User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 91

Archive 85

←

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

TFA 2

17 July Scottish National Antarctic Expedition – reminder to self. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work. About that ... where in the TFA text should I say (pictured)? - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought that the saltire was well enough established as the symbol of Scotland not to need "pictured". I'd leave it out. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Chris ... thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 11:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I'd like to go with the Scotia, but that's me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Does that work for you Brian? The flag (without a mention what we're intending by that image) would complicate my life by changing the rules, but I'll do it if it's important to you. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• The problem with File:Scotia on Laurie Island.jpg – why I didn't select it in the first place – is the rather thin source information: undated "old" postcard, authorship speculative, etc. It passed muster in 2008, but would it now? If you're both agreed it would, by all means change to it; I've no particular attachment to the saltire image, other than that it seems to be clearly PD. Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I'll start working on the blurb assuming we'll run with some kind of image of Scotia. Feel free to edit. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've made a couple of small changes, but generally fine. Brianboulton (talk) 07:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's a really great TFA column, it hits all the marks. I just made a small tweak (no -> never, efforts -> work) to make a shift in time sequence more obvious. - Dank (push to talk) 11:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Carrow Road

Further to the section above about Aug 31, just to keep you and Crisco 1492 in the loop, the article is now here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carrow Road/archive1 --Dweller (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have space in your diary for a PR?

Hi Brian, After a recent re-write, the Hitler Diaries are now at peer review, should you have the time and inclination. Any and all thoughts on the article are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant stuff, I'll really enjoy this. Poor old Trevor-Roper... It will have to wait until after the weekend, though, as I shall be away on an extended celebration until Sunday pm. Yippeeeeeeee!!!! Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, happy 4th July - I see the A,ericans are going overboard celebrating your birthday again. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

• News and notes: Training the Trainers; VP of Engineering leaves WMF

• In the media: EU freedom of panorama; Nehru outrage; BBC apology

• WikiProject report: Able to make a stand

• Featured content: Viva V.E.R.D.I.

• Traffic report: We're Baaaaack

• Technology report: Technical updates and improvements

• Blog: These Texans are on a quest to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of their state’s revolution

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Liberty

Happy birthday to you, and thanks for what you do, such as scheduling "liberty" for the Main page! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Genethliac greetings from me too. (Look it up). Tim riley talk 10:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 15, 2015

FYI, I've expanded this as much as I can ... up to 740 chars, 210 below my usual minimum. There's just not a lot in the article. If you're happy, I'm happy. - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Chetro Ketl

Hello. Thanks for your comments at the Chetro Ketl peer review. The article is now a featured article candidate, and I'd like to invite you to comment there. Thanks! RO^(talk) 17:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry I didn't ask you for a copyedit before we went to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carrow Road/archive1. Tbh some RL issues distracted me and I completely forgot about your kind offer. Thanks for your input at the FAC. I've responded point by point on all the matters you raised, sometimes querying something with you, so please do check. Many thanks again. --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Latest FAC

Would you have time to review Mary Margaret O'Reilly, my latest FAC? She has played bit parts in a number of the coins. And a source review if possible. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

My apologies: this was on my to-do list, but got inadvertently wiped off. I will get to it later today. (Are you on dry land yet? I have another shipwreck in the pipeline). Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

EFS

Thanks for the TFA set for Elliott Fitch Shepard, and on his birthday too! Much appreciated. ɱ (talk · vbm) 22:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. It is good to have recent promotions at TFA, especially when an obvious date relevance is available. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 24, 2015

Hi! While I'm certainly flattered that California State Route 56 was chosen as the TFA for this date, according to WP:HWY/TFA there was also a California road as TFA in February, and one in May too. Perhaps it might be better to space them out a bit more? --Rschen7754 01:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You are right – I overlooked the May one. I will replace this. Brianboulton (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Any reason why Interstate 96 should be chosen instead? We have an open nomination for an article on a highway from Ontario for August. In the past, we've averaged about one highway TFA per quarter or so, and if we have one in July and another in August, I fear complaints of fatigue. Also, I'm firmly in the camp that FAs I've shepherded through the process should be reserved for anniversaries. Having one's article appear as a TFA is a hassle; they have to be babysat for low-quality "improvements" to the text, potential questions of verification of sources, etc. I'm willing to deal with that for an anniversary, but not for some random date with no connection to the subject. I'm in the middle of getting ready to move here in real life, possibly out of state, so I can't guarantee that I'll be available for such stewardship on the proposed date. In short, please grace someone else with the honor if you could, please.

If if must run though, why wasn't the FT added to the blurb? Imzadi 1979 → 09:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

There are about 45 featured "road" articles that have yet to appear as TFA. That's about 3 percent of the "available" FAs, suggesting that we should run about 12 road TFAs a year. We are well behind that quota for 2015, so complaints of fatigue are not justified. (Another issue is the number of Michigan-related highway articles we have stockpiled – 19, I think; we have to get these moving). Not all articles can be reserved for relevant anniversaries – there are usually two or three candidates for every date, some more significant than others. While I understand the reticence of editors regarding the hassle of a TFA, it's a consequence of articles being featured that they are liable to appear as on the main page. Having just replaced an earlier choice (too much California) I am very reluctant to do so again and perhaps face yet another objection. Questions relating to the blurb should be addressed to User:Dank, who probably hasn't got round to looking at this yet. Brianboulton (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Brian is correct: that's my department, and I haven't yet learned how to edit 24 hours a day, as some Wikipedians do. Also, whenever someone raises a question about a selection, I wait a day or two before I get to work. - Dank (push to talk) 12:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Please reconsider. Again, I'm likely to be in the process of moving from one state to another for the date you've chosen, and it would be very inconsiderate to have the primary editor of an article unavailable and with his source materials in boxes the day of a TFA run. As for spacing out American states, it's been a year and a half since a New York highway appeared as a TFA, and there are five unused selections there, but Michigan ran just last fall. Iowa has two, and that state has never run as a TFA. There is an article from Ohio and West Virginia, and the latter has not have a highway TFA since January 2014. There is one for Colorado, and that state hasn't run since 2011. There's one from Maryland and West Virginia that ideally should have run last month for a 50th anniversary, and Maryland has not had a highway TFA since April 2014. All would be good options to avoid scheduling one from Michigan at a time I will not be available on-wiki. Imzadi 1979 → 12:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

At the moment the count for potential road TFAs is Michigan 19, New York 6, Canada 5, California 4, Iowa 2 and sundry others 1 apiece. It's obvious that we have to run more Michigans than any other type, to preserve some kind of breadth in the range. I am sorry that the selected date happens to be inconvenient for you, but how do I know that any replacement isn't going to raise similar issues? Are you really saying that there is no one else in the wikipedia community that can steward Interstate 96 through the TFA date in your absence, or can help prepare it, given that the scheduling is still two weeks away? I can't see that as a major task for anyone – the FA is relatively recent, the topic uncontroversial, and the article looks in tidy shape. In the longer term, you and others could help the coordinators by nominating your articles at TFA more frequently, not just when some anniversary occurs – these are hardly world-shaking events that require the articles to be preserved for them. Brianboulton (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Brian, you volunteered to be the TFA coordinator... Part of the job is acceding to reasonable requests from article nominators, and this one—the nominator unavoidably being afk—has traditionally been granted. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

How long do we have to obey article owners on their choice of dates for TFA on articles that belong to the community, nor one individual? (This isn't an accusation thrown around lightly, but when it's openly admitted it does stick in the throat). - SchroCat (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think of it more as polite deference. They put in the effort to write it, and like it or not, they're the ones who get to face the stress of it appearing on the main page. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really. I don't have "my" FAs on my watchlist anyway, but two days after they've gone through TFA it's the work of 10 minutes to go throug and re-work the less helpful edits. Even then there seem to be hoardes of editors around to revert any vandalism or poor edits. A few of "my" FAs and FLs have gone to the front page without me nudging them on there, and there is never any negative long-impacting damage within a few days of them having made an appearance. – SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Brian. "The FA is relatively recent, the topic uncontroversial, and the article looks in tidy shape." It will be fine on the MP. Wikipedians can be pretty cool when it comes to keeping an eye on changes to TFAs. I think I've been busy most of the day during my past... 4 TFAs? 5 TFAs? I just went through the changes made during TFA day at my convenience. Not only does that save the article writer's time, but it also reduces opportunities for edit warring. Ed, we have often granted such requests, but it is far from being a right. Brian and the other TFA coordinators have to think what is best for the encyclopedia. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

There are others from Michigan that lack clear anniversaries that could be run on any random date. M-28 (Michigan highway), M-35 (Michigan highway), M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan) all lack exact designation dates and could be run on any day during the year. However, I-96 has a clear anniversary. You say "there are usually two or three candidates for every date", yet when the date comes and goes without anything nominated, I-96 will have been run on a date with no connection and "lost" its chance at appearing for its anniversary. At least with the two M-28 articles, their sources are sitting on my hard drive or accessible online, and not in boxes, so should any verification questions appear while I'm in the middle of the move, I won't have to dig to find paperwork in a box. Bus. M-28 would be the better of the two to run. The parent should have a little work done to revise and summarize some parts of the history. Imzadi 1979 → 04:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think you are greatly overestimating the impact that TFA will have on such a neutral article. As Chris indicates, there will be plenty of eyes on it to deal with any vandalism or inappropriate edits. My own practice is never to look when one of "my" articles is on the main page; a day or so later I will quietly deal with any egregious edits that may have escaped the watchers. I recommend this practice to everyone. I also think you are overplaying the importance of the anniversary, which cannot have more than a local significance. I am not taking any further action on this matter until Sunday, when I do my next round of TFA scheduling. Meantime I note that you have suggested other Michigan road articles as a subsitute for I-96. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The completion of that freeway at the time was a big enough deal in the Detroit area that there are photos of marching bands performing on the roadway just before they opened it to traffic at the dedication. In any event, we'll have to agree to disagree on the date significance but there is a clear date connection option, unlike some other Michigan highway articles. The Business M-28 article would be a better fit for the date for now to preserve at least the option of holding this for the 40th anniversary, even if there is no guarantee that I-96 could run that day. Imzadi 1979 → 13:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

• Editorial: So you want to get your message out. Where do you turn?

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation annual plan released, news in brief

• In the media: Wikimania warning; Wikipedia "mystery" easily solved

• Traffic report: The Empire lobs back

• Featured content: Pyrénées, Playmates, parliament and a prison...

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

24 July TFA replacement

@SchroCat:@Crisco 1492:@Imzadi1979: OK, I have replaced Interstate-96 on 24 July with M-28 Business, as suggested. But the essential problem remains: unless "road" editors (and Michigan road editors in particular) are more prepared to nominate their articles for TFA, not just for the occasional anniversary, the coordinators will have no choice but to select them, to avoid stockpiling unused FAs within a specialised subject area. Three or four more nominations this year would be very helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Agree on both counts. We've got something like 44 roads articles that haven't run yet, some dating back to 2009. We need to work our way through them — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, there is a page WP:HWY/TFA with proposed dates... it's true, sometimes we propose dates and never get around to putting them on the TFAR page, but it is there. --Rschen7754 04:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail

Yes you do. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley

Peer review opened here, 16 July 2015. I have promised to review it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
• Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
• Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
• American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

• Op-ed: On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it

• Traffic report: Belles of the ball

• WikiProject report: What happens when a country is no longer a country?

• In the media: Shapps requests WMUK data; professor's plagiarism demotion

• Blog: Wikimedia Foundation releases third transparency report

• News and notes: The Wikimedia Conference and Wikimania

• Featured content: When angels and daemons interrupt the vicious and intemperate

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Diaries, again

Many thanks for your excellent comments on the recent Hitler Diaries PR; the article has now moved on to FAC, should you wish to comment further. Thanks again – SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Carmen

Hi Brian. I just removed these two trivia incursions [1], [2]. Feel free to re-add if you think they were appropriate additions, although something tells me you won't :). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks – yes, indeed these additions had no value. As the article is averaging around 25,000 viewings a month, it's inevitable that it will get these trivia additions, by no means always ill-intentioned. Thanks to your watchful eye they are normally removed quickly. At some stage I will do a complete audit of the article; at present I am overhauling all "my" featured articles up to December 2010, to bring them to current FA standard. Carmen was promoted in April 2012, so it will have to wait a little for the full treatment. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The drive-by trivia hasn't been as bad as we had expected given the popularity of the opera and its tunes. I still keep this conversation from 2012 about a separate "adaptations" article on my talk page to remind me to keep an eye. I finally got so fed up with the incursions into the operatic voice type articles that I set up List of tenors in non-classical music, List of baritones in non-classical music etc. etc. Those lists are atrocious, of course, but who cares? At least we stop getting people like this chap being listed as a baryton-Martin and some heavy metal singer (whose name escapes me) as a Kavalierbariton. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision history statistics

Do any of the technically wise among us know what's happened to this useful tool which is not providing useful output at present? Where are the contributor lists? Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• @SchroCat: – any ideas?

(talk page stalker) I noticed the same thing myself. See if you understand this thread better than I do. --Dweller (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It might just as well be written in Serbo-Croat for all the sense I can make of it. The geeks speak their own language. But it seems like that highly useful tool has gone for good and nobody cares very much. Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry Brian - I just saw this (you have to sign the pings to make them work properly). There was a change in some of the software (I seem to remember reading) that means it's not working at the moment. What the WMF spend their money on is a mystery to me, especially when they come up with some terrible software ideas the force onto the community, but useful things, like bots to make the Featured processes work smoothly, or that run the revision history stats, seem to be utterly beyond them, or too far off the "useful things to actually care about" radar. I've pinged a note to the user Whatamidoing (WMF) to ask her about it, but as this is an external tool, I'm not sure it comes under their radar – although it is such a basic and fundamental tool that I'm surprised they haven't spent a couple of hours knocking up a simple interface to look at the data that already exists. – SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that if it were merely a matter of "a couple of hours", that X! tools would have been working months ago. In general, bots and tools belong to volunteers. In the meantime, User:Aka has written http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl which might provide some of the information that you're after. I believe that it limits itself to the last 500 edits. (I keep hoping for one that lets you choose a date range: "Who's done the most active here this year?" is usually more interesting to me than "Who's done the most work on this old page, ever?" Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

X! has been largely inactive for a while. Yes, adding an interface that links to the pre-existing information file on edit history isn't a massive deal, and it's certainly something WMF should be dealing with – it's of more importance than that flaming awful graphics viewer that was hoisted on people without any agreement. The fact that you have people here requesting it, saying how important it is should be something that sets the foundation actually thinking about how to service editor needs for once. – SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty shocked. These are important tools. I so wish User:X! was active. --Dweller (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hello Brian,

Would you mind doing a peer review of the Kurt Vonnegut article (see here) Wehwalt and I have been working on that in my userspace. I would very much appreciate your expertise in getting the article up to FA par. (Yes, I intend to go to FAC with this) Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I will certainly do this – he's a writer about whom I know shamefully little and need to learn more. Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Note to self

Keeping eyes on

• Hastings Line
• Kurt Vonnegut
• Aleister Crowley (awaiting responses)

09:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeannette map

I made changes to the first draft this morning, uploaded the revised version to the Commons, and replaced the old map in the existing article with the new one. Further tweaks will be no problem if needed. Finetooth (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks perfect. I haven't yet contributed to the article's text as I am working in sandboxes at present. So I may shift the positioning of the map; since the emphasis in the expanded article will be on the expedition rather than the ship itself, it could even be the lead image. I'll keep you posted on progress – again. my warmest thanks for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Most welcome. I look forward to reading the expanded article. Finetooth (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

hint

Joe Green still awaiting GA review.....--Smerus (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't done a GA review for about six years, and have rather forgotten how – my mindset is too much in the FA groove to be able to handle it with any certainty. Tim still does GAs, and he would be a better bet if available. Brianboulton (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

• From the editor: Change the world

• News and notes: Wikimanía 2016; Lightbreather ArbCom case

• Wikimanía report: Wikimanía 2015 report, part 1, the plenaries

• In the media: Novelists annotate Wikipedia; Wales promotes TPO; Working for free

• Traffic report: The Nerds, They Are A-Changin'

• WikiProject report: Some more politics

• Featured content: The sleep of reason produces monsters

• Gallery: "One small step..."

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Richard Nixon presidential campaign - PR

Hi there, looking through the records, I see you did a partook in the review process of United States Senate election in California, 1950, which brought it to Featured Article status. I have been working on this article, Richard Nixon presidential campaign, 1968, for some time now, and have gotten around to finalizing improvements to overall writing structure, and adding the richness of images a campaign article ought to have. I was hoping you could do a peer review for me, as you did for the 1950 Senatorial article, before I nominate to FA-status. I hope you can give good, critical reviews, and I hope with improvements derived from it, I can have your support in the nomination process. Thanks! Spartan7W § 06:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a peer review open, or if there is, it's not linked on the article's talk. I'm not sure I can face another bout with Tricky Dick at the moment, but here are a few things for you to work on. You can transpose these comments to the peer review page when it's open:

• As the subject is Nixon's presidential campaign, not just hs campaign for the party's nomination, the infobox does not seem adequate. It should surely at least mention who his opponents were in the 1968 election.
• First line of lead – "the Nixon"?
• The Aftermath section has no citations at all, and there are other instances of uncited material within the rest of the text.
• Some inflated images – these should support the text, rather than dominate it. Squeezing texts between left and right-hand images should be avoided if possible. The giant Nixon's the One banner in mid-article is intrusive, unnecessary (we have it in the infobox), and gives the article the appearance of a campaign leaflet.

That's all I can offer at present. I may rejoin the review process further down the line. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick insights. I was so bogged down in editing I overlooked the first line! As for the infobox, infoboxes for presidential campaigns don't include their opponents (see Obama or Romney), and the infobox template for campaigns doesn't include a line for that mention. Only in infoboxes covering the election are oppositions mentioned.

I added references I had lined up elsewhere into that aftermath section. Other than the lead, where you don't have to reference if it is referenced in the body, I don't know which areas you were referring to as unreferenced. Spartan7W § 14:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Spartan7W:: Current FAC expectation is that every paragraph should end with a citation. In the Nixon article:

• Second para of the Background section ends without a citation. I suspect this is simply a question of moving citation 9 to the end of the sentence.
• The last sentence of the second paragraph of the "General Election" section is uncited
• Nixon's "I know how it feels" quotation needs a source.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've carefully gone through FA criteria, and have included your suggestions. It was a quite thorough and good quality article beforehand, and inclusion of better syntax, sources, and images I think gives it the cut. Compared to the Senate campaign article, I think it is equal, if not more detailed and quality: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Nixon presidential campaign, 1968/archive1

Spartan7W § 17:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Begging bowl out once more...

What ho, and all that. I'm being a pest on the Bond front again, with book three of the series, Moonraker, which is now at PR, should you have either the time or inclination to visit. Many thanks and pip pip. – SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'll be there – give me a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Orange bars

Is anyone else finding their orange bars misbehaving. i.e. not clearing when the talk page has been visited until a "?action=purge" action is performed. It's been happening for a few days now. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Archive 85

←

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91