This is an archive of past discussions with User:Brianboulton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Brunette Coleman was a pseudonym used by the poet and writer Philip Larkin (1922–1985). In 1943, towards the end of his time as an undergraduate at St John's College, Oxford, he wrote several works of fiction, verse and critical commentary under that name. The style he adopted parodies that of popular writers of contemporary girls' school fiction, but the extent of the stories' homoerotic content suggests they were written primarily for adult male titillation. The Coleman oeuvre consists of a completed novella, Trouble at Willow Gables, set in a girls' boarding school; an incomplete sequel, Michaelmas Term at St Brides, set in a women's college at Oxford; seven short poems with a girls' school ambience; a fragment of pseudo-autobiography; and a critical essay purporting to be Coleman's literary apologia. The manuscripts were stored in the Brynmor Jones Library at the University of Hull, where Larkin was chief librarian between 1955 and 1985. Their existence was revealed to the public when Larkin's Selected Letters and Andrew Motion's biography were published in 1992 and 1993 respectively. The Coleman works themselves were finally published, with other Larkin drafts and oddments, in 2002. Larkin's Oxford years were for him a period of confused sexuality and limited literary output. The adoption of a female persona released him from his creative inhibitions; the three years following the Coleman phase saw the publication, under Larkin's own name, of two novels and his first poetry collection. Thereafter his career as a prose writer declined, and despite several attempts he completed no further novels. Critical reaction to the publication of the Coleman material was divided. (more...)
Hello Brian, just to let you know that I really enjoyed reading your article. (It may not have been happening for you, but it was happening for others). :) I hope this finds you well. Best wishes, SlimVirgin(talk)22:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Slim, thanks for your message. My dismissive comment reflects my frustration with the people who gave me 59 minutes' notice of this TFA appearance. I wasn't logged into Wikipedia at the time, so I actually found out about two minutes before the article appeared on the main page. I have complained about this lack of proper notice before, and pointed out the impossibility of reviewing even the blurb, let alone the whole article, without proper time, but have been treated to what George Brown used to call "a complete ignoral". I sometimes wonder if anyone supposedly in authority within this project is taking their responsibilities seriously. I haven't checked the article for months, and for all I know it has been ruined by vandals meantime, but if the self-satisfied powers that be don't care about the quality of their front page, why should I? Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I recall an agreement to let the main editors know well in advance (or even to ask them if they wanted it), but I may be misremembering. It might be worth asking Raul about it. I had a couple of mine go up without being told in advance, and it throws you into a panic in case there's something terrible on the page that got missed. I didn't find anything dreadful in yours, by the way. :) SlimVirgin(talk)01:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
See it's funny - I've never been too fussed if an FA goes up on the mainpage and it's rough around the edges due to erosion. I figure it does facilitate the "see it, fix it" idea and if we get new editors out of it then I'm chuffed. I've had some of mine go at short notice but mine are usually so esoteric that they rarely change over the years....Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I liked to see the article on the Main page and to read it again. I disliked the short notice, reminding me of Kathleen Ferrier when I spoke up. My idea would be to announce the appearance a week in advance, not only to the authors, but also to related projects, if it's supposed to show the best. - I came here because I remembered that you and I share 3 August ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
First: I have raised this point with Raul, and he is simply not interested. Secondly, the notification to the main editors of forthcoming TFAs says, inter alia: "If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk·contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk·contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests". How the bloody hell can this be done, given 59 minutes' notice (and at a time when much of the UK is asleep anyway)? And then, insufferably, we are counselled: "If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page." Sure thing. I think, as they say in the vernacular over here, someone is havin' a larf. Well, I'm not larfing. It should not be beyond our lords and masters to run a simple system efficiently, but evidently it is. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Brian, I saw this on Adrienne's page and just wanted to say that I agree with you. For whatever it's worth, I have three literature pages pretty well FAC ready but have decided that I can't be bothered at the moment. At some point I'll get myself back there but I don't know when. In the meantime though I am still building content and when I'm done with my current diversion for the Core Content, I'll get back to working on the humanities. Just thought I'd let you know, but it would be very nice to have her back. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's an encouraging message! If you'd like to tell me what your almost-ready FAC pages are, I don't mind looking at them and perhaps giving some informal comments. Although my main creative areas are music (esp. opera) and music biography, I do dabble in 20th century literature occasionally (Brunette Coleman, The Temple at Thatch, Evelyn Waugh etc). I am on-and-off researching Cyril Connolly, although my efforts are not yet evident on the WP page; this is a longer-term project. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh thanks for the offer! Hemingway's "Big Two-Hearted River" is ready to go as are The Brothers Grimm and Ezra Pound. I'd like to get a crew together to help with Pound, so that will probably take a little while. Certainly SV and Ceoil among others deserve kudos for that page getting to where it is. On the back burner, but I think I could finish with a push, are In Our Time, Histoires ou contes du temps passé and The Diary of Lady Murasaki. I have others lying around that could be brought up to snuff but between real life responsibilities and a variety of other factors I've stopped bringing things to review. I always look at your pages when they're at FAC but don't get around to commenting because they go through quite quickly, which is a testament to your hard work. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I think I began a peer review on Pound a few months ago, but it was aborted. I'll try and look at the Hemingway and the Brothers Grimm over the next few days, and maybe leave some comments on their talk pages. As to my own FACs, the next will be Reginald Heber, probably tomorrow, and I very much doubt that this will go through quickly, being very much a minority interest. So, if you feel like commenting, you're very welcome! Brianboulton (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll put Heber on my watchlist. I did have Pound up, but first you were indisposed and then I was. Admittedly I've been having difficulty with my editing schedule in the past months because of personal obligations which isn't very helpful, but not much can be done in that regard. I just wanted to touch bases and let you know that there is someone still working on non-popular subjects, albeit very slowly. I see a few others as well and have seen one or two promising new editors as well which is hopeful. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Brian - I'm embarrassed. Had I read the rules for the Core Contest (which I did about 2 minutes ago) I would have realized you were a judge! I was traveling last week and simply threw my hat in the ring a bit late. Anyway, I don't think I'll be getting to much until September and then hopefully will start shoving some lit pages toward FAC. Also, hopefully we can get Awa back to contribute. Have you sent your plea to her in email? Truthkeeper (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't be embarrassed, I'm delighted you'll be judging the core contest, and I hope to be a bit more active as a judge than I was last time, which was a bit of a struggle. I haven't emailed Adrianne as I don't want her to feel harassed. I'm sure she checks her talkpage every so often. Heber is now up at FAC, by the way. Brianboulton (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
What's the latest on the Core Contest? Its something I proposed ages ago to be a monthly thing on here with a prize for best article and would be the best way to try to get important articles improved.♦ Dr. Blofeld20:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I've begun condensing it down. I'm afraid your comments came a little prematurely as the article is still undergoing a lot of work and in order to try to be more comprehensive needed to be "ridiculously bloated" to start with to chisel away at to produce the final article. I think you've missed the fact that the earlier version did overlook some important things which the article definitely needs to have, the others acknowledged this too. What sort of kb size would you consider reasonable? We have quite a few articles at at least 100kb. An article on Peter Sellers I feel needs to be quite detailed and substantial. Would 100-110 kb be OK, providing that the article flows and doesn't appear too excessive? I mean, if somebody like Lady Gaga can have a 143kb article! ♦ Dr. Blofeld12:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised you think my comments came "prematurely"! On Schrodinger's talkpage just before I entered my comment you say: "I've just about finished with Sellers", and on the FAC page, having struck your earlier criticisms, you write: "It is my idea at least of how an article on a top importance film biography ought to look". These comments rather indicate that you considered the article a finished product, as far as the FAC was concerned. I did not miss the fact that the earlier version was short on detail in some respects; you will see I acknowledged in my comment that your point was reasonable, but I thought that the attempted solution amounted to overkill.
As to length, I am concerned with wordcounts, not kb which are irrelevant to the reader. I can't say what would be a suitable length for an article of this kind, though an important factor is the existence of separate WP articles for all the films. I think an additional few hundred words of text would probably have been sufficient to meet your suggestions of more quotes of the Dilys Powell kind and further details of some of the people Sellers worked with, and I would like to see progress in that direction so far as is achievable at this point. Re Lady Gaga, that article failed its FAC, so does not represent a useful comparison. Also, for all its kb, it is still about 4000 words shorter than Sellers. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I can see why you thought that. Well I did only envisage that it needed trimming, I didn't think it needed major edits. William Burges is 125kb and one could say I overkilled that one too and nobody raised a concern about length at FAC. I like articles to be very comprehensive personally. But its also needs to grasp the readers attention and not put people off reading it. I try to avoid rambling on about certain issues and try to make the article concise and cram in a lot of information. I feel that the edits I've made today are a significant improvement and you were right to think that it needed more cutting than I had initially thought. How do you do a word count check?♦ Dr. Blofeld20:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
For word counts you need the "page size" tool in the toolbox on the left-hand side of the page (the one that starts "What links here") If you don't have the page size tool, go to User:Dr pda/prosesize and follow the instructions there. I will look again at Sellers shortly, and add a comment here. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
(Quickly): You've done a pretty impressive cutting job by the look of it, and the length looks much more reasonable now (wordcount around 9700). I will read the whole thing again tomorrow, and post any further comments I have on the FAC page. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Brian. I suppose it could still be cut further, but I think in Peter Sellers's case the insight into some of his marriages and mental conditioning is great reading and interest to the article and I think a lot of the quotes are important for understanding this. A lot of the film quotes indeed were not necessary and now read better in prose. Its finding a balance I think, his lesser films didn't need the analysis and quotes, I think that was largely the problem. Anyway we'll see what the feeling is on the article now its been condensed initially and will make make further adjustments if they are requested by you or anybody else. Regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld20:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I am really busy in real life, but will take a look at the images in the next 24 hours. Also need to see the PR backlog, sorry to not be doing much here lately, Ruhrfisch><>°°21:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Ave atque vale
I am sending this note to Wikipedians with whom I have most closely collaborated over the last six years or so. After pondering hard during a month's wiki-break in July I have sadly decided to withdraw fully from contributing. I have been worn down by continual carping, sniping and belittling from a wearisome few (you know the sort of people I refer to); the joy has gone out of taking part in this wonderful enterprise. I should be more resilient, but alas it's finally got to me.
Working with you has been a pleasure and a privilege: I count myself fortunate to have had such colleagues. My warmest wishes go with you for the future. I shall be happy to do any research, copy-editing, fact-checking etc you may ever feel inclined to ask me to do – but safely offline.
This is truly appalling news, bad for the project as a whole but particularly in the classical music area, where your contribution has been immense, not only in the articles that you have steered yourself to top-quality status, but in the help and encouragement that you have given to other toilers in the vineyard. I'm too devastated to say more, except to thank you for all the help you have given to me in the development of my articles, not just the music ones, and to say how much I will miss your good humour and unpretentious scholarship. I have no doubt the few of whom you speak are satisfied with themselves. I am sure you will find plently else to do, and I sincerely hope you will find this as rewarding as you once found contributing to Wikipedia. I'm glad you are still prepared to offer help offline, but that is small comfort against the sense of loss. What a year this has been. Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I know Brian, it makes me sick to the stomach, its like the worst news ever on wikipedia, even worse than Yellow monkey. Tim is one of the few editors that truly make me passionate about producing good content, a true encyclopedian, "good humour and unpretentious scholarship" indeed sums it up well. Tim is like the role model for what a wikipedia editor should be.♦ Dr. Blofeld16:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I am gutted. Tim was an excellent editor, a great mentor, and a thoroughly nice chap. He helped me with so many articles and often replied to my spontaneous private emails at silly o'clock in the morning in the interests of the articles upon which I contributed too. He was instrumental in the construction of Stanley Holloway which he did so superbly here and invaluable for the classical music and composers arena. Truly, truly terrible news. -- CassiantoTalk18:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I am devastated by this as well. There is no replacing those who are competent at Tim's level, and they rarely come along.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I have recently left a stinging rebuke (well, by my standards) on Dabomb's page. This may rule me out, I don't know. I have other reservations, and I am not seeking power or glory, but let us see how Raul responds, if indeed he does. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Just read it. I've no idea why Dabomb is busy. Mostly that rebuke is on the wrong user's talk page. You should(could;) simply ignore teh arbitrary rulz and do the job. That's how the wiki is supposed to work. Rope Mally into helping. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
You were certainly entitled to your comment, and are very unlikely to want to have egg on your face by allowing such scheduling snafus if you were appointed. It goes without saying, but I will say it as it seems customary, that you would have my full support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Judging from the more personal response, it does not seem to be on. Nevertheless, I raise my glass of beer above my glass of water in salute.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, it was premature to announce support for me when I had not agreed to be a candidate, but let that pass. All I really wanted was a response to the note I left with Dabomb; if Raul had responded with "stop moaning and give us some help", I would have done so. My frustration is that I have raised the matter of late notification several times without effect, and I fear that the issue may again be allowed to wither. Let us see what happens over the next few weeks. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I recall some book I read ages ago that had as a minor point the idea that the best leaders were those who did not want the job, so they were selected... somehow... and were not given the option of declining. And it worked.
Sorry for any impropriety, but I think it's been a valuable experience. People can judge for themselves, and no doubt will.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Learie Constantine
I've begun the FAC here and added you as a co-nom. (I've never done a co-nom before, so please feel free to fix anything I've messed up!) Thanks again for all the help. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning. I'm honoured to be a conom; will keep an eye on the FAC page (which is moving rather sloooowly at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I just had a thought on Learie, which has come up on the talk page before. Have we got his title correct in the lead and infobox? Given that he was a lord, was knighted and had an MBE, I have no idea how this all comes out in the end: what should be in the title and what shouldn't. My knowledge of such things is negligible! But you can guarantee that if the article ever got onto the main page, someone would point out that something was not quite right about it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The title as stated in the article: "Learie Nicholas Constantine, Baron Constantine" is correct and in a style common to many WP "lord" articles. When a knight is raised to the peerage he stops using the knighthood. You could add the postnominal MBE, but I don't consider you have to. What bothers me, however, is that the infobox is headed "The Right Honourable..." What is the basis whereby Learie became entitiled to this? Ministers in Commonwealth Governments do not normally become Rt Hons unless they are appointed to the Privy Council, and there is no mention in the article that he was. Nor is it mentioned here. If there is no reliable source that confirms how and when he became "The Right Honourable", I suggest you remove these words. Incidentally, although I am no fan of infoboxes, maybe it should refer, however briefly, to the fact that he was just a bit more than a cricketer? Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I just did a little digging, and I think the "right honourable" comes from being a baron. The wikipedia article suggests that barons are "right honourable", and some other sites seem to confirm this. I'll do a little more digging, but I think it may be correct, whoever may have put it there. On the infobox, the cricket infobox does not really have any scope for outside "interests", and I would have no idea what other one could be used. And although I'm not really bothered about them myself, I always think that it looks untidy when one article has multiple infoboxes. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you're right about the "right honourable"; it comes automatically to peers below the grade of marquis. I never knew that, so Wikipedia has helped me to learn something. On the infobox details, let's leave well alone for the moment, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Another one: a comment in the FAC asks about his rank of knighthood. I always assumed that a knighthood was just a knighthood, but thought I'd check with you first! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Another: Giants asks about using a hyphen in "newly-founded". I thought this was correct, but thought I'd check with you first! Sarastro1 (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The hyphen is optional in British English, but I prefer it removed. Incidentally, my various responses to Giants got lost in an edit conflict (you were obviously responding at the same time), but never mind, your fixes will do. Brianboulton (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello Brianboulton. A year or so back, you were kind enough to review the Dorset article. Back then it was a mere B Class but since taking on board your comments and the comments of others, it is now Featured article candidate. I hope you will be interested enough to join the conversation at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dorset/archive1 and give us the benefit of your opinion. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 06:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I missed this at FAC, which is unusual for articles that I have peer reviewed (though it was a while back). I have left comments on the FAC page - the article looks in pretty good shape to me. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
You expressed concern, in a manner strong for you, about the use of quotes from a commenter which are contained in someone else's book, in Foraker. I am starting to run into similar things on my next project and would be grateful for your advice as to how you would care to see such framed. I hope you are well, and trust that your short break is due to a desire to enjoy the summer free of Olympic visitors.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I did not mean to sound didactic over the indirect quotes issue, and I'm sorry if it came over that way. It's just that I've always thought that if Author A quotes directly from a work published by Author B, and you use A as your source, you should make it clear in the citation that you are relying on Author A's version of what B said. That way you are covered if A has quoted inaccurately, incompletely or out of context. On reflection, I suppose a lot depends on the status of Author A. If he is a newspaper journalist or someone with an axe to grind then I would probably press my point. If A is of unimpeachable credentials, then maybe not. I don't know what other established FAC reviwers think; perhaps some of this page's watchers will offer a view, or we could create a thread at the FAC talkpage? Incidentally, the issue is a major factor in the preparation of my current project The Rite of Spring, where same texts have proved impossible to locate or access. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
What I am doing is putting information in a hidden comment about where it comes from, for now, that way if people feel it needs to be included in the citation and thus be visible, it can be easily included. And you did not sound didactic, I naturally respect your opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think this is rather similar to the discussions about how best to cite sources accessed via Highbeam Research. The take-home point from that for me was that a Highbeam version of a paper may be identical to the originally published paper, and almost certainly is, but a caveat is perhaps appropriate. More generally though I think it's horses for courses. If I insert a quotation from X, but attribute it to a book written by Y, then I'd say it's pretty obvious that I'm not quoting directly from the original source. As to whether I should go the next step and say something like "according to X as quoted by Y ...", I think Brian has it about right; it depends on Y's academic credentials. MalleusFatuorum22:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Beethoven
Hi, Brianboulton. I have been thinking about taking Ludwig van Beethoven to GA or FA status, since it's currently a B-Class and I have started to do some major work on the article in question. I was wondering if you would be kind enough to please help me work on this article. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It is brave of you to consider taking Beethoven towards FAC status. I see from your userpage that you are a music student, so you can presumably draw on an excellent music library; thus you may be better placed than most to access the necessary scholarly sources. You will need to provide a huge amount of time, though, to bring a project of this size to fruition. One problem you may find is that because of Beethoven's importance and status, the page has over 750 watchers, many of whom may be opinionated and critical of how you choose to organise the article. So you will need tact and patience in dealing with contrary opinions and approaches. At present I don't have time to offer much help, but I will certainly keep an eye on the page, and I wish you well! Brianboulton (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I will be pleased to help peer-review the Romney article. The length of the article means I doubt I'll have time for a full review, but there may be particular aspects I could concentrate on. For example I could perhapse point out where further explanation is necessary for British readers unfamiliar with the US political system. I am slightly more knowledgeable than most Brits about the American system, having reviewed most of Wehwalt's excellent "Gilded Age" sequence (though I expect things have changed a bit since then). Anyway, I'll get to work soon; my present priority is to bring The Rite of Spring to peer review, but that should be ready in a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Glad to hear it, I like to see non-Americans editing American politics articles, since they can often take more distance from the subject than people who are saturated by the American media. You must have learned quite a bit about US history from Wehwalt's articles, probably more than a lot of Americans know. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm looking for help on an image issue on The Rite of Spring. The article's talkpage explains the problem; there is presently insufficient information to determine that Nikolai Roerich's gorgeous paintings, which would really enhance the article, are PD in the USA. Roerich lived until 1947, so life + 70 years does not apply until 2018. We need proof that these paintings, which formed the backdrops for the ballet's initial run in 1914, were published before 1923. I have not thus far been able to establish this, but if anyone has relevant information or suggetions, please post here or on the talk. Brianboulton (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't fully access Google books for some reason or other, but I see a few possibilities: 1, 2 (the score) and 3. Perhaps someone will have better luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for trying. I can't get into Google books, either (Jappalang was excellent at this). The first of your links looks quite promising; meantime, I have found one of Roerich's backdrops on the website of the Roerich Museum of New York, and I am using that under a Fair Use rationale for the moment. Someone will probably object. Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That is what I am thinking, the Selivanova. WorldCat shows it as relatively scarce. I have to make a quick run up to New Jersey on Tuesday for a business meeting, and will be returning Thursday. If no one has been able to access it by then, I could drop by the Rutgers Art Library in New Brunswick and take a look (listing). The Turnpike passes New Brunswick, the detour is very short. Can you recommend a page to have loaded into my iPhone so I can compare? I will take notes and so forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, thanks indeed, if it doesn't put you out too much. The image currently showing is entitled "Kiss to the Earth. 2nd variant", but basically ant Roerich sketch related to the 1913 premiere or the 1920-21 (Massine) revival will do. As long as chapter and verse on provenance is given. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Not at all, it will break the journey nicely, and I rarely get to Rutgers. I recall going to a concert there about eight years ago, and before that, it was teenage visits, looking at colleges and because my high school's basketball team happened to play at the Rutgers Athletic Center. Obviously I will document. Will you need me to take images, or just confirm PD? It is no great problem, I will just remember to bring my scanner.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I've just checked out the description of the Selivanova book on ABE Books, and it reads pretty much as though the book is not illustrated, apart from a frontispiece of Roerich. It's a slim volume (125 pages). So its probably a blind alley and I fear your detour might be a waste of time. Brianboulton (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's that journal that's #3 above, but WorldCat is showing mostly university or government libraries in large cities. That's a pity, I was hoping the book might have it. Let me keep looking into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Have you tried emailing his museums, either New York or Moscow? (I peeked at Google) They may know of early publication of his works. I've started on the review, by the way but I'd rather do it tomorrow when I shall hopefully be a bit fresher.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Gustav Mahler FA
I noticed you did a lot of the work on Gustav Mahler and brought it up to FA status. Even though it's two years later, I just wanted to say that was excellent work and I appreciated reading such a high-quality article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comment. As to Sitwell, I won't be working on this for a while but it is nice to have your offer of help. Of course, anyone who wishes is free to expand and improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Honours
Hi Brian. In relation to Constantine, would having "KBE" listed after his name be wrong? My way of thinking is that Olivier has OM given after his name and he was a lord. Would "KBE" be the same in this instance? -- CassiantoTalk22:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It would be totally wrong. He was not a KBE, he was a Knight Bachelor (please see my comments on the talkpage). As I say, it would be correct to call him "Lord Constantine MBE", but the MBE is such a minor honour that it would be unusual for a peer to style himself like that. Lord Olivier's OM is quite different, since the Order of Merit is a very grand honour indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Peer review backlog query
I've removed some of the older requests which have already received comments from the backlog list, but please revert if I have done anything inappropriate. I also noticed that several of the reviews on the list have been closed by the bot, and the review added to the Article History. What is best way to handle this? Sarastro1 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The bot closes peer review pages automatically when no comments have been tabled for the past 14 days. Thus reviews that are still waiting for their first comment after 14 days get closed down without a comment. In the past, User:Ruhrfisch worked hard to see that that didn't happen too often, but he is not contributing to Wikipedia at present. What I have been doing is to advise nominators simply to open a new review page, though with the chronic shortage of peer reviewers there is no guarantee as to when a review will be forthcoming. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
TFA notice
Hi Brian, you were concerned about the lack of TFA notice. There's a discussion here, where people are making various suggestions, in case you're interested. Best, SlimVirgin(talk)20:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Slim, thanks for notifying me, but I can't honestly be bothered to say any more. I've made my point elsewhere, it's been ignored; others have made the same point and they've been ignored too. Sadly, the extent of personal animus underlying this issue makes it highly unlikely that it will be resolved satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, there seems to be consensus that seven days is reasonable, though personally I'd like to see longer. It's unfortunate that there's any tension around the issue; it's making a straightforward thing seem very fraught. But hopefully it'll get worked out this time. SlimVirgin(talk)
(ec) May I notify you that I notified all authors of scheduled TFAs, until 8 September that is, - I see movement and want to be part of it, I don't wait for "authorities" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Brianboulton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
