User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil FAC is now open!

Empire of Brazil is now a Featured Article candidate. Your opinion (either as support or oppose) is welcome. Here is the page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Empire of Brazil/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

C. D. Howe

As an editor seems to think it needs a slight copyedit, would you mind going over it a bit if you have time? If not, no big deal.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem, I'll try to get to it in a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
No great hurry. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I've implemented your comments already, I hope. Cruttwell duly done. I like quirky offshoot articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks re Cruttwell, I'll get to your comments tomorrow. I'm sorry it's taking so long to do the Howe copyedits but that should be finished tomorrow, too. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Cosmo Gordon Lang#Portrayal in The King's Speech

I added this section, if you don't mind. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have commented on this on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:NansenGreenlandmap1888.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:NansenGreenlandmap1888.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes...

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pyramid Head/archive1 means I should be able to do a few source reviews at FAC. It was either that or PR, and I never manage to stick to PR very long. So consider this my contribution to PR, freeing you up to do a much better job there than I ever could. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Good news from my point of view. I'll continue to contribute source reviews at FAC, but it will be good to have a little more PR time (not to mention more chance to work on my own articles). And a happy new year to you, too. Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm grabbing the latest mushroom, and let me know if there are any I missed that need it? I got the cuisine and backed you up on the Missouri River. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a head's up - I'll be out of town tomorrow (Monday) and the day after (Tuesday). Will sorta have internet access at night, but you'll need to pick up any candidates during that time frame. It's a wiki related trip though! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy your trip. I will be at my post, and will knock off a few. Brianboulton (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer review of Section 116 of the Australian Constitution

Hi - I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to do this peer review. I really appreciate it. I'm going to work some more on the article to address all of your suggestions. I don't have any particular comments in response because I think all the suggestions would improve the article. Thanks again. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

For your consideration

I'm sure you have several projects on your to do list, but I thought I might make a plug for some potential FA opera articles. Obviously feel free to ignore anything or everything I suggest if it's of no interest to you.

Major work from the traditional opera canon
Der Rosenkavalier turns 100 this year on 26 January
We have no FA class articles by Strauss
Premiered 300 years ago on 24 February 1711
Has enjoyed revived popularity in the last several decades
Peri turns 450 this year on 20 August
Euridice is the oldest surviving opera
Menotti turns 100 this year
Amahl is claimed to be the most frequently performed opera in the world by some sources
Amahl turns 60 on Christmas Eve 2011 (good day for mainpage feature)
We have no FA class articles on an English language opera

I hope I've sparked your interest. I look forward to reading your next opera article whatever it might be.4meter4 (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. I will definitely consider Rinaldo (I did Agrippina a couple of years back). Whether I can do it in time to be TFA on 24 February is another matter; I have various plans and commitments, though it may be possible to shift them around. I'll give this serious thought. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Brian. Don't put any undo stress on yourself. Getting any one of these to FA at anytime would be great. The dates for TFA would be nice but are by no means essential. Thank you again for your contributions to opera. Let me know if I can help in anyway with any future opera projects. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

List of fatal bear attacks in North America

Thank you for peer reviewing this article. I jumped the gun a bit by submitting it for PR before I had some other improvements to make, but I'm going to step away now. Thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I do plan on trying to do a location map for Canada and the US to indicate attack locations. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your review. I've replied with some follow up thoughts and questions on the review. I appreciate you taking the time to look at this. --CutOffTies (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought it said "beer attacks". I'm going to bed.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Brianboulton. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada – Wendover, Utah)/archive1.
Message added 03:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have responded to your last round of comments. Admrboltz (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review my responses from 6 January 2011 on this FAC. Thank you. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Handel's collection of paintings

Dear Brianboulton, I need some support. I made a list this morning of painters under George Frideric Handel. Handel owned quit a few paintings which were sold in 1760 after his death. I was very surprised to see so many names I had never heard of. It does not list his collection of paintings, because that would be impossible to finish. Now there is someone from Sidney who likes Handel but obviously he is not interested in paintings and reverted it. Can you give your opinion? Taksen (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

John J. Crittenden

Sorry for my tardy responses to your concerns about sources on my FA nomination of John J. Crittenden. Just wanted to let you know that I have addressed them now. Thanks for your patience. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Warren County, Indiana

Sorry to bother you, but would you would have a chance to revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Warren County, Indiana/archive2? The reference issues you identified have been addressed. I realize you probably have other projects going on, but I have very much appreciated your help thus far and wondered if you would now feel that the article deserves support for FA; this is the first article I've attempted to take through this process, but it appears to be difficult for candidate articles to receive reviews (at the moment, at least), so I thought I'd ask. Thanks! Omnedon (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

peer review

Thanks for the PR I am reading over the comments right now. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 03:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Delius Revisited

I have finished the bones of the biography section – but by all means add or amend ad lib. You will see that I have a few "page xxx" references for Beecham's biography. This is because I have quoted lines quoted in reviews of the book, but have not seen the ipsissima verba with my own eyes. For reasons that I have mentioned by email I am not at home nor able to get to the British Library. If you are happy to wait till next week I may be able to do so, and deal with these, but I see no prospect of it this week.

In contrast with my experiences in doing up the Elgar and Walton articles, I have found that the difficulty here has not been deciding what to put in but what to omit. Delius's life was such a kaleidoscope that there is a huge temptation to shovel in tons of interesting but not centrally relevant stuff. I hope I have kept more or less to the straight and narrow, but don't hesitate to shout if you think I've strayed, à la Bunyan's Pilgrim, into By-Path Meadow. Tim riley (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Refs added as asked, but have, temporarily, not got access to Beecham 1959/1975 for page numbers. Tim riley

(talk) 23:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll do these, I have the book. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mao in Washington

San Francisco Opera announced they will do it next year. I am on their mailing list for some reason although the only time I have been to see them was in 1990, surely before I had email. Page is here.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Delius images

  • File:Rosen - Frederick Delius.jpg: Probably OK but I will check the licencing with Jappalang
  • File:Julius-Delius.jpg: Do we know whether this image has been published other than on the website? If we can establish publication, say in a newspaper, before 1923 we are home and dry, otherwise there may be problems. How can we claim "life of the author plus 70 years" when we don't know who the photographer was? Julius died in 1901; if this was taken in, say, 1895, it is not inconceivable that the photographer was alive in 1940.
I accept the point, but as the photographer is unknown (I have, by the way, rung the Bradford Library to ask if they had any more details, but they haven't) I hope it is reasonable to assume that the 70-year rule is applicable in default of any information to the contrary, but let us see what the image experts think. Tim riley (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Frederic-delius-circa-1882.jpg: Same problem; can we find when or if this was published before 1923? The photograph is date 1882, so a 25-year-old photographer would have been 83 in 1940 - not inconceivable.
As above, I have asked the Bradford Library but there is no info about the photographer or dates. Again, I hope that the 70 year rule can be reasonably assumed. Certainly it looks like a professional photograph.
I have not followed this up, but it is clearly not a professional shot - it's a card party - and it is hard to conceive that anyone has known for the past 100 years who took it. Tim riley (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I fear I agree with you on this. We inherited this pic, but I think it is distinctly dubious copyright-wise. I think the scan of the 1928 pic I sent you recently may be a safer bet. Tim riley (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! I noticed your activity reviewing Featured Article Candidates, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Cruttwell

Don't know why I assumed you would be able to see the links, my apologies. I wondered if you might find them interesting: this was from a "review" of the election:

"It is almost unnecessary to say that the result of the University poll was the main topic of conversation in Oxford during the week-end. Though the prospect of Mr. Cruttwell's defeat was never ruled out by Conservative headquarters in London, the general view in Oxford had been that the solid phalanx of countrv clergy, who have been the backbone of Conservative majorities in the past, would vote down Mr. Herbert's light-hearted attack. His views on some subjects, as expounded in his books and in a brilliant election address, can hardly be supposed to be altogether congenial to them. On the other hand Mr. Cruttwell is thought to have taken the efficacy of the machine too much for granted and to have assumed that, although a newcomer, he had nothing to do but to step into Sir Charles Oman's shoes. It must be remembered also that he was nominated in the face of a deter- mined and well-organized opposition, which undoubtedly took its revenge by rallying to Mr. Herbert." (Times, 18 Nov 1935, p. 14)

Also: "Mr. Cruttwell forfeited his deposit under Section 27 of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, which provides that the number of first prefer- ences is to be taken in deciding whether a candi- date polls one-eighth of the total number of votes cast." (The Times, 18 Nov 1935, p. 8) I don't know if this helps or if you want to use it, it makes no difference to my support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent stuff. I will distill the essence into a couple of sentences and add to the article - but I'm working in the leak at the moment! Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The first extract is from "Some belated returns", the second "Oxford University Voting." --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I've made the fixes to the Leak if you want to have another look, thanks for the review. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on another fine FA! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, well done. You are finding a balance between the important articles, like Waugh and Nansen, with being the ultimate resource on slightly less important ones.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Delius image

The critic David Nice's pages have the 1912 pic and a clear date and attribution. here Tim riley (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the source to the above link. Brianboulton (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Brian, I have reverted that edit. The blog was using the image; it was not the source from which the Commons's copy was uploaded. Naming the blog as the source would be akin to naming a Wikipedia mirror as a source for an uncited piece of information. Jappalang (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
As from the book
Does it matter if it's black or white?

Piggybacking here, the problems for foreign works is if they were published during 1923–1977 and they were not in their country's public domain before 1 Jan 1996 (in that event they were considered to have US copyright for 95 years since publication.

  • File:Grieg-Delius-Leipzig 1887.jpg: The earliest publication (if authorised) seems to be 1970 (which could fall within the photographer's 70-year-pma) in Evan Senior's piece in volume 19 of Music and musicians, p. 36: "A game of cards in Leipzig. 1888. with Nina and Edvard Grieg, Johann Halvorssen, Delius and Christian Sinding." Key thing is to still find out the photographer's identity. It is used as the cover of Grieg and Delius: a chronicle of their friendship in letters (1993), so mayhaps that book might provide a source for the photograph?
  • File:Julius-Delius.jpg and File:Frederic-delius-circa-1882.jpg: The Bradford site states "Bradford Libraries, Archives and Information Service is grateful for permission to use illustrations from the archives of The Delius Trust." I am afraid that to qualify for the 70 years since publication for anonymous works, it means the Delius Trust has to be queried over the photographer's identity before the "reasonable inquiry" clause can be fulfilled. Once that is done, and the photographer is still unknown, then we can likely use them with {{PD-US-unpublished}} (for not published before 1978) and {{PD-UK-unknown}} (for anonymous works whose authors cannot be reasonably ascertained).
  • File:Rosen - Frederick Delius.jpg and File:Delius-gerhadi-1912.jpg: If Rosen and Gerhardi and their heirs never authorised the reproduction of the paintings, then the images seem okay per {{PD-US-unpublished}}. If the paintings were authorised for reproduction during 1923 to 1977, then we might have problems. Since Rosen is Delius's wife, it would seem that the Trust would be the copyright holders of her painting of him, although it may be probable that she ceded only the copyrights and benefits of Delius's works and not hers to the Trust.[1] The Trust seemingly published it in 2005,[2] identifying it as created in 1912.[3] Why then, however, is it in the University of Melbourne and stated 1925 in origin?[4] Perhaps this is a reproduction later made for the university, or what? This should be inquired on, since if it was a legal reproduction (publication), then the 95-year US copyright could come into play. There is also the issue of locating Jelka's painting on the Delius Trust's website (where it supposedly come from).

-- Jappalang (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel the quicksand gathering around my shoes. (I clearly don't understand the rules. I thought Jelka's pic was PD because she died in 1935.) I'll contact the Delius Trust about the Victorian photos but don't hold your breath. Meanwhile I've sent you by email a scan of a page from the TLS, 1935, which has at least one image I think may be regarded as pukka. See what you think. Tim riley (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The rules relating to American copyright are complex and confusing to us poor Brits and there's no shame in not understanding them. That's why I frequently pester those in the know. I'll go to your email now and tell you what I think. Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Later: I've looked. Alas, to be public domain in the US the relevant date is that of publication, not of creation. To claim these as PD in the US we would have to show evidence of publication before 1923. So no dice, I think. Probably our best bet for getting an incontrovertibly PD-US picture of Fred would be one of the musical journals in the period 1908-14, when he was being performed quite frequently in the UK. I've got the Musical Times for the whole of 1900 but that's too early. I'm sure he's to be found in later issues.
When we've had a little more advice from Jappalang, I'll make a list of images those we can definitely use, then we can decide what steps we want to take to secure use of the more elusive ones. Nil desperandum. Brianboulton (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to check the other images in the article, but will do so later.

  • File:Romeo und Julia auf dem Dorfe 1.jpg is okay (just needed a {{PD-1923}} tag to assert its status in the US).
  • The image of Fisk Jubilee singers, from the Illustrated London News 1873, would be fine (it might be wise to archive the webpage via Webarchive or Webcitation so the source of information would not be lost). It might also be wise to upload this to Wikipedia instead of to Commons.
  • The 1920 lithograph of Delius by Munch could be an issue since it does not tell which publication it was in (if any).
  • The notice and poster of 1899 St James Hall concert is okay in my view since its nature (a distributed material among the attendees/nation) is stated as such by its source; it might be preferable to upload it locally (to Wikipedia) as {{PD-1923-abroad}} since details of its status in the UK (the country of origin) might not be determined.

I can help to look for a pre-1923 photograph of Delius later. Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We are very grateful for this advice and for your continuing help. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Brian, I have gone through the other four images in the article not listed here and they are fine. File:Edvard Grieg by Lindahl 1876.jpg is, however, mis-attributed to Lindahl (Elliot and Fry took the photograph, not him): I have corrected the details and put in a rename request. Copyright-wise, it is still okay to use (PD in both UK and US). Jappalang (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic work. I'll consult conom Tim, but we now have around 9 or 10 images that we can legitimately use, so we may feel it's not worth doing all the investigatory work to establish whether the troublesome exisiting images are PD in the US. This has been a terrific contribution towards improving the article, particularly finding pre-publication detailss of the 1907 Delius; as I said before, if I can help you in any way on a future project, don't hesitate to ask. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
May I associate myself with those words of thanks? I am lost for words at such expertise (and indeed such kindness). I place myself entirely in Brian's hand as regards the use of the images in the article. Tim riley (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Rinaldo performances

Thanks for taking this on. Here are some performance reviews you may find useful for the Met production which originated earlier in Ottawa, Canada and was also exported to the Lyric Opera of Chicago in 1984. One review mentions a 1975 production in Houston and another says the Houston Grand Opera staged it in 1978. Not sure which year(s) is correct. I have subsription access to NYT. If you need me to look at any NYT articles I will. Here they are: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]

Hope this helps. I am looking for more production reviews. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interesting review of a 2008 production by the Zurich Opera: [12].4meter4 (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Pages 39-40 have info on recordings of Rinaldo: [13]4meter4 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
This briefly mentions an amateur production in the 1930s.4meter4 (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Grove mentions Rinaldo in Houston with Joan Sutherland in 1975: [14].4meter4 (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The Handel Opera Society presented the first modern revival in England in 1961 with a revival of that production in 1966 at the Sadler's Wells Theatre. [15]4meter4 (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The new Grove book of operas states that the first modern professional production was in Halle in June 1954.4meter4 (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Glyndebourne will be presenting its first staging of Rinaldo this year.4meter4 (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Opera News gave this review of the 2004 Göttingen International Handel Festival and this review of the Prague 2009 production. The magazine also reviews this 2001 Decca recording and this 2006 Naxos recording. 4meter4 (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
This is brilliant stuff and I will be able to use most of it. Thanks greatly. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. Feel free to ask me if you need further help. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article in The New York Times on Joseph Addison's criticisms of Rinaldo following its premiere.4meter4 (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have a subscription so I can't access the article. If it's not too long and you have time to precis its contents, I'd be glad to look at it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have copied the article out for you at: User:4meter4/sandbox24meter4 (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

A few more sources for you:

Hope these help.4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks yet again. I have more than enough detail, now, for the "Modern revivals" section (I will have to cut a lot to keep it at reasonable length), so no more for the moment, please. When the article draft is more developed, we can look at the section and see if it needs further treatment. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'll leave it to you to decide which performances to highlight. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Adelaide leak

I've put the article up for FAC now. Any further comments appreciated as always! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words at the review and for your support! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 28, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 28, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 03:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Evelyn Waugh, 1940

The Temple at Thatch is an unpublished novel by the British author Evelyn Waugh, his first adult attempt at full-length fiction. He began writing it in 1924 at the end of his final year as an undergraduate at Hertford College, Oxford, and continued to work on it intermittently in the following 12 months. After his friend Harold Acton commented unfavourably on the novel in June 1925, Waugh burned the manuscript. In a fit of despondency from this and other personal disappointments, he then made a half-hearted suicide bid before returning to his senses. In the absence of a manuscript or printed text, the only information as to the novel's subject comes from Waugh's diary entries and later reminiscences. The story was evidently semi-autobiographical, based around Waugh's Oxford experiences. The protagonist was an undergraduate and the work's main themes were madness and black magic. Some of the novel's ideas were incorporated into Waugh's first commercially published work of fiction, the 1925 short story "The Balance", which includes several references to a country house called "Thatch" and, like the novel, is partly structured as a film script. Acton's severe judgement did not deter Waugh from his intention to be a writer, but it affected his belief that he could succeed as a novelist. For a time he turned his attention away from fiction, but with the gradual recovery of his self-confidence he was able to complete his first novel, Decline and Fall, which was published with great success in 1928. (more...)


Zurich Rinaldo article

Hello, Brianboulton. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Voceditenore (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

More eyes on L'Orfeo needed

Hi Brian. See the section Spurious "Performance history" additions on Talk:L'Orfeo. I have now twice reverted this spectacularly unhelpful Italian IP (79.39.119.34). Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will watch the page. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Cripes! He just added it again. I'm at 2 reverts and have had to leave it as it is. Voceditenore (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I am pretty sure WP:3RR does not apply in cases of vandalism. In any case I semi-protected for a week, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I've also alerted WikiProject Opera to keep an eye on it. The first two times the IP added the table couldn't be classified as vanadalism, just deeply misguided, and the third, which re-added the table and shoved the entire rest of the article into one of its columns was (I think) unintentional. Hence I was leery of reverting a third time. I generally only do that in cases of BLP defamation. Voceditenore (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Lindenwood University Peer Review

When you get a chance, please review the Lindenwood Univ. Peer Review. I've completed everything on the to-do list. At first I thought it was a bunch of small fixes but the changes really make the article much more readable and GA-like. Thanks again for the help and critique. Bhockey10 (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Chandra Levy PR

Hello, I do want to pre-emptively apologize as I had gone through nearly all your suggestions for the Peer review of Chandra Levy before becoming pre-occupied during the holidays (and letting a bot close it). However, I also want to thank you as I thought your observations helped to greatly improve the article. I had only partially gone through the very last sections, Media coverage and Impact, as another editor had also responded. Please let me know of any additional work you think may need to be done for FA standard. I would be happy to resubmit this article for another round through WP:PR if you think it is appropriate. KimChee (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I really do appreciate it! KimChee (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources review

Thanks Brian for your sources review here. I have responded to your concerns – would you be able to check back in? Many thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Note re above 3 messages: I will check all these out as soon as I can. Today has been very difficult for numerous reasons, but the weekend will be calmer. Rest assured you are not forgotten! Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_36&oldid=1141614746"