User talk:Brianboulton: Difference between revisions

Template:Archive box collapsible

• Link: WP Opera project (infobox discussion)
• Link: Summary of US copyright law
• Link: Ealdgyth's useful messages

Reminder to me: check opera discographies - regularly.

Watch it! (prose and referencing)

Hi Brian, could I just get confirmation that you're satisfied with the responses/actions re. the source review for Jürgen Ehlers? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I'm gathering you didn't source review Interstate 96 when you looked over prose, so if you're able to do that as well some time, be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have dealt with Ehlers (a couple of issues outstanding). Will look at the Interstate this evening.Brianboulton (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I really appreciate your note to my talk page ... in fact, later in the day I was going to try to figure out how to communicate with you ... I'm still a little new at the "techniques" of Wikipedia ... I had no idea the "infobox" question would grow so heated ... ANYWAY ... we can continue to discuss more substantive matters on The Rite Talk Page, as you suggest. Yankeecook (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2

Thanks very much for your sources review of Everything Tastes Better with Bacon.

I've addressed all of your points, and responded at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2.

Perhaps you could revisit your position on the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2?

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will look tomorrow (Wednesday) as I am a bit preoccupied at the moment. The article looked in good shape when I checked out the sources & had lots of support at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your helpful suggestions, I've responded at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2. — Cirt (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the comments and Support! Mind if we move the addressed comments to the talk page of the FAC ? — Cirt (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure - do as you wish with my cmts Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure, thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dockland Settlements (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Stratford

Harold Davidson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Simla

Reginald Kennedy-Cox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Stratford

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harold Davidson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harold Davidson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harold Davidson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Church Assembly]] at [[Methodist Central Hall Westminster|Central Hall, Westminster]] at which [[Cosmo Gordon Lang|the Archbishop of Canterbury was present. He was prevented from addressing the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harold Davidson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• my case".<ref name= ODNB/> Although the barrel act remained his staple he informed the press) he introduced variations over the years: freezing in a refrigerated chamber, or being roasted in a
• Church Assembly]] at [[Methodist Central Hall Westminster|Central Hall, Westminster]] at which [[Cosmo Gordon Lang|the Archbishop of Canterbury was present. He was prevented from addressing the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Rite of Spring may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the Editions Russe catalogue) did not have the rights to the revised finale<ref>Walsh, pp. 151-52}}</ref>.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harold Davidson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• or had been [[Anglican]] clergy, while Alice Davidson was a great-niece of the educationist and [[Rugby School] headmaster [[Thomas Arnold]].<ref name= T1>Tucker, pp. 1–2</ref> Sholing was a poor

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help here - you may find User:Bencherlite/TFA notepad interesting / of use when browsing for non-specific dates. At any rate, it's a more detailed version of WP:FANMP. Best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 19:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just made an awful cockup on the TFA requests page so I'm lying low for a bit. Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing how empty your schedule is, and how you are scratching round for useful occupation, I helpfully draw your attention to the RPO article, which I have put up for PR. Or, to put it slightly more accurately, if you can find time and inclination to look in (not the smallest hurry) it will be esteemed a favour. I have been illicitly stalking you and I see the naughty Rev from Stiffkey is on your stocks. Whatever next, you depraved person! Tim riley (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to keep the rector quiet for a while, but now the secret is out. Honestly, it's a corker – I've never laughed so much when researching an article, not even for Widmerpool. A guaranteed side-splitter for the end of the month. Meantime, of course I will look at the RPO.

Incidentally, how is Britten coming on? I have made a short list of the leading (in my view) British composers whose articles have not yet made FAC: Thomas Arne, William Boyce, Benjamin Britten, Hubert Parry, Henry Purcell, Arthur Sullivan, Thomas Tallis, Michael Tippett, Ralph Vaughan Williams (this is a personal view – there may be others as or more deserving). I intend over the next year or so to tackle a few of these, possibly Purcell, Tallis and Tippett. Have you eyes for any of these? Brianboulton (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sullivan has been waiting in the wings for FAC for some time, but I am not monarch of all I Savoy: Sir Arthur's principal contributor is my good friend Ssilvers, whom I have yet to get into the starting gate. The article is certainly of FA quality already, me judice. Parry is something of a weight on my conscience. His article was awful and I set to work on it but somehow ran out of steam, and it is now class B, and a mediocre one at that; he deserves better, especially as I took Stanford to FA – but Stanford was an interesting character, and Parry, a much nicer man, was in truth (hush!) rather dull. I managed to get Bliss up to a slightly better grade B, before concluding that that was quite enough. I am determined to get RVW to FAC some day, but not yet. I've done my half of the Britten article, and Sjones23 has undertaken to do the music section, for which I am profoundly grateful. Purcell is at the early end of my personal musical timescale and Tallis is way before it. Happy to work on Purcell, though: from what little I know he sounds to have been an interesting man. I am not conscious of ever having heard a note of Boyce's music. Happy to put Tippett on the list, though his amateur libretti are as funny as anything you've been reading about the wicked Rector: if Heather Harper managed to sing "Oh, I’ll go walking with my nostrils" without giggling I salute her. Tim riley (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re Boyce, you must have heard "Hearts of Oak" (or even sung it). But he probably is a bit misplaced in this list. He was very important as a composer in the 18th century, Master of the King's Musik etc, but he has been neglected for 200+ years; about the only works of his performed today (apart from the aforementioned H of O) are his eight "symphonies" (overtures, in fact). He may be an interesting research project for some future date - I don't imagine much has been written about him. Purcell and Tippett are the ones I'd prefer to work on in the more immediate future, leaving Tallis as a personal project for my old age. It will however be a few months before I can do anything on any of these articles. I mainly wanted to know if any of these composers were in your sights or were the subject of existing plans. Brianboulton (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that you have JSTOR access. Could you have a quick check of this? I'm going to have a go at expanding the D'Oliveira affair article, more out of disgust with Gubby Allen than anything else! And if anyone else has access to "The Sports Boycott and Cricket: The Cancellation of the 1970 South African Tour of England" (which isn't on JSTOR), that may be helpful too. But to be honest, I've plenty to be going on if these two articles are unavailable or not particularly useful. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have read though Murray's first article. Published in 2001, it was an important source for Oborne's 2004 book and is listed as such in the book's bibliography. Oborne has picked up all the important points in the article: Vorster's mendacious claim that D'Oliveira would have been acceptable had he been an original pick; the fact that Allen, Gilligan and Griffiths knew well in advance of the selection meeting that D'Oliveira would not be acceptable in South Africa; the uncertainty as to whether this knowledge was given to the selectors; Insole's callous "we have rather better players in the side"; Cowdrey's duplicity, etc, etc. That ineffable twerp Douglas-Home is rightly shown up for what he was, so nothing new, really. It is abundantly clear that the overriding concern of English cricket establishment throughout and even beyond the affair was to preserve its relationship with SACA. Thank goodness those days are gone, if indeed they have. The second article is still behind a paywall - it will cost you £23.50 to read it (this is known as "Freedom of Information"). Since Oborne also cites this article as a source, and makes no startling revelations about the cancellation of the 1970 tour in his book, it may be that the article contains little that we don't already know. Brianboulton (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stalker talking. Home's WP biographer has his beady eyes on you both. Tim riley (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much obliged. Looks like there is little of importance that Oborne does not cover. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a moment, pray look at this File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-12786, Bruno Walter und Yehudin Menuhin.jpg. If you would prefer a cropped version showing Walter's head and shoulders in the Ferrier article to replace the anachronistically young Walter currently there, I shall be happy to do the necessary. Tim riley (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are aware of it, but the New York Public Library has online a very large collection of items relating to classical music and the musical theatre, which is where Ssilvers and I got our production shots for South Pacific. Here is what they have on Walter; you may find something useful although I cannot speak for the copyright status of all items.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to you both. The NYPL Mahler/Walter images are most interesting, but I think a crop from the 1931 Bundsarchiv photo provides an image of Walter closer to how he looked when he worked with Kathleen Ferrier. So, Tim, if you will do the honours, the Ferrier article will certainly benefit from the change. Brianboulton (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the list for tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have dropped this at FAC. If you get the time to look in on it, could you perhaps review the images? There are a fair number, but mostly PD no notice. Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my list. I'll do sources as well, if you like Brianboulton (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you would, I would be very grateful.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed all your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tommy Amaker/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harold Davidson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wimbledon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time and inclination, Archie MacLaren has grumbled his way to PR here. It's yet another long one I'm afraid (I seem incapable of short cricket articles) but your eyes would be much appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best to read MacLaren in the next couple of days. This won't be a great trial; I became familiar with him years ago, when I first read Cardus's autobiography. As you know, Cardus rather over-romanticised MacLaren, but left a few intriguing hints that not all went well for him in life. I have sometimetimes wondered what was the truth of the story - now I can find out. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. Thanks again, btw. I really appreciate the work you put into the review. No rush. Victoria (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, just wanted to leave a note for you with thanks for noting the lack of page numbers for Seward (and many thanks to Tim for offering to get a copy from the library). I picked up the book from the library today and the chapters were wildly off - g-books says a few pages aren't visible, when in fact it's almost 75 pages. So that was a bit of slog finding those two quotes, but definitely necessary. The added benefit is that it looks to be a very good book and one I'll probably end up buying. Victoria (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For contributing 72 featured articles on wikipedia. Quite brilliant!!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, Dr B, for these kind words and the star. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian. I wondered if you or Tim riley who I suspect are "baby boomers" might be interested in nurturing this. Aside from needing a majr copyedit it is a bit too pop culture-oriented, it needs more info on events and building changes. Can you look into it sometime?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did take a quick look. I'm not sure I can help; I think the article probably needs a top-to-bottom shakeout rather than cosmetic attention. Here are a few points from the short introductory section:

• "20 years after Clement Attlee": this seems irrelevant, and anyway is inaccurate; Attlee lost power in 1951.
• "Peggy Maffit" is presumably meant to be Peggy Moffitt, and "Greenwich" is obviously intended to be "Gernreich". I am not sure that I would choose either of these names to exemplify London in the 1960s – they were very much American figures.
• Lesley Hornby and Twiggy are the same person.
• The sentence "As a result of baby boom in the 1950s, London became the city with a population of 40% under the young category by the mid 1960s, a situation which happened only after the Roman Empire" doesn't make a lot of sense.
• The following sentence makes no sense at all: "Youth and money then underwent a pivotal and remarkable “metamorphosis from a gloomy, grimy post-War capital into a bright, shining epicentre of style”. How can "youth and money" undergo the change described?

Later in the article I glimpsed "Lady of the Manner"; I also saw the scapegoat of the Profumo affair misnamed as "David Ward". Then there is the intrusion of inconsequential information, e.g. "The Gaelic football club, Tír Chonaill Gaels, based in Greenford, was formed in London in 1962". The overall impression of the article is of random facts picked up and thrown together without much sense of cohesion or relative importance, and without careful checking. I don't want to pour cold water on what may be someone's pet project, but I do think much more care needs to be applied. I'm not even sure that such a broad and vaguely defined topic really lends itself to WP article; that may be the root of the problem. Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is an existing article, Swinging London, covering very similar ground. One article is probably sufficient. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd noticed that infelicity too -- thanks for changing it. I've substituted "revised" for "amended" ... as that's the term that's usually used and seems to convey the sense of what IS actually did better. My understanding is that he largely re-barred the Sacrificial Dance to make it "easier to play" (not to mention easier to copyright!). One reason I had not gotten around to changing it is that I'm not quite sure how true the assertion itself really is ... namely the "most performances". In actuality, I think it probably depends on when a given orchestra actually purchased the parts! (I don't know if there's any way to check this ... ). Also, with the "Sacre Centennial", it may well be that some performances have attempted to be the "original" version (whatever that might actually be!). Should we change this to most "modern" performances? Also, Boosey & Hawkes gives the date as 1947 ... [1] Yankeecook (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is how far we ought to pursue this slightly arcane (from the general reader's viewpoint) issue in a summary encyclopedia article. The situation is, as Van den Toorn records, a complicated one; we should keep the detail to essentials, while ensuring that what we have is accurate in broad terms. Your suggestion of adding the word "modern" is a good one, and I will act on it, but let's be careful not to let this section become too overdetailed. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Chopra article is at the FAC. You had earlier participated in the first FAC and I thought to include you in the second as well. Your constructive comments are very much welcome here. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive2. Thanks.—Prashant 05:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's FAC has many comments and lots of support (8 or 9), with no opposes I can see. It's doing fine, and I don't think you need my input this time. Also I am rather overloaded with commitments at present. I expect your article will be promoted within a few days; I'll keep an eye on it, and intervene if any problems arise. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been importuned. I would sincerely hope the nominators plan on giving back in the same proportion they are asking.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lord, he already asked you?? That makes this even worse. He's pestered you twice and emailed you probably twice too? I can't apologise enough for his behaviour, it's unforgivable.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, I just read the whole fascinating article (great work, as always) and think it would be fine as a second fair use image. I think the two fair use images of him show the two sides of the man (at least as perceived) in a way that words alone do not. I wondered reading it what his other children were (since only the daughter not his is mentioned explicitly). I would be glad to PR this and do the Image review at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your swift reply. I will upload the second image shortly (I may use a clearer print, from one of the published sources). The rector had four children before the First World War; they do not really figure in the narrative, but I will add a footnote giving brief details. More thanks for your reviewing offer; I will let you know when the article goes to PR. Brianboulton (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harold Davidson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria Station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need more constructive comments and inputs. (so, what it has 10 supports). I want more view over it. Your comments can improve it further. Please look at it. Thanks.—Prashant 13:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to do this, and will be obliged if you stop asking. Brianboulton (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just flat opposing owing to canvassing. I seem to recall getting emails too. Shame that Bollyjeff and the Doctor are innocent victims here, but I'm feeling harassed by the constant posts. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am close to doing the same, and will if I get another peep from this quarter. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what kind of person you are? You said that you were not interested. I didn't posted again. But, you have created an unwanted issues. I was just told to include some of the best reviewers. So, that's why I asked you. My faith wad good. But, you reacted so rudely. By the way what is canvassing?—Prashant 15:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't respond to rants like that. Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Canvassing — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

okay, now I have read that article and came to know that it was my mistake to go and ask many editors. But, I was not knowing it earlier. I thought, you guys will help in improving it further. I'm extremely sorry for the canvassing. I observed others asking several editors, so I thought to do the same. I'm very sorry Brain and Crisco. I should be ashamed of myself and I'm. Please, forgive me sir. It will not happen again. I'm very upset.—Prashant 16:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you had to deal with this Brian, feel free to delete this disruptive section.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accept Prashant's apology – I am used to dealing with stroppy kids – and his assurance it won't happen again. I hope he will also apologise to you, Doctor, and to Bollyjeff, as his conoms, for possibly tainting the nomination. But as far as I'm concerned, no more need be said. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brian, nice to meet you! My name is Tomica and here on Wikipedia I am editing music articles (mostly Rihanna and Justin Timberlake oriented). Recently I nominated Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded at FAC; I have 5 supports, 0 opposes and the media files spotcheck was done, the only thing left is the source spotcheck. Ian told me you are one of the spotcheck references expert, can you please do them? Thank You! (PS. I also asked Nikkimaria 3 days ago, she said she was a bit of busy so I know If you do them before her she wouldn't mind :]) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, if you can stand it, could you weigh in at Talk:L'incoronazione di Poppea#Infobox? If not, I'd completely understand. I'm trying to stay out of it too. I was hoping (obviously naively) that the box would be tried out on a few relatively low-profile articles for a while to see how it works out, rather than editors heading straight to off to FAs with it {{sigh}}. But there you have it. By the way, Harold Davidson is brilliant! Where do you find these people? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I looked like [Yikes! What a Freudian slip. Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)] The infobox looked this in the article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, you don't have to weigh in, I tried the infobox while the opera was mentioned on the Main page (call it an experiment for feedback), it's gone again, fine with me if you prefer it like that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both – to Voceditenore for alerting me, and to Gerda for the above. Gerda, it really is worth considering Voceditenore's suggestion that the infobox is tried out on a few lower-profile opera articles. I am sure this would enable a more considered discussion. For what it's worth, I thought the deleted infobox on Poppea was relatively unobjectionable, though I don't think it added to the article, and my fear that over the years further possibly contentious paramaters will be added remains. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]