User talk:Brianboulton/Archive9

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.

On January 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mozart in Italy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations - from DYK to FA in 11 days is pretty impressive, and the article is too. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I just read your interview in the Signpost. Can I quote you on my syllabus? :) I'll get to Mozart in Italy soon! Can't wait - I'll listen to Mozart while reading it. Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. It was very helpful.

Frcm1988 (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Magicpiano suggested that I contact you. If you have the time, could you please look over Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky to suggest how the article might be improved for rerating? Thanks very much. Jonyungk (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Were you able to follow through with this? Didn't hear anything back after your initial message, so wasn't sure. Jonyungk (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to copyedit this article and give it some priority. If you could do this, it would be great. Jonyungk (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, You're doing a fantastic job. Jonyungk (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I know you are a big Mozart fan and I am constantly impressed with your contributions in that area. I am hoping you are a fan of George Frideric Handel as well because I want to invite you to join the opera project in our push to improve all things Handel. He is going to be our editing focus for the month of March (I know it's January right now) and we hope to feature him prominently on the opera portal in April to honor the 250th anniversary of his death. We probably won't be ironing out all the details until late February as to where we will be concentrating our efforts, but the conversation is already beginning. If you're interested, have any ideas, suggestions, etc. let me know.Nrswanson (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just letting you know we are talking about the March Handel push right now (see here). If there is anything you would like to contribute to let us know.Nrswanson (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The licensing on Image:Ross Ice Shelf 1997.jpg looks fine to me. I'd be interested in seeing the old drawing, though. I'm guessing that the ice and bright light make Antarctic photography a challenge; the images often look overexposed. I haven't scanned many images yet, but I had fun with Image:Igloos.jpg, taken from Arctic Researches and Life Among the Esquimaux: Being the Narrative of an Expedition in Search of Sir John Franklin in the Years 1860, 1861, and 1862 by Charles Francis Hall (1865). To get the original to appear reasonably flat without damaging the book, I propped it on an artist's easel and photographed it with a digital camera. I had doubts that this would work, but it did. Finetooth (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brian, here's your dedicated translator again. :=) This article about Shackleton's last voyage was really nice and and a very interesting, moving read. I hope to translate more of your fine works in the future. Actually I just ran into this and loved it, so you might hear from me again very soon. Best wishes, Thomas Guibal (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Last Castle is a great movie by director Rod Lurie and Robert Redford. I have posted the article for review on January 22 and it's now in the Backlog. Would u please consider reviewing it?

Thanks a lot.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for improving The Last Castle. Your contributions are great and of high quality.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking about the earlier Mozart the other day, and am trying to get a pianist friend to record one of them. =)

As for the Mozart in Italy request - I've checked my usual archives - one seems to have gotten a big sampling of material from a Freemason - LOTS of Zauberflote, nothing else by Mozart - the other, somewhat less reliable one, didn't have anything from the right period under a credible license (I'm not going to port over a modern recording under CC-by where the performer is nowhere named; nor one of a major opera star who died only a few years ago which is claimed to be PD). I have checked the archive, a resource listing early recordings: http://victor.library.ucsb.edu/ and there IS a PD recording of the Exultate by Geraldine Farrar, but I haven't found a transfer, just knowledge that it exists

Now, that said, I've made several enquiries, and think I should be able to at least arrange a piano-and-voice recording of one or more of the works in question. If nothing else, I can give you an excellent link: http://downloadmozart.com/ has full, no-commercial-use (Drat!) but otherwise free-licensed copies of... pretty much everything Mozart ever wrote, including the Betulia Liberata, all the operas in question, and so on. We may not be able to use it on Wikipedia, but we can certainly link there. I've sent an e-mail to them about relaxing the licensing for some pieces or parts of pieces; we shall see if anything comes of that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Slight correction above.

Hi Brian, any time you want me to do the PR backlog daily updates, just let me know and I will be glad to. If you even want to set up a weekly schedule, that would be fine. I know doing it every day can get tiring, so let me know how I can help. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for doing all you do at peer review. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. I thought I had replied here already, oh well.

Hi. Rktect and I have recently spent time improving the article Chedorlaomer which involved substantial re-writes. I have been looking for someone to go over what we have done and make any suggestions for further improvement. If you have the time, I would appreciate any input you can give. Thanks in advance. --FimusTauri (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks interesting. It may be a day or two before I can get to it, but I'll definitely read it and let you know what I think. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, which are all valid. We will act upon them as soon as time permits.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Catching me at a bad time - although I'm around I don't have a more than few minutes here and there. I'll see if I can have a read through during one of those brief forays. (Good choice by the way, he's underrated) Yomangani^talk 16:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

...and I forgot my own little tribute: [1] Yomangani^talk 16:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Brian, I've noticed that you're copyediting a lot of FACs in addition to reviewing a lot-- thanks so much for the effort. With the backlog at FAC, every little bit helps; I appreciate it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your excellent work on this so far. I sometimes do GA reviews at the depth you're currently doing this, and I know that it's a huge amount of work, especially for an article in which you have no particular emotional investment. I also wanted to let you know that I find the vast majority of your comments helpful; the ones I haven't taken action on yet are generally because I want to do a proper job of them (condensing the lead, etc.), and not because I disagree with the suggestions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, User:PeerReviewBot archives things that have had no activity in two weeks or are at FAC or FLC or are over 30 days old with two days of inactivity. I check it each day as there are occasional errors that need to be fixed by hand. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for such a great article, which has been a perfect base for the translation into German. Maybe you want to check out the slightly different table formatting I have been using to get a better display for both tables but especially the second one. IMHO it is better to use the rowspan attribute for this table, so that you can use a single row for each of the men, while grouping the rows for the expedition name and the refs. If you like it, I can implement it for you as kind of a tribute for your work. --Cybercraft (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Wow ... thats a lot of comments. It will take me sometime to take care of the comments and copyedit the article. Will leave you a message once I think I am done with them. --Kedar (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You could take a look at this page again? Thanks, Cannibaloki 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, take a look again². Cannibaloki 07:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Brian, I like it a lot. The old drawing is much more evocative than the photograph. It makes the coast look daunting, whereas the more recent photo only makes it look bright and cold. Finetooth (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time to PR Gomer Pyle. Much appreciated! Ink Runner (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Brian, I have made some fixes. Hopefully you like the whole team .... {{Invincibles Advert}} YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to your feedback. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I trust your opinion on politics articles because you have helped me make good decisions in the past. Do you have any thoughts on the Byron Brown FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Will try and look in the next couple of days. Brianboulton (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your pointers. I have responded to your issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. I'll continue reading through, copyediting as I go, mentioning any significant points that arise. This might take a few days, as I am also busy on other things at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes Brown was failed. The last objection will take time to address. I would love any type of assistance. A co-author or co-nom would even work. I have to dig into his State Senate career and look for encyclopedic content at Newsbank. Assistance welcome on all fronts for this article. You may have noticed that I nominated Jesse Jackson, Jr. in its place.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you still have any interest in working on this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

File:4172Colloredo.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Hieronymus Count Colloredo.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Hieronymus Count Colloredo.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I made a few comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Eli Manning pass to David Tyree/archive1 and found what you said there to be "spot on". Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I am aware of the maximum requests per editor. I'll try to review some if I have enough time. --Efe (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem! I am pretty new to the PR stuff, but I'd be more than happy to help in any way possible. I had planned on helping with peer reviews, but I kind of wanted to see how the process worked a few times, having only been through it twice so far for two of the articles I created. I will read more about how to give a proper review. Thanks for the comment! -Whataworld06 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brianboulton, I was wondering if possibly, if you are not too busy (which by the looks of it you might be), could look at Roxy Ann Peak again. You peer reviewed it last December, and I have worked on it a lot since. I'm thinking it might be ready for A-class, or maybe even FA, and would greatly appreciate if I could have your opinion. Thanks, LittleMountain5 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't mind a bit. LittleMountain5 00:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks again for the helpful comments you made at the PR, though I was thrown a little by your suggesting it should go to FAC, which I hadn't even considered. I do have some experience of the process, i.e. half-shares in the successful Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1956 FA Cup Final and very occasional comments at football club nominations, so wouldn't be too afraid of going through it again. If and when you have a minute, could you tell me if you think it a substantial enough article to take to FAC as it stands? and if so, how close do you reckon the prose is to being acceptable? thanks, Struway2 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the problem for now - also not sure how it was listed at PR - will investigate later. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you have done some great featured-article quality work on Rhinemaidens and Mozart in Italy, two articles related to Opera. There is a discussion now about Portal:Opera at its talk page, Portal talk:Opera. Perhaps you would like to give your comments. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks once again for the support for Edgar Speyer which has now been promoted. Phew, that was hard work! --DavidCane (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: the missing star - I think the bot's having a nap. It's already in the list of Featured Articles under the Business, economics and finance section. As that's an under represented category, that might give it a helping hand if I put it up for the main page. I'm thinking 23 November this year which would be 100 years since he was made a privy counsellor. If I don't nominate anything until then, I make that at least 8 points. --DavidCane (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on Carsten Borchgrevink making FA! Just saw the bot closed the FAC.

The odd peer review was started as a file with the correct name and the bot found it and listed it at WP:PR, despite there being no link from the article's talk page. Thanks again for the heads up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia is traveling and so is Raul654, so I think Raul cleaned out FAC before hitting the road. I assume once the OTRS tag giving permission for the one bridge image is cleared up, it should be promoted too (unless someone new finds some unnoticed problem). I like reading your articles, keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My congratulations on the Borchgrevink FA. You are doing a wonderful job. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing the PR for the Banker horse article. I had internet connection problems all last week, but it's all good now and I'm ready to tackle the list. :) --Yohmom (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The last FAC was not properly extended, and thus did not receive the additional support needed to have it brought to FA status. The very last comments for the last FAC even state that the article only needed minor improvements. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

• I think I fixed all of the dabs that needed work. Also, the image problems have been completely sorted out. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

I saw your post - thanks in advance for coming to review this page, I look forward to addressing your comments. Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 19:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Great comments, I've answered these except for one that is not discussed in my sources. I'm searching for one that does. done. Thanks for the time and attention to this article. NancyHeise ^talk 04:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I finished all of them now, thanks for taking the time to come by and have a look. NancyHeise ^talk 02:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I'm just wondering if you are OK with those last two changes - no hurry. NancyHeise ^talk 17:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Brian, I'm sorry to bother you again but I don't know what you mean when you refer to "bald link" and there is no wikipedia page on the term. Can you just tell me which links you think are bald and what you want me to do about it? NancyHeise ^talk 18:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		Awarded to Brianboulton for his excellent peer review of The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology. NancyHeise talk 21:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've finally gotten around to looking at your peer review of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, thank you very much for a thorough and helpful review! I've implemented most of the changes you suggested, and now I think it should be ready for FAC. Any input there - within what conflict of interest allows, of course - would be most welcome. Lampman (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at the Friends pilot peer review! Bradley0110 (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as someone who previously commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Wilkes Booth, you may wish to revisit this page, as the FAC has been restarted and additional content to meet the concerns expressed has been added.  JGHowes  ^talk 23:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know: I'm still working on this, but my leads haven't yet panned out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and the effort. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the congratulations, but I can't see where the article has been promoted (yet). The last outstanding FAC issue (OTRS tag giving permission for the PennDOT image) has been cleared up, and there are no opposes, so I expect it to be promoted very soon. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I never even thought to look there - thanks for letting me know. The DYK bot has been not working - hope it is not some sort of bot virus (semi-joke). Thanks for your review of the article and kind words too - formal thank spam to follow later. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

	<font=3> Thanks again for your comments and support - Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3 made featured article today! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using

{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}

which displays as

This user has reviewed 6 Good Article nominations on Wikipedia.

There is more information on how to do this at Template:User Good Articles reviewed.

Note: If you are not interested in doing this, you don't have to do anything; the template will still work for you exactly as it does now.

Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you restore the word "who" in this sentence?

"Ælfmaer, abbot of St Augustine's Abbey, who managed to escape."

Doesn't make sense to me, but I maybe need to have my eyes tested again. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is not grammatical without "who". It would be like saying: "Also at my party were Tom, Judy, Phil, and Terry went home early." Give Tony a buzz if you don't believe me. Brianboulton (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not one sentence though, it's two. "Ælfmaer, abbot of St Augustine's Abbey, who managed to escape" is a complete sentence. The addition of "who" only makes sense if you see that as part of the previous sentence, which it clearly is not. I'd be exceedingly surprised if Tony were to support your insistence on adding the word "who", and given his level of RL stress I've absolutely no intention of soliciting his opinion on such a flagrant breach of English grammar; I can only suppose that you have perhaps misread the fullstop at the end of the previous sentence for a comma?

Your example would be more accurately rendered as: "Also at my party were Tom, Judy, and Phil. Terry, who went home early." Terry, who went home early what? There's something missing. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me double check the source and make sure that all three folks escaped or if it was just one who escaped. Yes, it is only the one abbot (Aelfmaer) who escaped, the others were apparantly ransomed. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Further, that's just a guess that the others were ransomed, the source doesn't say what happened to them. Sorry I've been out of it today, very sinusy and just not up to much. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that bit was written slightly confusingly anyway, so I've had a go at rejigging it that I hope we can all agree on. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I know I write convoluted! It matches the source now, so hopefully it's all good. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's fine now. Sorry about the bad example, above, but there were problems accessing wikipedia pages yesterday and I responded to what I thought the article said, since I was unable to check. From my review notes I remembered it as one sentence. You can hold this against me next time I make an overconfident statement in a review. Mea maxima culpa. Brianboulton (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's clearer now, so that's the important thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Brian. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 has been running quite a while and has gotten somewhat convoluted, with overlapping reviewers. Would you have time to update the status of your Oppose there, considering that others have subsequently gone through? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed this by a further comment on the FAC page. Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the others have stopped, so you can continue firing away....YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brian: I'm finished editing Polaris expedition and have nominated it for GA status. Wondered if you are interested in participating in the review? Zatoichi26 (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've retired from GA reviewing, because I've got so used to FAC now that I unconsciously review everything against FA criteria, which is unfair to prospective GAs. When it gets through that hurdle, put it on to peer review and I'll take a crack at it there. From what I've seen it looks very interesting. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - understandable. Yes - the Polar success stories are well known so it's interesting to read one that was such an unmitigated disaster. Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brian, have you got the time to take a look at this one? I am working with some high school students who are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008, and we plan to take this one to FAC in March. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll review it for prose, but I'm completely ignorant about the science! Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, I knew this might be a chore, any suggestions will be helpful. Graham, Graham Colm ^Talk 15:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to finish a promised copyedit of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, which will take me till about Tuesday. Is it OK to leave it till then? Brianboulton (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that's sooner than I expected :-) Thanks, Brian. Graham Colm ^Talk 15:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather far from Rheingold, Thomas Beecham or the Antarctic, where we have exchanged edits in the past, but if you could find time and inclination to cast an eye over this article which Ssilvers and I have been working on I'd be grateful. It has this very day passed GA review, but having another discerning eye run over it would do no harm at all. Perfectly understand if you haven't time etc, though. Tim riley (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I will get to it, if you don't mind waiting a bit. Why don't you take it to PR, where I prowl regularly, and where other discerning eyes are also known to roam? Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Terra incognita for me, but I'll certainly follow your suggestion. Tim riley (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Really excellent pointers in your comments so far. I'm in your debt. Tim riley (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidently, Mozart wrote no solo piano compositions during the Italy tour. Oh, well! Will keep working on that.

However, I HAVE found someone willing to try the Piece in F for Keyboard K.33b (Mozart) and at least part of the Piano Sonata No. 1 (Mozart). He says he'd like a few weeks to practice first.

I'll keep working on the Italy tour, but I thought you'd be glad to know that some progress has happened. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC) PS This is so you can see the spam I am giving every one ;-) Will work on the map too

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have addressed many of the concerns you mentioned, and I had just one or two questions for you at the FA nomination. I look forward to your response, and please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Done! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Was just following up with you to see if you noticed the changes that were made to the article, and to see if there was anything else I could do to earn your support. Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The link works just fine for me. Should we see if anyone else if having trouble opening the link? Also, I changed the sentence to the one you suggested. Much appreciated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw my reply, but I did find some stuff. I need an email back from you to send you the pdfs. (You can't send attachments through wikipedia emails). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sent. Let me know if you can read them. Nothing like scans of photocopies.... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:01, 27 February 2009 (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.