User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 84

Identibox
I like you serving the TFA process! Thank you for today's Carsten Borchgrevink,  precious  again! I invite you to check if your first link on this page is still useful, look ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your good wishes, Gerda. I've opened a new thread because I am not sure which link you are referring to on the Margot page. I do like the identibox, though. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You got it ;) - At a glance serving readers with the news that the article is not about a person, not a poem ... but an opera, written about what time and by whom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

PaRty time?
As promised yesterday (through the wine fumes!), an invite to the latest SchroCat peer review, looking at the tragic life and times of John Barrymore. If you're able to make it I'd be mostgrateful, but I understand that you have a lot on your plate at the moment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * With PleasuRe. I am leaving a request for help on your page, too! Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: slightly puzzled note
>is it MilHist custom to vote before, rather than after, the review?

Nope. One of the things one of the newer reviewers said did make it sound that way though! - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure where I come in on this. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * link. - Dank (push to talk) 17:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me – this is a review that I'm ashamed to say slipped from my memory. I see that the article is now at FAC so I'll catch up with it there. Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That was a great review, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

PR Backlog fixed
Hi Brian, thanks for the email. I think I have fixed the problem and the PR backlog now shows up on my browser in its proper place. This edit removed a tag, which caused the problem. I also need to finish the monthly archive chores for PR and will do that next. All the best and thanks again, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy
Brainy Brian, I know you can't do anything without sysop tools (by the way, why not go to RFA ??), but I just wanted to make you aware of Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 9, 2014. I do need to get re-involved at FAC, at least for medical articles anyway, because too much is slipping by. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sandy, thanks fo the note. I made a pact with myself years ago not to be an administrator – fortified by your example of sterling work at FAC despite not being one. Anything you can do, I can do better try to do as well. This candidate, a very recent promotion, was at FAC for nearly two months, had plenty of review attention including a sources review from Nikki, so I'm a bit surprised that issues such as the missing page numbers weren't picked up.   You seem to be in touch with Bencherlite over the blurb wording, so I assume your concerns will be resolved. Your renewed participation at FAC, not just for medical articles, would be  most welcome, when you can find the time. I hope your plumbing emergency has been fixed – most incnvenient. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering the plumbing euphemism related to the article topic, the timing was comical :) Plumber is just about done here, and the damage doesn't look to be too bad! I guess over the years, I've encountered more than enough times when it would have been handy to be an admin, but not enough to outweigh my larger concerns about not wanting to be a member of that club. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Leo Frank quote, citations
I noticed you took out a stray single quote, which appeared like so:
 * "territory 'beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT and absolute certainty,'

with the double quote being closed later on. The first single quote is before 'beyond' in this sentence, so the single quote is in fact correct, as Slaton is quoting the law in which he justified reducing Frank's sentence to life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Also, I'm going through and adding citations as needed, since there are still some places where facts are either uncited or in an obscure place (like trial testimony) instead of a secondary book source. I'll try to keep working on that and make sure your edits remain. Thanks for your help and time, and good luck with FA for A Handful of Dust. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I missed the opening single quote (poor eyesight) – my apologies, restore. My further review comments are now posted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Good Article review?
Brian, four years back, you did a peer review of the Robert Cade article. I nominated it two months ago for GA review, but the GA queue has barely moved in the nine or ten weeks since. Could I talk you into taking on the GA review of it? I think it's pretty clean and needs only minimal editing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's so long since I did a GA review that I'm afraid I might apply unreasonable standards. I'm negotiating with another editor who might take this on if I do a quid pro quo with one of his chores, so there may be help soon. Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help either way, Brian. Higher standards would be perfectly acceptable, too.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am the other editor to whom BB refers, above. I have left preliminary comments on the GAN page.  Tim riley  talk   13:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for arranging this, Brian. Tim has already jumped on it and effectively completed his review. I hope to have occasion to work with you on something else in the near future. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

BNA access
Hi. You requested access to a British Newspaper Archive account via The Wikipedia Library a long time ago. I took over responsibilities as the account coordinator and I approved you for an account about a month ago. I still need you to follow the steps indicated on the e-mail I sent you, including submitting your information on the Google doc that e-mail indicates. If I don't have that information by 15 December, I'm going to archive your application with no further action.

If there's been any confusion or crossed-wires about this process, I apologize. I understand your request waited for some time before I e-mailed you. I'm eager to catch-up with the backlog of requests and other editors are waiting for accounts. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 22:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Chris. There was a delay in my receiving your email because of a general problem I was having at the time, but I did eventually receive it, and thought I had registered - I received a welcome email from BNA on 2 December. On 3 December I received another email which told me that "your first article is completely free to view". This seems contrary to your email of 8 December, which refers to "one of the free access accounts". So either I have misunderstood, or I've registered in the wrong way. I intended to ask you about this, but you've got to me first. Can you clarify? Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two separate parts to it. When you registered on the BNA website, they created an account there like they would anyone with limited free views. You have to put the same info you gave them into the googledoc, so I can tell them to make your account free for a whole year. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt reply. I have given the information to the google doc, which as responded with "Your response has been recorded". Have I done all I need do, now? Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

All off Pat
Four emails sent to you laden with juicy news reports. They cover the story from the initial disappearance until it was found: it's from the first 10 pages of results (28 more pages to trawl (sorry) though) to cover the court case/ramifications etc. - 1,750 or so results in all. If there are any specific aspects of the journey etc you need more work done on, let me know and I can fine tune the searches. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am overwhelmed! This is marvellous stuff – I really can't see that I will need more. I'll begin to read through shortly – when I get the Barrymore review out of the way. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A final batch of six email sent which complete the picture. This takes it through the return of men, then the trawler, the court case, the book of the story, the libel case, and some odds and sods that happened afterwards, including the sale of the boat to the Port of London authority. See also the Grimsby Telegraph: "Grimsby’s infamous trawler, the Girl Pat (GY176) pictured around 1945, when she was purchased by the Port of London River Authority, and spent three years patrolling the River Thames. Nothing seems to be known of her after that." Includes picture of her on duty on the Thames. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * SchroCat, I'm going through the lot; even though I probably have much of this stuff from national press reports, it's surprising what small gems of understanding/misunderstanding can be gleaned from local reports. This is a real treasure trove of information for which I am really grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Book Request
Hello, Brian

I am looking for a book that is probably not written yet, (but maybe it is):

Its name is: "Huntford's Hirngespinste oder wie man es nicht schafft, seine persönlichen Aversionen in Zaum zu halten"

It is a German book and I don't know whether a decent chap like you does actually know it, but you should do, all the best, let me know if you find out something about the book and keep up a "stiff upper lip"!

Until then and with the kindest regards

Shackles--37.230.0.66 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Itals
Looking in to keep an eye on the progress of your FAC for A Handful of Dust I notice this exchange: "FN1 should italicize ODNB"/"I don't think it should – this is the online ODNB, not the printed edition." Your view chimes with my own intuitive feelings. I have so far meekly complied with similar requests to italicise the online ODNB, OED etc, and am encouraged by your stout resistance. But on what specific grounds do you (and I on your coat-tails) defend the absence of itals from online titles of well-known publications? Ever thine, Innocent of Islington, also known on the charge-sheet as  Tim riley  talk   20:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Originally I thought that the online editions of newspapers were simply duplicates of the print versions, and that it was OK to cite the newspaper in the same way as one does for Google books. I now realise that  Mail Online, say, is not the same as the Daily Mail – in that case the difference between shit and shite – but old habits die hard.   Strictly speaking I imagine that the correct procedure is to treat online newspapers as websites, and not italicise them, but this may create difficulties with reviewers, especially as articles are generally common to both versions. So I will probably continue to equivovate until some assertive reviewer demands I do otherwise. Not the boldest strategy I agree.
 * Worth pursuing, though, meseems, unless you and those of like mind find it too much grief to hold the line. I shall endeavour to follow your lead.  Tim riley  talk   17:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Later today I hope to be parking some MacMillan comments on that article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And most welcome they are. Thank you kindly, sir!  Tim riley  talk   17:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Never ceases to amaze me the quality of your reviews Brian and the effort you put into reviewing on here aside from your own work. Thankyou for all the time you put into them.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. Don't forget that my work has also benefitted greatly from the review efforts of others. Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Benefited.  Tim riley  talk   23:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On the other hand....Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Steps to scheduling
Let's take Today's featured article/requests/1924 Rose Bowl as an example, and that you have decided to schedule it for 1st January 2015 and that the blurb and image are fine. To schedule this, you need to do the following:
 * Scenario 1 - nomination at TFAR

1. Open the nomination and make the following changes:

becomes

2. Copy the blurb (including the TFAIMAGE and save the nomination page. 3. Remove Today's featured article/requests/1924 Rose Bowl from the TFAR page (and the summary chart). 4. Go to Today's featured article/January 2015. 5. Click on "create". 6. Paste the blurb that you have copied from the nomination page. 7. Go to the previous day's TFA blurb (in this case, Today's featured article/December 31, 2014) and open it. 8. In the "Recently featured" line of the 1st January page, add the previous day's TFA with italics as necessary i.e. Fijación Oral, Vol. 1, followed by the previous two TFAs (which will be the first two listed in the previous day's blurb, i.e. Thief II: The Metal Age – Three Beauties of the Present Day).
 * 8A: When scheduling for the following month (and at this time of year, the following year) you need to change
 * to
 * to specify the month/year, so that the archive link goes to the right place. If you're scheduling on January 14th 2015 for January 28th 2015, for example, you don't need to do this.
 * to specify the month/year, so that the archive link goes to the right place. If you're scheduling on January 14th 2015 for January 28th 2015, for example, you don't need to do this.
 * to specify the month/year, so that the archive link goes to the right place. If you're scheduling on January 14th 2015 for January 28th 2015, for example, you don't need to do this.

9. Save the page. 10. Go to Talk:1924 Rose Bowl and open it. 11. In the article history, add  and save with an appropriate edit summary. This bit used to be done by a bot but until FACBot adds it to its list of tasks I've been doing it manually. 12. Notify the principal author(s) of the forthcoming appearance (which also used to be done by a bot, and which you've been doing). 13. If you're using user:Bencherlite/TFA notepad, update that. 14. Update WP:TFAREC - as it's the start of the month you need to start a new monthly subpage, which I've done for you at Today's featured article/recent TFAs/January 2015, and I've done the Rose Bowl to show how it's done. (I kept the last six complete months plus the month for which scheduling was in progress; older months get archived to Today's featured article/TFAs in 2014.)

1. Choose the article you want to schedule. 2. Go to e.g Today's featured article/January 2015. 3. Click on "create" for the day you want to schedule. 4. Write the blurb and add the image. 5. Steps 7 to 13 as above.
 * Scenario 2 - free choice

Once it spots that a new article has been scheduled, a bot will apply move protection to the article, so you don't need to worry about that (you only need to worry about move protection if you're rescheduling as the bot won't spot changes within a block of scheduled TFAs, as it only spots new ones added. Does this make some sort of sense? Give it a go and see what it looks like! BencherliteTalk 18:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It makes good sense, I think – I will do as you say, and try it out. Stand by for squalls. Brianboulton (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Step 8A: When scheduling for the following month (and at this time of year, the following year) you need to change
 * to
 * to specify the month/year, so that the archive link goes to the right place. If you're scheduling on January 14th 2015 for January 28th 2015, for example, you don't need to do this.
 * Step 14, which I forgot to mention, is to update WP:TFAREC - as it's the start of the month you need to start a new monthly subpage, which I've done for you at Today's featured article/recent TFAs/January 2015, and I've done the Rose Bowl to show how it's done. (I kept the last six complete months plus the month for which scheduling was in progress; older months get archived to Today's featured article/TFAs in 2014.)
 * Otherwise, apart from a glitch with TFAFULL and mistakenly saying "March" instead of January in your edit summary when closing the TFAR nomination (!), all looks good for your first attempt, and I see that the bot has just applied move protection to the article so that's fine too. BencherliteTalk 21:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try my luck with Tippett (2 January)
 * Tippett done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try my luck with Tippett (2 January)
 * Tippett done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry... 15. Remove the TFA from WP:FADC or WP:FANDC.

On the plus side, I've set up WP:TFAREC so that it always shows the current month's TFAs, the TFAs in the previous 5 months and (if the pages exist) the TFAs in the following 2 months. I've also finished Today's featured article/TFAs in 2014 and started Today's featured article/TFAs in 2015 in a way that should mean that nobody has to touch it for a year, as it will just add new months when they are created. BencherliteTalk 12:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Reminder to myself

 * Today's Featured Article: Notification : This is to inform you that  Michael Tippett, which you nominated at WP:FAC,  will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page  as  Today's Featured Article on 2 January 2015. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. 22:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Barrymore FAC
Hi Brian, As always, many thanks for your work on the Barrymore PR; the article is now at FAC, should you wish to comment further. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Never seen a John Barrymore film? Good grief, what are you missing! Twentieth Century and Bill of Divorcement for starters... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc, Even more shocking is that Lord B hasn't even read a Fleming novel! - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, for what it's worth I do remember seeing Key Largo, a Bogart film that had Lionel Barrymore in it. I consider not reading Fleming to be a badge of honour. I bet I could out-Waugh you both. Brianboulton (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You must have also managed Lionel in It's a Wonderful Life? It's the only thing that makes Christmas bearable! You probably can out-Waugh me: I've only ever managed to get through five (and I thought I was doing well on that, to be honest!) You should try a Fleming; Kingsley Amis was a big fan of both Fleming and (I seem to remember reading somewhere) Waugh too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Crikey. Another particularly fine John Barrymore performance is A Councillor at Law if you can tolerate the annoying receptionist in it! Have you seen it Schro, well worth it. At one point in it Barrmore says something like "I don't even know how to get drunk" or something! which must have raised a tremendous cackle from the audience at the time!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Greeley
If you have such things as spare moments anymore, could you cast your eye over Horace Greeley, presently at PR?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had an eye on this. Somewhat underqualified for the office he sought, perhaps? I've not read it all, but I'm intrigued to know who would have become president if he had won the election and then died when he did. Anyhow, I'll read it over the next few days and perhaps find out. Brianboulton (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)
Hello Wikimedians! The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:


 * Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
 * Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
 * Pelican Books - ebook monographs
 * Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today! --The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
 * This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Merry Christmas
A Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones, Brian, and a Happy New Year! Have a great one. Peace on Earth and goodwill to all men. Love from all the Asher household. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Season's greetings
Many thanks for the card, Brian, and a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you. Thank you again for your invaluable help this year, and I wish you all the best in your new role with the TFA team. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Move article
You can move User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Paul Rinaldo Redfern to mainspace. Have fun adding to it. It needs a good photo. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not planning to add to it – his name came up during my researches and I wanted to know a bit more about him, that's all. Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Barrymore
Many thanks once again for your thoughts on the John Barrymore article. Could I ask you to make one further visit to comment on the question of the inclusion of a family tree. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

More bishops
A minor matter, but your thoughts, as one who knows a font from a West front, would be welcome here (the first of my two additions).  Tim riley  talk   23:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the joke must be true – if someone had made it up they'd have attributed it to a better-known bishop. Campbell seems to be almost vanishingly elusive. Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've chucked in all the anecdotes I can find. You're all too correct about the dearth of sources. If it wasn't for The Times I'd have been spurlos versunken. I think the article as it now stands is about as good as it's going to get, unless you run across anything. All I have to do now is get the Anglican project to accept that his surname was Montgomery Campbell, and not plain Campbell, though that will bugger up who knows how many succession templates!  <font color="#0A0A2A">Tim riley <font color="#848484"> talk   13:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ping
User talk:Dank. - Dank (push to talk) 06:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Sorry for the mixup. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Btw, I've got the whole calendar for January watchlisted, so no need to tell me when you schedule more, I'll see it. Thanks for jumping into this feet-first, you're making things easy for me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and best wishes to you, too. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your TFA choices
... for 4-11 January are a very pleasant surprise. I figured Bencherlite was going to be leaving us mostly mushroom and battleship articles (not that there's anything wrong with those), but you've really picked out some gems. - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ... and the choice for 2 Jan was also excellent, "your" Michael Tippett,  precious  again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Nollaig

 * To both of the above: esteemed colleagues whose contributions enhance the encyclopedia and are a joy to read. Your good wishes are returned wholeheartedly. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian, we owe you a great debt, plus your work rate and output is a joy (personaly speaking). Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

TFAs
Hi Brian. No problem, they are different enough that they don't really repeat a topic, and I'm old enough to have the time to pre-review both. Happy New Year <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  13:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks: best wishes to you too, Jim. Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Update on Mark Satin bio page
Hi Brian, I just wanted to reassure you that I am going very carefully through the Mark Satin bio looking for dead links and other imperfections, as you suggested. It is taking a while but I hope to finish by the end of the year. Also, Dank wanted me to send him any suggestions I had for the excellent 1200-characvter summary he drafted for the Wikipedia home page, and I have just sent four small suggested edits to him at his talk page. All best, - Babel41 (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No. 1 Squadron TFA
Hi Brian, I noticed the current TFA mentions being part of a Featured Topic. If you think it's worth my adding, No. 1 Squadron is also part of an FT -- no problem if you'd prefer to leave it out though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. Brian, I'll be happy to check for FTs and add the links when I do the blurb if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)