User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 61

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

Happy New Year

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg Have an enjoyable New Year!
Hello Brianboulton: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Le Mesurier

I have noted the comments above. I should be able to return to the article tomorrow (3 January) and continue my copyedits. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Best wishes for the New Year!
Dear Brainy Brian, Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Annunciation

Did you know ...

Thank you for making me part of Messiah - the broader picture is on my talk - and for your diligent peer review of Franz Kafka. Please help me watch that article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Unsurprisingly I was aware of the facts that you highlight, but the architecture of Messiah is always interesting and these are useful reminders. Congratulations on the creation of the subarticles - great work on your part. Since I am somewhat forgetful, I hope you will prompt me when it is time to nominate for TFA. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Some of the facts were probably new to some Main page watchers when they were shown in the (often discredited) DYK section in 2011 ;) - When I started work (in preparation of our concert that year), I didn't know that Annunciation is the only scene from a Gospel, and that He was despised is the longest movement. When Andreas Scholl sang it, the audience was absolutely silent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
By now, I archived Christmas and decorated for enlightenment, stunning picture, isn't it? - I will check the date for nominating Messiah, but you could in addition simply watch TFA 22 February, - once that is scheduled, it's time to nominate. Do you agree that the article would profit from putting the refs in a separate list, for easy maintenance? If yes, I am willing to do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I also started an infobox, not on the main article but Messiah structure, please add parameters and ask for more, I learned to add them as needed if it's simple ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A hyphen question

Hi Brian, It's a rather simple and obvious question, but my mind has been blank for five minutes on something I should know, and I know you will: is a book "well-received by the critics", or "well received by the critics"? I suspect the former, but its been something of a trying day today! Many thanks for any help. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No hyphen in the postpositive form that you quote. The simple adjectival form ("a well-received book") has the hyphen. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
It was a good thing I checked: the day has obviously been worse for my brain than I first thought! Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Le Mez

Brian, Thank you so much for your time and effort on the Le Mez article: it was much appreciated and the prose is now in a much better shape than it was previously. It looks like the three os us agree with your comments, and we will be undertaking another fairly heavy pruning session shortly. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Follow Me Home

Hi, how are you? Remember your comments here that were quite insightful, well if you have any spare time, it would mean a lot if you could take a look at the first section ('Background') of Follow Me Home (song), as I completely rewrote it and I'm not sure if the prose make senses to a third-party reader. Thanks in advance! Till 11:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I will look at it when I can, but I am presently tied up with (a) an edit war, (b) preparing an article for FAC, (c) a couple of outstanding peer reviews that I must finish. So if you can be patient for a day or two, I'll certainly be pleased to help. Brianboulton (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Poppea

Brian, I hope you are well. I'm curious—have you been following the edits and events unfolding at L'incoronazione di Poppea? A well-meaning editor has made some substantive changes to the article and some of them are undergoing discussion on the Talk page. --Laser brain (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

PR to FAC - John Le Mesurier

Hi Brian once again, thanks for all you did at the peer review for the above. This is just a quick note to let you know of its recent FAC which I have co-nominated along with Schrodinger's cat is alive and Dr. Blofeld. We would welcome any comments or criticisms that you may have to offer. -- CassiantoTalk 21:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Fender

I'm in no great rush, so don't worry. The vague plan is to take it to FAC next week at some point, but I have no definite timescale in mind and certainly not one that cannot change. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help on this one. I'll let it ferment for a day or two, and have a last hammer at it before FAC. If you've no objection, I'll ping you towards the middle of the week. I also hope to add one of the famous Webster cartoons which should be PD. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I think I've done everything I'm going to before FAC, and I've added the cartoon (published in 1922). I'd be grateful for a last look; I'm hoping to nom by Monday. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Favourite / most representative FA of 2012

Hi Brian, as a highly active featured article reviewer and writer would you be willing to give a write up about your favourite new FA of 2012, or the one you consider most representative of Wikipedians' work during the timeframe? Something like this maybe, but for articles. Ed said it would fun to do, and I agree it would be interesting. If you're interested, just reply here and I'll set some space aside. (Note: I am also asking Ian and Graham, because the more the merrier). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This sounds worth doing. How many words, and what timescale? Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nothing too long, as there'll be two or three of you; maybe a hundred words or so? I'm hoping to have everything in my hands Monday. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've replied on my talk page. Sorry if I'm not coming across clearly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bartered Bride

Did you know that I try to do a daily "On this day" in DYK format for project opera, and today it's The Bartered Bride? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the good old BB! Gerda, your industry amazes me. This has never been a TFA; perhaps I should polish it up (haven't looked at it for ages). Does any significant date suggest itself? Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
BB's BB, didn't even notice that ;) - like I had to have a GA, finally (top of my talk) - I didn't look for a date, normally the premiere would be best, right? - 30 May 1866, - do we expect TFA to last until 2016, or try now? - Did you know that it also comes up in my personal memories? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
ps: 30 May is only one day after "Sacre", too good ;) - 2014 or 2016 or different day? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Because of Smetana's status as a national composer, maybe look at one of the Czech national holidays: Czech Statehood Day, 28 September, or Czech Independence Day, 28 October? 2016 seems far away - will I still be doing this then? I've no idea. Brianboulton (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Statehood dates seem not convicing, because it was K&K Smetana's time. Premiere in English language perhaps, to justify the Common name? Can't find it in the article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
US premiere was on 20 August 1893 at the Haymarket Theatre in Chicago (in Czech); British premiere was on 26 June 1895 at Drury Lane (in German). First performance in English seems to have been on 17 November 1909 by the Metropolitan Opera at the New Theatre (Central Park West & 63rd-64th Street), later the Century Theater, New York. --GuillaumeTell 12:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Ferrierofficial.jpg listed for deletion

Hi Brian, I've nominated File:Ferrierofficial.jpg for deletion. The discussion is here. Sadly, the image does not pass the WP:NFCC — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

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

Kenneth Widmerpool (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to The Kindly Ones, Donald Maclean and Intelligence Corps
High Master (academic) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to St Paul's School

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wagner FAC

Hi Brian, I know you've commented on this article's talk page but be great to see you add to the FAC reviews when/if possible (also pinging Tim). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The "Right" of Spring

Whatever next, indeed, Brian. But it seems it's not unprecedented - see [1]. Sad, really. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 00:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to say

...thanks. For what you might ask? Last night I peeked at Neville Cardus - very nice but I have no time to review unfortunately, though you seem to be doing okay - and I noticed File:Albert Square Manchester 1910, Valette.jpg, which I really liked. It's just so - Mancunian. I woke this morning to a dreary day with a week ahead filled with more work that I have time for and it fit my mood, so I stole it for my page. And I do have fond memories of dreary winter afternoons in Albert Square. While I'm on the subject of thanking - thanks for all the work you do around here. I honestly don't know how you find the time. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I am glad you liked the Albert Square image. My knowledge of Manchester is very slender (went to a conference years ago but didn't visit Albert Square). My family comes from Liverpool, and I spent my early years there. I am finding it harder now to maintain my range of Wikipedia activities. I still intend to write and review, but it will be on a rather smaller scale in future. I have made good progress with Kenneth Widmerpool if you want to peep, though it's not finished yet. Brianboulton (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Nickel (United States coin)

Some time ago, at this article's FAC, you questioned why Rep. Eric Cantor was contacted by the Mint in 2002, before the nickel was changed for the Westward Journey designs, which I was unable to fully answer. I am at the American Numismatic Association library this week, and spent some time on the issue. There's an article in Numismatic News at the time which indicates that the Mint originally planned to invoke the 25-year rule and change the nickel's design administratively rather than by act of Congress. Of course, there would be no way to go back for 25 years. That pointed me in the direction of an article in the Richmond Times Dispatch, to which the relevant portion is:

"Cantor had felt Congress was being skirted. He said yesterday his staff had been told earlier that Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill would announce Monday a change for the Jefferson nickel design. But [Mint Director Henrietta] Fore told him yesterday that was not the case, according to Cantor. Fore indicated the Mint wanted congressional input, and that it understood and didn't want to slight "the importance of Mr. Jefferson and his Monticello," Cantor said in summing up the session. "She was very contrite" about the way other Mint officials had discussed the matter with Virginia congressional staff, Cantor said."

That's good enough to tell me that the reason is disputed, and it would be better to avoid the issue. I've edited accordingly. Thanks for questioning the issue, and for your reviews. Be warned that I'm bringing home a considerable volume of material!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • "Be warned..." I would tend to think that's a good thing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
In other words, expect more coin articles! Today I'm going to finish up on the Assay Commission, keep going through the major periodicals that are not indexed as time and inclination permit, and try to find material on the oddball denominations (2c, 3c, 20c). Plus anything I can find on the Chief Engravers. I don't get here very often and am trying to make the most of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Forgot that. They have lots of them on display, including the unique 1870-S. I'll take care of that today. I've already upgraded the images on Turban Head eagle. My iphone works better than my fancy dandy Canon for coin photography.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Probably a high ISO and no flash. This one looks decent, but we need to tweak the levels on the other images. (I had actually been hoping that there really was a three dollar bill outside of the original 13 colonies) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Flash is forbidden, a restriction much less than when I was here in 2011. I just set things on auto. Please feel free to adjust the images as I don't know how. I'll get a bunch of three dollar images. I think there are a fair number of three-dollar bills issued by banks, but I don't believe the US government ever issued any. Cook Islands did recently, but really it's for sale to collectors.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I am always on the lookout for the coins articles, one of Wikipedia's more distinguished subsets. And in your spare moments I see you've done Andrew Johnson, which I shall certainly read at FAC. If it's to be obscure US presidents, maybe have a go at Millard Fillmore (though maybe he's not obscure over there, a national hero perhaps). Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yikes that's a mess. Although, considering he is "consistently included in the bottom 10 of historical rankings of Presidents of the United States" and he supported a blatant segregationist... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I was thinking Garfield or Harding next, both avoid those useless post-presidency sections. Fillmore is certainly not a national hero, although one way Johnson boosted himself for that final Senate run in 1875 was praising Fillmore, who had recently died. Having Fillmore a national hero would be like a TV show naming a high school after a segregationist president like Buchanan and sticking it in inner-city Brooklyn. Thanks for the review, there was one volume on Johnson in the ship's library, and I amused myself on sea days by editing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Infobox supplied. Brian, please forgive my poor attempt at humour on the coin articles mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
And one thing more, you commented on the use of kegs for the transport of coins in Columbian half dollar. My research (John J. Kravjevich Jr. "One letter, Four kegs and 52,000 bright-red cents", The Numismatist, January 2005, p. 64) explains it concisely: Kegs roll and boxes do not.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sir Cardus

I've answered your note on my talk page. This is preparatory to following Capt Oates's lead when my bro and I walk round Derwentwater in the next few days. Please give me a kind obit on WP. Tim riley (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have answered Gerda's outstanding queries on the FAC page. As to your epitaph, this is already written, and just waiting to be activated. It is the last two lines of the poem in the legacy section of the Peter Warlock article – most fitting. Brianboulton (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I shall be issuing writs once I have stopped laughing. At my age I can still manage the drink. Tim riley (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

JLM FAC

Hi Brian, great work on Cardus once again. I appreciate yo are obviously busy, but I wondered if you could swing by Le Mesurier who is also at FAC. Quite a bit has changed since the peer review; whether it is for best or worse remains to be seen, so your comments would certainly help confirm either way. All the best! -- CassiantoTalk 01:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Many, many thanks for all your efforts with multiple copy edits on the John Le Mesurier article: your time, thoughts and energy have been much appreciated by us all. All the best, SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC) and CassiantoTalk 15:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Not sure you're the type who is into barnstars, but your copyediting and comments as always were instrumental. Thankyou. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Barnstars always gratefully received (though I'm not much good at giving them out). I am glad to see JLM promoted - well deserved. Brianboulton (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
When's that article of yours due to feature as TFA now? Have you settled the dispute?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Not until 29 May. The other party has not edited the article since your intervention, and has not responded on the talk page. Apart from a few corrective edits, mainly arising from that editor's work, I have not edited it either. I intend to watch it during the next three months; all being well, I will carry out the normal polishing edits as we get nearer to the centenary TFA date. Brianboulton (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, let's hope he doesn't decide to kick up a fuss on 28 May!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Or on 29th Brianboulton (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Desperate for FAC suggestions

Hi Brian. The FAC for 2005 Qeshm earthquake has been stagnant for weeks, and despite my efforts no one has responded to my requests to review it or even make small suggestions. It's a short article, so I worry that the dearth of commenters means it isn't yet up to par, which may very well be the case seeing as I haven't contributed to an FA in more than a year. If that is indeed the case, would you mind telling me so, and possibly giving Mikenorton and I suggestions as to how to improve the article? It would be appreciated beyond words. ceranthor 03:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will look at it today and leave comments. I don't think your recent absence from FAC is an issue (it certainly isn't for me). It's probably more a case of general reviewer shortage; recently I have been less active there than I would like, as have several other former regulars. On the face of it the article looks by no means in bad shape, so let's see if we can take it forward. Brianboulton (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response and useful comments. I think I've addressed everything. If not, no rush. ceranthor 20:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm now confused as we've received an oppose vote on the quality of the prose...? ceranthor 21:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I saw. I am doing a further prose scan to pick up anything that looks wrong or doubtful. When I'm done I'll ask him to amplify his oppose, with examples. As you know, I have an outstanding concern with the technical sections, but that's more about the accessibility of the language than its quality, and if no one else raises this issue I won't pursue it. I should be done within the next half-hour. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
My oppose is a holding position, not fixed in stone, and I did offer to help with the prose. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for your help. ceranthor 18:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
That's OK. My help was a bit scratchy, due to having very little time. My only remaining issue is the jargonistic nature of the technical sections, with WP:JARGON in mind. But I appear to be alone with this concern since no one else has raised it. I'll make a definite decision at the weekend, after one more readthrough. Brianboulton (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Neville Cardus

Brian, I have added the article here [2] but I wasn't 100% sure. You might want to move him. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wherever, congratulations! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Seconded! --GuillaumeTell 16:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I would personally have preferred him in Literary biographies, as he was essentially a writer rather than a sportsman. Is it down to me to make the move, and if so, how? Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll move him now. Graham Colm (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks (I'll have to square Tim if he disagrees - I think he's away at the moment) Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Well done Brian.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - and congrats to Tim as well, of course. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
To all and sundry, Near and far, B. Boulton in particular: this article is by a mile mostly Brian's work, but I have had extravagant pleasure in working with him on it. (No objections to above exchanges on taxonomy.) Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Invitation to the Dance: Kenneth Widmerpool peer review

Any readers of this page who feel
they could help me out a bit
are invited to visit the Widmerpool peer review
and leave a comment. I will be most grateful
Brianboulton (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm on it. You tempt me to pick up copies the next time I hit an Oxfam in the UK.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The books are best read in sequence, but the complete text of Casanova's Chinese Restaurant, the fifth of the series, is available online, here. There's not much of Widmerpool in that book, though. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
So I learned from the article! Perhaps I'll amazon the first.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The first is a delight, and Widmerpool is there in spades. You'll be well rewarded, Wehwalt, if you get a copy. Some savages, e.g. me, find later novels in the sequence less riveting. Tim riley (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Independence Day (India) peer review

Hi! Thanks a lot for the peer review. We were in need of a detailed external peer review, you have provided that. We'll work on the points you have mentioned. Once those are addressed, we'll ping you. Once again, thank you. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for letting me know how the peer review system works, I am indeed a very new user and have a lot to learn. The article is starting to gain momentum with others starting to contribute, again thanks for the help. Crushedpixel (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


Widmerpoole

I want to extend a personal thanks for asking me to review Widmerpoole. Recently I stalled in terms of creating content, began to doubt myself, and became blocked. Widmerpoole was inspiring on many levels: a wonderful and funny article, a good model for a fictional character, and extremely well-written. It inspired me when I needed inspiration. So thanks for that. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, TK, thanks for that. I hope you will soon be writing again, and please don't hestitate to ask me for review comments or other help. Brianboulton (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

2005 Qeshm earthquake

Thanks for your review of the 2005 Qeshm earthquake article. I'm only sorry that I was unable to answer your concerns on readability. I did try to reword the sentence that you quoted in your comment, I'm interested to know if that was any kind of improvement. My prose does occasionally get tagged as 'too technical', so I'm keen to see if I can improve on this. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks; your help was particularly invaluable in the crucial moments of the FAC. ceranthor 21:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_61&oldid=1142904952"