This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
How about pulling together an all-women main page for this. We've got nearly a year to get it right... -- Dweller ( talk) 11:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
<-Eric, men write brilliantly about everything and so do women. It's just that men, taken en-masse, tend to edit more about topics that interest men. As Europeans and Americans tend to edit more about topics from their worldview. I edit copiously about sport, but wouldn't have the inclination to edit about ice hockey, baseball, basketball, nordic skiing or kabaddi because as a Brit they don't grab me. So our coverage is skewed. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
We definitely need more female editors but by no means does having more women editors necessarily mean that they're going to want to edit traditional female topics. I'm not that aware of a bias towards males in biographies on wikipedia anyway, although obviously sport has a huge amount of males and the old encyclopedias like DNB etc do tend to have a strong bias towards males. In the articles I work on we tend to have a fair balance. In some fields, like science though, there is an awful lot of missing biographies for women which have been reported in the press. Personally I agree with what Eric says about the gender of the writer not mattering in terms of quality of article writing, it doesn't make articles like Blyton or Thatcher any less decent because the writer wasn't female. Where it matters if the editor is female or not is if they're actively addressing systematic bias which the average male might not be aware of and starting articles on traditionally feminine topics like Nursing, Make Up, Fashion etc or making a conscious attempt to improve coverage of female biographies. I think these women editathons are a great thing, although I can't help but raise an eyebrow that some women on here seem to feel like they're hard done by and perceive themselves as any less influential in the project and consensus than male editors. In my experience in general discussion gender is not something I really think about, but ideally of course it would be more ideal if we had a more even balance to ensure that we have as broad and balanced an outlook towards editing and development as possible. To me I must admit that it does not seem like 90% of editors are male. It actually seems to be more 75% male, 25% female, at least in the projects and circles I'm involved in. There seems to be a fairly healthy number of very active female editors. And I could name half a dozen female editors on here who are crucial to the project and have a powerful influence on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Email me when you get back from holiday, I have a "between you and me" Oxford question.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 00:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
HI Bencher, when do we know if you are going to list a date-specific TFAR? Just wondering about the one I have there, a few supports, no opposes, is there a cutoff list for needing a lot of support votes, or do you just make the call if there isn't a lot of traffic? Montanabw (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking at User:Bencherlite/Future TFAs, TFLs and POTDs, do you think it's a bad idea to have the Iranian siege and a nuclear weapon as the TFA and POTD, respectively? Especially considering the current political climate... — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I should start working on Invisible Rail? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I just posted on the talk page for Saint Wilfred (today's featured article) that giving April 24 equal status to October 12 as this saint's feast day has been incorrect since 1969 in the Roman Catholic church (although local deviations are permitted for such saints removed from the general calendar) and pretty much equally in the Anglican Communion. Today, the Church of England remembers St. Mellitus or the martyrs of the Melanesian brotherhood, and the Episcopal Church in the USA remembers the Armenian genocide. Jweaver28 ( talk) 04:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Particularly on behalf of George, tks for scheduling this article, Bench. As promised, I've walked through all the references to confirm relevant URLs are still live and that the formatting is up to par. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Nominated Cutthroat trout for TFA on June 13. It's on the TFAN page, but not with a link to the subpage. Help?? Montanabw (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
{{Cutthroat trout}}
as the article's name, rather than Cutthroat trout
, so that messed up the TFAR template... I'll try and tweak the instructions. It was you, in other words... ;-)
Bencherlite
Talk 19:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)On my talkpage I keep a "List of [my] FAs not scheduled or projected as TFA". You are welcome, any time, to pick one of these as TFA—though I would prefer that you did not choose SY Aurora's drift as I am not too happy with this one. If you notify me in advance, I will happily do the blurb. I was a little surprised to learn from your recent statistical summary that less than half of TFAs are nominated by editors, and that you have to choose the rest. Once again, thanks for the burden of work you have undertaken, which is much appreciated. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bencherlite, I just noticed that SMS Emden (1908) has been scheduled for the main page on 30 May - I'd really rather not run the article now. The centenary of the ship's final battle is coming up on 9 November and I'd very much prefer to run it on that day if it's possible - as far as I can tell from the pending page there's no conflict for that date yet.
On a semi-related question - I've been working on SMS Scharnhorst to get it to FA by the centenary of her final battle, which will be 8 December - will that be too close to Emden, being only a month apart? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For making >1000 edits on this project, and for keeping a professional-looking item on the Main Page from day to day. John ( talk) 20:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC) |
Hi Bencherlite, After a hefty re-write, the royal baccarat scandal—or Tranby Croft affair, if you prefer—is up for peer review. Could I ask if you have the time to take a look over to ensure I've not made any major faux pas in terms of the legal terminology? (I'll lay good money that I have erred somewhere!) Many thanks if you have the time. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 13:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
To go through each of the checked articles on my page of FAs suitable for mainspace and see for each one if there's an obvious date for running it. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems you're one of the only DYK-admins about today. Would you mind moving the next prep area to the queue? I'd do it, but I have an article in that prep area which makes me involved.--v/r - T P 19:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
He also made this and this. Could you take care of them (and him) as well?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 10:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Joel Brand - 50th anniv of his death in July. And it's a nicely "different" article. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
"Shep" will be 40 in May 2016. Worth waiting? Do you have a loooooong list of advance bookings? -- Dweller ( talk) 15:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
G'day Bencherlite. If possible (I know it was put up as a non-specific request), it would be great if 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian) could run on 19 June (70th anniversaty of its formation). Not a biggie if it can't happen for some reason. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 06:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Bencherlite, I see that List of national anthems is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on June 6, 2014. The list does not meet Wikipedia's Featured list criteria, in respect of comprehensiveness, as it does not include all verifiable national anthems; namely Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, the national anthem of Wales. I am considering nominating it as a candidate for removal from Featured Lists. As such, it would be inappropriate to feature on the Main Page until it has been reviewed. I would be interested to hear your thoughts. Best, Daicaregos ( talk) 10:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Bench - this was an open conversation when I added my final comment, and it was only on saving that I saw your closure: feel free to delete or stike if you feel appropriate. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 11:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I was checking for article history errors, and came across this talk page, where someone has messed up the article history. I noticed that you corrected the entry on the WP:FA page to account for the redirect, and wondered if you have the faintest idea how this one should be sorted out. Should that page be redirected? I haven't the foggiest, and most of the people who might spot this and know what to do are inactive; as you fixed the FA redirect before, and seem like you know what you are doing, I thought I'd ask you! Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
... a better cite for this article? I am "doing" Benjamin, which has proved an unexpectedly difficult task but it's mostly done now. There's something about the American Civil War which is hard, it's so intensively studied that I feel like I'm walking in a minefield of potential errors.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
...but sourcing the 2012 Boat Race isn't one. As discussed, I've added some hopefully useful sources that I found quickly, should we have the energy and fortune to spend some time working on it together... Yours truly, the damned 'Tab. 17:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you, but I have come across the article Draft:Gay Barlow which is obviously a hoax, and an embarrassing one. I'm sure you will agree it should be for speedy deletion, but I've looked at the process and, having never been involved in anything like this before, it looks anything but speedy for me to understand what to do. Maybe you know how to speedily set the process in action. It's already had 26 viewings. Can you help? -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 11:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
On 28 May 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Maya Angelou, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- Bencherlite Talk 20:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
What do you think of my suggestion here? We could easily get a 30 to 60 item rotation of Featured articles and pictures, and a decent number of FLs which are guaranteed up to date and auto-change that way. Portals and topics would need hand-done. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 18:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar is a rattling good story and I could nom it in the any day slot. On another note, I will be in London this week (the first time in three years) and if you are available for coffee or such, I have little planned but the opera Tuesday, King Lear Thursday, and a conspiratorial meeting with a few others, including Brianboulton and Tim Riley, at the British Library Tuesday afternoon. I suspect my schedule is more open than yours. I leave for Dover and a cruise ship Friday morning, the anniversary of D Day, I hope that is not foreshadowing anything.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, may I suggest that Battle of Villers-Bocage is also protected for 15 June? It is going to be, more than likely, the most visited page of any of the links contained on the Perch page and due to its somewhat controversial nature, vandalized. Regards EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 10:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
[1] [2] I am rather upset with your quick dismissal and rejection of the two nominations here. See here, in which The Bushranger assured me that there would be "no action on the existing ones, per AGF". As I have promised to stop, having forgotten, could you not demonstrate a simple bit of good faith? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Watcha, through the misty, red wine-impaired eyes of yesterday's shenanigans, I have, per our chat, listed Sir George here. Is this where he should go, or am I going completely mad? Cassianto talk 11:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey man! Would you consider doing a peer review, or giving some feedback on Sleeping Dogs (video game)? I would like to get some feedback about issues that need to be resolved. After that, I would like to nominate it for a featured article. Thanks for you for your cooperation! URDNEXT ( talk) 12:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the protection—could've sworn I chose autoconfirmed, though perhaps I did then used my mouse scroll wheel to move down the page whilst still focused on the dropdown. Either way, thanks for spotting it and putting it right. matt ( talk) 15:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The "How was the play otherwise, Mrs. Lincoln?" Award | |
For seeing Our American Cousin, with all that carries with it, including an overlong production, an interminable plot, sudden and loud noises, deadly dull (except when your head's being sho[u]t[ed] off), and a (Samsonian) tendency to bring the house down! But thank you! Wehwalt ( talk) 18:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC) |
I like the Lieder on the Main page, thanks for the appropriate scheduling! The bot seems to avoid them ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
How about pulling together an all-women main page for this. We've got nearly a year to get it right... -- Dweller ( talk) 11:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
<-Eric, men write brilliantly about everything and so do women. It's just that men, taken en-masse, tend to edit more about topics that interest men. As Europeans and Americans tend to edit more about topics from their worldview. I edit copiously about sport, but wouldn't have the inclination to edit about ice hockey, baseball, basketball, nordic skiing or kabaddi because as a Brit they don't grab me. So our coverage is skewed. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
We definitely need more female editors but by no means does having more women editors necessarily mean that they're going to want to edit traditional female topics. I'm not that aware of a bias towards males in biographies on wikipedia anyway, although obviously sport has a huge amount of males and the old encyclopedias like DNB etc do tend to have a strong bias towards males. In the articles I work on we tend to have a fair balance. In some fields, like science though, there is an awful lot of missing biographies for women which have been reported in the press. Personally I agree with what Eric says about the gender of the writer not mattering in terms of quality of article writing, it doesn't make articles like Blyton or Thatcher any less decent because the writer wasn't female. Where it matters if the editor is female or not is if they're actively addressing systematic bias which the average male might not be aware of and starting articles on traditionally feminine topics like Nursing, Make Up, Fashion etc or making a conscious attempt to improve coverage of female biographies. I think these women editathons are a great thing, although I can't help but raise an eyebrow that some women on here seem to feel like they're hard done by and perceive themselves as any less influential in the project and consensus than male editors. In my experience in general discussion gender is not something I really think about, but ideally of course it would be more ideal if we had a more even balance to ensure that we have as broad and balanced an outlook towards editing and development as possible. To me I must admit that it does not seem like 90% of editors are male. It actually seems to be more 75% male, 25% female, at least in the projects and circles I'm involved in. There seems to be a fairly healthy number of very active female editors. And I could name half a dozen female editors on here who are crucial to the project and have a powerful influence on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Email me when you get back from holiday, I have a "between you and me" Oxford question.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 00:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
HI Bencher, when do we know if you are going to list a date-specific TFAR? Just wondering about the one I have there, a few supports, no opposes, is there a cutoff list for needing a lot of support votes, or do you just make the call if there isn't a lot of traffic? Montanabw (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking at User:Bencherlite/Future TFAs, TFLs and POTDs, do you think it's a bad idea to have the Iranian siege and a nuclear weapon as the TFA and POTD, respectively? Especially considering the current political climate... — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I should start working on Invisible Rail? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I just posted on the talk page for Saint Wilfred (today's featured article) that giving April 24 equal status to October 12 as this saint's feast day has been incorrect since 1969 in the Roman Catholic church (although local deviations are permitted for such saints removed from the general calendar) and pretty much equally in the Anglican Communion. Today, the Church of England remembers St. Mellitus or the martyrs of the Melanesian brotherhood, and the Episcopal Church in the USA remembers the Armenian genocide. Jweaver28 ( talk) 04:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Particularly on behalf of George, tks for scheduling this article, Bench. As promised, I've walked through all the references to confirm relevant URLs are still live and that the formatting is up to par. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Nominated Cutthroat trout for TFA on June 13. It's on the TFAN page, but not with a link to the subpage. Help?? Montanabw (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
{{Cutthroat trout}}
as the article's name, rather than Cutthroat trout
, so that messed up the TFAR template... I'll try and tweak the instructions. It was you, in other words... ;-)
Bencherlite
Talk 19:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)On my talkpage I keep a "List of [my] FAs not scheduled or projected as TFA". You are welcome, any time, to pick one of these as TFA—though I would prefer that you did not choose SY Aurora's drift as I am not too happy with this one. If you notify me in advance, I will happily do the blurb. I was a little surprised to learn from your recent statistical summary that less than half of TFAs are nominated by editors, and that you have to choose the rest. Once again, thanks for the burden of work you have undertaken, which is much appreciated. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bencherlite, I just noticed that SMS Emden (1908) has been scheduled for the main page on 30 May - I'd really rather not run the article now. The centenary of the ship's final battle is coming up on 9 November and I'd very much prefer to run it on that day if it's possible - as far as I can tell from the pending page there's no conflict for that date yet.
On a semi-related question - I've been working on SMS Scharnhorst to get it to FA by the centenary of her final battle, which will be 8 December - will that be too close to Emden, being only a month apart? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For making >1000 edits on this project, and for keeping a professional-looking item on the Main Page from day to day. John ( talk) 20:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC) |
Hi Bencherlite, After a hefty re-write, the royal baccarat scandal—or Tranby Croft affair, if you prefer—is up for peer review. Could I ask if you have the time to take a look over to ensure I've not made any major faux pas in terms of the legal terminology? (I'll lay good money that I have erred somewhere!) Many thanks if you have the time. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 13:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
To go through each of the checked articles on my page of FAs suitable for mainspace and see for each one if there's an obvious date for running it. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems you're one of the only DYK-admins about today. Would you mind moving the next prep area to the queue? I'd do it, but I have an article in that prep area which makes me involved.--v/r - T P 19:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
He also made this and this. Could you take care of them (and him) as well?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 10:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Joel Brand - 50th anniv of his death in July. And it's a nicely "different" article. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
"Shep" will be 40 in May 2016. Worth waiting? Do you have a loooooong list of advance bookings? -- Dweller ( talk) 15:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
G'day Bencherlite. If possible (I know it was put up as a non-specific request), it would be great if 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian) could run on 19 June (70th anniversaty of its formation). Not a biggie if it can't happen for some reason. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 06:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Bencherlite, I see that List of national anthems is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on June 6, 2014. The list does not meet Wikipedia's Featured list criteria, in respect of comprehensiveness, as it does not include all verifiable national anthems; namely Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, the national anthem of Wales. I am considering nominating it as a candidate for removal from Featured Lists. As such, it would be inappropriate to feature on the Main Page until it has been reviewed. I would be interested to hear your thoughts. Best, Daicaregos ( talk) 10:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Bench - this was an open conversation when I added my final comment, and it was only on saving that I saw your closure: feel free to delete or stike if you feel appropriate. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 11:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I was checking for article history errors, and came across this talk page, where someone has messed up the article history. I noticed that you corrected the entry on the WP:FA page to account for the redirect, and wondered if you have the faintest idea how this one should be sorted out. Should that page be redirected? I haven't the foggiest, and most of the people who might spot this and know what to do are inactive; as you fixed the FA redirect before, and seem like you know what you are doing, I thought I'd ask you! Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
... a better cite for this article? I am "doing" Benjamin, which has proved an unexpectedly difficult task but it's mostly done now. There's something about the American Civil War which is hard, it's so intensively studied that I feel like I'm walking in a minefield of potential errors.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
...but sourcing the 2012 Boat Race isn't one. As discussed, I've added some hopefully useful sources that I found quickly, should we have the energy and fortune to spend some time working on it together... Yours truly, the damned 'Tab. 17:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you, but I have come across the article Draft:Gay Barlow which is obviously a hoax, and an embarrassing one. I'm sure you will agree it should be for speedy deletion, but I've looked at the process and, having never been involved in anything like this before, it looks anything but speedy for me to understand what to do. Maybe you know how to speedily set the process in action. It's already had 26 viewings. Can you help? -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 11:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
On 28 May 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Maya Angelou, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- Bencherlite Talk 20:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
What do you think of my suggestion here? We could easily get a 30 to 60 item rotation of Featured articles and pictures, and a decent number of FLs which are guaranteed up to date and auto-change that way. Portals and topics would need hand-done. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 18:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar is a rattling good story and I could nom it in the any day slot. On another note, I will be in London this week (the first time in three years) and if you are available for coffee or such, I have little planned but the opera Tuesday, King Lear Thursday, and a conspiratorial meeting with a few others, including Brianboulton and Tim Riley, at the British Library Tuesday afternoon. I suspect my schedule is more open than yours. I leave for Dover and a cruise ship Friday morning, the anniversary of D Day, I hope that is not foreshadowing anything.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, may I suggest that Battle of Villers-Bocage is also protected for 15 June? It is going to be, more than likely, the most visited page of any of the links contained on the Perch page and due to its somewhat controversial nature, vandalized. Regards EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 10:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
[1] [2] I am rather upset with your quick dismissal and rejection of the two nominations here. See here, in which The Bushranger assured me that there would be "no action on the existing ones, per AGF". As I have promised to stop, having forgotten, could you not demonstrate a simple bit of good faith? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Watcha, through the misty, red wine-impaired eyes of yesterday's shenanigans, I have, per our chat, listed Sir George here. Is this where he should go, or am I going completely mad? Cassianto talk 11:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey man! Would you consider doing a peer review, or giving some feedback on Sleeping Dogs (video game)? I would like to get some feedback about issues that need to be resolved. After that, I would like to nominate it for a featured article. Thanks for you for your cooperation! URDNEXT ( talk) 12:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the protection—could've sworn I chose autoconfirmed, though perhaps I did then used my mouse scroll wheel to move down the page whilst still focused on the dropdown. Either way, thanks for spotting it and putting it right. matt ( talk) 15:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The "How was the play otherwise, Mrs. Lincoln?" Award | |
For seeing Our American Cousin, with all that carries with it, including an overlong production, an interminable plot, sudden and loud noises, deadly dull (except when your head's being sho[u]t[ed] off), and a (Samsonian) tendency to bring the house down! But thank you! Wehwalt ( talk) 18:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC) |
I like the Lieder on the Main page, thanks for the appropriate scheduling! The bot seems to avoid them ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)