and to assume good faith on the part of those who venture  criticism. I hope you will revoke your resignation and come back to the FAC which, apart from the outstanding image questions, looks well set for success. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. Everyone lose their cool here now and then.  You are welcome and needed.  You lose nothing, not even face, in returning to the article you have worked hard on.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hepburn
Thank you for getting back to me, you're very kind. I really do keep going back on forth on whether I want to aim for FA or not. At one point I committed to the idea, then a couple of weeks ago I decided it was just too stressful, now I'm starting to think "Don't give up on it when you've come this far.." Gahh! So I have recruited another opinion to help me decide, and I'm afraid that person was you. No pressure or anything. ;) I know you already do a lot on WP so keep my comments brief (whatever you can offer) and do it whenever suits you; I'm in no rush at all. And I'll say again, I'm fully prepared to be told that it would need a lot of work so don't feel bad if that is the case. Thanks again. --Lobo512 (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that
I have a tendency to overlook a comment now and then. I'll fix that sentence about Hobart.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Creighton
I know you're busy, but since I still have a few days before I leave, I could benefit from more prose comments at Talk:Mandell Creighton (and remedy the flaws while the iron is hot). The image issues seem to have been resolved. Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Will add more later today. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Charles Villiers Stanford
Hah! So you think you have bagged the most obscure composer to reach FA, in the form of Percy Grainger. I'll see your Grainger and raise you Stanford, whom I have at PR with a view to getting the curmudgeonly old cuss up to FA. Any contributions you feel moved to make will be esteemed a favour. Tim riley (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Stanford obscure? Why, his ditties are trilled all day by the village wenches where I live. Still, I'll be pleased to look him over...but beware! There is a price to be paid, in the shape of the lost works of (you-know-who), slowly emerging from the mists of history like some erstwhile Conservative leader, and whispering softly: "Review me...review me... review me!!!" Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have I overlooked a request from you to get the lorgnette out for a Boulton special? Or is this just a general Monteverdian threat? In which case I am fireproof: happy to read all about him as long as I haven't got to listen to the music. In any case, isn't Mrs T featured in Lully's Persée – played by a tenor, I see. Tim riley (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fear not, the lost operas (all seven) are coming in a portmanteau article which (wives and servants permitting - "Can't you leave that laptop alone for a bit?" ) will apppear early in the new year. No music, or hardly any, but I have managed to spice it up with pictures of ladies with no clothes on (not Mrs T.) Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Unexpected, but delightful all the same. Many thanks. I haven't looked at Driberg for a while; I hope the vandals and trivis merchants haven't been too busy. Brianboulton (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)