User talk:Tim riley/Archive5

January 2014

Those interminable Mitfords

I've just noticed that Angus Ogilvy's birth year is given in the chart as 1924 when it should be 1928. If you wouldn't mind correcting this, could you also add the line "m. Sydney Bowles" to David Freeman-Mitford's box? I should have Nancy at PR before the day is out – I note you've already taken a cautious nibble. I am reading Walpole – what a curious man. Brianboulton (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm looking forward to Nancy M at peer review. No need to ping me: I'm watching and will be there. Tim riley (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply here

Now, where on earth do I leave this user a message? Cassianto ^Talk 14:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On his own talk page this time, which I have done, most gratefully. Tim riley (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Solti

Please tell me how on earth you think that Georg Solti's record 31 Grammy Award wins are trivial? This is a record for ANY artist of any medium. He received 74 nominations. The fact that this is the most honored artist in the history of the sound recording industry, as measured by its most significant award -- how is that trivial? Every introduction to a biography of an award-winning actor, for instance, mentions that they won the Oscar, or in the case of an Olivier or Spencer Tracy, how many.William (The Bill) Blackstone (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the Grammy awards, admirable for pop music, of course, are not really central to classical music, which has its own awards. The Grammies are already mentioned in the text of the article, but hardly rank for the lead. Tim riley (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tree

Here is a specimen family tree for you. — RHaworth (talk • contribs) 02:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is extraordinarily kind of you. I shall study with care. Thank you very much. Tim riley (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walpole

Was about to begin a scathing review of the article at the peer review only to see you've gone for the FAC and have already closed it within 4 days! Sorry I couldn't be as quick to respond as the others! I wish I had that sort of response at peer reviews! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I chuckled at that. You are not the only fine editor whose solicited input I have treacherously pre-empted, but I already had tons of input and it seemed sensible to crack on. By all means add any comments, suggestions, scathing criticism (not too scathing, I hope) etc on the FAC page. It all helps. Tim riley (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe I won't be too hard on you! I see Uppsala Cathedral now magically has an infobox, look at the length of it!! Still, at least it actually contains info....♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not now it hasn't. You may like to comment at the article talk page. Tim riley (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uninteresting article, or "What's the matter Horne"? (About as bad a pun as I could come up with!)

Hi Tim, I've worked through the mountain of Horne up until his death (not really started on that section just yet) and I'm not terribly happy with what is there. It all reads in a rather flat and uninteresting way (certainly not how a good article about a major comedic figure should read!) Could I ask if you have any thoughts or ideas on how to bring the man to life a little more than my own rather flat prose does at the moment? I'd like to put him into FAC at some point in the future, but feel people may well either fall asleep while reading, or complain that there isn't quite enough there to get a good picture of him... Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a careful read and report back. Tim riley (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Featured Article

Hugh Walpole

To Tim riley
Congratulations on gaining FA status on the writer Hugh Walpole!
A great job!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How very pleasing! Thank you, Doctor. I'm considering having a go at Ralph Richardson as my next FA project, but we shall see. Tim riley (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's sounds very interesting, Rebbeca was fantastic! He famously of course once admitted to walking his pet mouse along Oxford Street. I don't know how these old pros got away with these kind of confessions, anybody else would have been sectioned. -- Cassianto ^Talk 17:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me too. As I said in the review it was a very interesting, pacy read. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, blink and you missed it – a very rapid (and well-deserved) promotion. This has inspired me to overcome my sulk, polish up Nancy Mitford and send her to FAC to take her chances. I'd be glad if you would comment there. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Sounds like an excellent choice Tim, I last saw him in Long Day's Journey into Night (1962 film) a few weeks back.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Tim and page stalkers, I was wondering if you can see FA potential in the Georgi Kinkladze article. It really is surprisingly very good and for a footballer very easy to read and informative. Most football articles on wikipedia are monotonous and rather bland to read but this is well compiled and balanced. It failed FAC a few years back but a few minor glitches aside and a polish of the prose in parts I think it could get there. What do you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC) That bad eh?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not my area of expertise. I'm a lifelong Evertonian, but that's nominal and purely ancestral, as football bores the pants off me. One doesn't weigh GA/FA possibles by the pound, but the article has very nearly 200 citations, which is impressive, and suggests to me that it might be a runner. But what do I know? Tim riley (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to work out why it failed. I've read some baseball/US football FAs and found them very hard going, you know, in-universe, and this Kinkladze article I think is remarkably informative given that he wasn't really a high profile player after the Man City days and is really easy to read. I'll look over it some more I think. You might be interested to know I've nominated another Euro capital city for GA, Copenhagen. Any chance you could review it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off to the ancestral shack in the Lakes this week, but will be reasonably free while up there. I can't see why I couldn't find time to review this article, formidable in length and citations though it be. Tim riley (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but it seems somebody has already taken it up. Sadly though they're not conducting the review in our way which I'd have preferred...♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joan & Noah.....

Greetings Tim: Re: Joan, I didn't write that stuff!! All I did today was to reorganise the article so that made some sense and flowed rather better than a series of bullet points! Also, added some refs. Forgot to check Grove on her, so shall do so! And shall make appropriate changes. Yes, saw your comments on Noah and went ahead and added in my paragraph, which is short and sweet and I think will be fine. All the best, Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just when you thought it was safe...

If you have the time or inclination, I'd appreciate your wisdom on Abe Waddington. It had a peer review quite a long time ago and has changed a lot since then thanks to some useful sources. I'm afraid he was a particularly grumpy Yorkshire cricketer, but I'm wondering if this is worth having a stab at FAC. Any comments on the talk page would be greatly appreciated. And if I can ever repay your reviewing favours, I'd be delighted. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shall enjoy the job hugely. I'll be passing through Lancashire en route to the ancestral retreat in Cumbria on Wednesday, so shall be on neutral territory when I wade in. (I shall have my late father's cricket books to hand there, too.) Where shall I post my comments? On the article talk page or yours? Tim riley (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article talk page may be best. Thanks! (And if the cricket books reveal anything about Waddington, or Bobby Peel, that would be greatly appreciated!) Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abe is now at FAC here, and any further comments would be gratefully received if you have the inclination! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hornerama Productions are proud to present....

For better or worse I've opened the peer review on Horne, so if you fancy wangling your nadgers to an audience, please feel free to troll over to Bona Reviews (There's no rush, and certainly no pressure, if you're piled up with other commitments.) Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously I shall be there! Tomorrow, probably - rather suitable as Round the Horne was on at Sunday lunchtime when I was a lad. That show made me the omi I am today, but the less said about that the better. Tim riley (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windermere Hotel (Lake District)

Hi Tim and @Cassianto:. I stubbed this but was wondering if either of you could find something more in your resources on it. Tim, it's probably not too far from your neck of the woods and Cass I was wondering if you could look in The Times or whatever you have? It looks like it has something interesting to say about it anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I drove past it last Wednesday on my way up to Keswick, where I am now, but I don't know much about the hotel. Shall have a rummage. Tim riley (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was a quick expansion! Offhand I'd say remove the Ralph Richardson – roles from 1970 type links throughout (just once will do at the bottom of the page) which clutters it I think and maybe try to introduce some film critic reviews of his more notable roles. Another thing I see is that you seem to have written far more about his theatre work than film, I'd expect to see more coverage of his film work perhaps, with more written about the nature of his roles, what he did in preparation for some of them, roles he was offered and rejected, what directors/actor he worked with etc..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early Netherlandish painting

Tim, this was promoted last night and I wanted to thank you for your kind help and guidance, which was very much appreciated. We were spoiled by the assistance we received. Ceoil (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted! It was a pleasure and an education to review the article. Tim riley (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know in future when you want an eye on an article; its a learning expierence as we have shared interests. Ceoil (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Ceoil, that we were spoiled by the reviewers' expertise in this venture. Which is a good thing, as it's a much improved article. Enormous thanks from me too! Victoria (tk) 17:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Hugh Walpole to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the congratulations, however sad that Abbado died, adding to this mood --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in the context of Four Last Songs ("with a sense of calm, acceptance, and completeness"), please have a look at Ernst Roth, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on 2 images

Hello Tim, as requested a few points about the 2 images (although i am not really an "expert" by any standard):

File:Ralph_Richardson_trailer.jpg - The image was uploaded in 2008, when standards were probably somewhat less strict. It would be helpful to add a few more details about the copyright situation: Does the trailer contain no copyright notice? Was the registration database checked for entries? (see the 3rd and 4th link on my userpage in the section "Copyright") The notion, that all trailers and similar advertising material are automatically copyright-free, is generally rejected on Commons. A second point: the upload lacks an active source link, would be nice to have one. Summary: the image might be OK, but could use a bit more information in the summary.
File:Ralph Richardson and Michèle Morgan.jpg - i am not entirely sure, this file is PD in the US. It it is an original UK work and was only published in the US a year later. In this case the work would still be copyrighted 95 years after publication. However the summary notes 2 explicit PD statements from different sources in "permission", but unfortunately both links are dead for me (from Germany). Could you double-check those links? (a PD statement from a reliable source for a specific work is often also enough evidence to assume a valid Public Domain situation).

I hope, this information helps a bit. If not, please feel free to ping me again anytime or post those images on the Wikipedia and Commons forums for media copyright questions for further reviewing. GermanJoe (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mitford family tree

Someone has replaced the family tree with a SVG version which, on my screen, is somewhat less sharp – some of the small print is a bit harder to read. How does it look to you? Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later: a row is looming over this - please look at the Mitford talk page. Brianboulton (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later still: I have reverted to your JPG version until this matter is resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - SVG renders as a PNG, which has the same issue as I pointed out at a previous nomination. The software doesn't render the file properly (something to do with downsampling or whatever) and so SVGs and PNGs look blurrier at thumbnail size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

What confused you about my edit? The edit summary, or the edit itself? Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing confused me. I was gently pointing out that "significant" here is an error. The word is sometimes misused, as here, as a loose synonym for "important" or "big, but in fact it means "signifying something", and careful writers confine it to that use. Tim riley (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bertie Meyer

You being interested in theatre and all, can you do me a favour and look into Bertie Meyer for me, I'm really not sure those are his own birth and death dates, I picked them up in a snippet but they would seem about right. I wonder if Bernard Meyer or B. A. Meyer might turn up anything. I picked him up in the Blyton article and he seems to be quite notable but can't find too much about him. Perhaps you or @Cassianto: can find something in the library or archives.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you his Times obit (18 Nov 1967, p. 10) by email. Tim riley (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later: still no date of death, but he was cremated at Golders Green Crem on 22 Nov 1967 (Times Court Circular, 22 Nov 1867 p 12) Tim riley (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, can you add to it? I've made a good start but I need you to draw up the proper citation to The Times.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and added a bit about wives. But please check you're happy with the ref style I've used. Tim riley (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

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.

Leslie Faber (actor) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Newcastle

Outward Bound (play) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Layout articles

Mr Could you explain to me why the layout of those pages (Disraeli, Eden, ... ) has to be different? The new title is at most other articles in bold (example : Arthur Balfour, Rufus Isaacs) thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecOostmalle (talk • contribs) 23:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Manual of Style (WP:BOLD) and stop putting bold type in the wrong places. Very pleased to welcome you to WP, but (i) abide by the agreed rules and (ii) stop reverting edits that correct your mistakes. Tim riley (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me which part of the manual exactly states that? I don't see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecOostmalle (talk • contribs) 11:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read it carefully you will see that it tells you where bold is appropriate in the text. Such uses as you attempted to make are not included. Tim riley (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horne again

Many thanks again for all your input in a very positive and helpful PR. For better or worse I've moved Horne into FAC. Thanks again. - Ebenezer Cuckpowder (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Tower House

Hi Tim, you may do the honours and reserve the review! KJP said he's off soon to Prague until Sunday. Might be best to start it on Monday when he returns. If you could reserve it as soon as you can I'd appreciate it, I don't want any of the typical incompetent cowboy reviewers who take weeks to review and miss important points doing it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The timetable will suit me quite well. Tim riley (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. It makes me quite excited just reading it! I've found two images of the interior including Burges's bedroom which can be used here, click forward for pic 5 too, both dated to 1878. Problem is that when I enlarge to save it will only save as a php which won't upload in the commons and has a big watermark on it. There's definitely a way around it, I've asked Jmabel our image expert on that and on the plans which I doubt we can use as the book is dated to 1973. Just noticed that the source of the photos on ribapix is The House of William Burges ARA, edited by R. P. Pullan (Burges' brother-in-law) (London, 1875-1885) As its portfolio no. 26 and the four images I've found on ribapix are sourced to the book, it should contain a gallery of images of the house. Have you ever heard of the book? If so and a copy could be obtained perhaps in a library we could potentially scan in the photos in the book and upload to the commons.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Just found and uploaded File:Guest bedroom, Tower House.jpg. It comes from the London Metropolitan Archives Collection, London County Council Photograph Library. I don't know if you are also near that, but it might be worth checking out. The original of course is much larger and better quality and there's probably others. That database which might be the actual archive I don't know but it doesn't pick up anything else. I think our best shot would be to access the Pullan portfolio and scan the images. Would the British Library have a copy do you think? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting anything scanned at the BL is damn' near impossible. You need a chit signed by the Lord Mayor of London, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Regius Professor of Truss Welding at Oxford. Anyway, I don't feel comfortable about getting involved in doing up the article if I'm to review it impartially. Tim riley (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pity. Perhaps KJP somehow then could find something! It looks extremely rare, only a few libraries have it according to worldcat. It says it has 40 photos. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will go through Ralph's article tomorrow...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Some comments now there for you to devour..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Many thanks for all your help with Kenneth Horne, before, during and after the PR: all is very much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's enormously kind! You know very well that it has given me great pleasure, but the less said about that the better. Tim riley (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mitford chart

An editor has addd a (helpful) comment re SVG on the article's talk. Is this something worth attempting (I can't figure out for myself what it involves) Brianboulton (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! Way over my head. Anyhow, even before attempting to put that kind advice into effect we'd need to have an SVG, and I haven't got the wherewithal to create one. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Stephen Fry

Tim I wondered if this article would interest you? Fry is a regular visitor to wikipedia and does a lot of good for it in public and I think it would be great if we could get his article to at least GA. Naturally what would need doing first is to restructure it chronologically and start replacing a lot of the sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in helping out! -- Cassianto ^Talk 19:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads like a magazine/blog at the moment. So much trivia. We can do much better than this! I'd love to see it turned into a proper article like Ralph Richardson! I'm half tempted to nuke it and start from scratch...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much like working on articles about people who are still alive - no Times obits, no ODNB - but once I have got my present scheduled articles to FA (fingers crossed), viz Falstaff and then John Gielgud, I'd be happy to look in; I admire Fry very much indeed. Nuking is about right, from a swift look. It's astonishing that Fry is so benign to WP when his own article is so poor. I have it in mind to adopt a nuking approach to Gielgud, too. Thoughts on that proposition will be welcome from you and Cassianto and all comers. Tim riley (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gielgud's article looks very bloated, but at least half resembles an article unlike Fry's blog-like effort. The prose is very poor quality though. I'm sure nuking and rewriting in your sandbox would do wonders for it. I'm really not a fan of this organizing by subject thing, it makes it seem more complicated and difficult to learn from. As I suspect that Fry has a number of OWNers on here perhaps Cass we should begin revamping it in your sandbox and give it a new chronological structure and remove some of the trivia. At least then it would be in good order should Tim think about further improving it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm also surprised he is pro-Wikipedia, bearing in mind what has been seen on his article over the last few years. A year or so ago, I was watching QI when they had a piece on Little Tich. More was known about LT on the programme than it was on Tich's own article and I thought that was just not right. It was at that point I set about turning the little chap into an FA. I have met Fry, at a blue plaque meeting a couple of years back and he was thoroughly charming.

re Gielgud Tim, blitzing is the best way. I would, to save arguments, advise on the talk page that renovations are taking place and post another note a week or so before you plan to go live with it in the main space, saying "I plan to move it on [this date]".

Doc, Robey is in trap one at the moment and will be so for a good week or two yet. I did plan on Al Bowlly next (a blue plaque Mr Fry kindly agreed on at Charing Cross) but Fry I am just as keen on, so no preference in terms of order. Cassianto ^Talk 19:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a buzz when you're ready to start on it and we'll do it. Perhaps @SchroCat: would also be interested. Does anybody know if there are any biographies about him? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No biographies that I know about, but three autobiographies: The Fry Chronicles (2011), Moab Is My Washpot (2004) and Paperweight (1992). - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Lord. I hate using autobiographies. They are so often a mixture of fact, conjecture, score-settling and wishful thinking. Some (e.g. Lorenzo Da Ponte's and Sir Henry Wood's) are downright works of fiction. Perhaps SF's are scrupulously objective. I read the middle one when it came out, but don't remember much about it.

Yep, I'd be happy to chip in too, once I've got E.W. Hornung out the way. I'm a bit like Tim: I Ike my subjects to be dead and buried (over five years is best), but happy to make an exception for SF. Looking forward to Tim's makeover of Gielgud too: I'm happily working my way through his and Richardson's Holmes and Watson recordings - great fun! - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is that if his article is getting so much attention like this and he's good enough to try to help the article, then we need to give him a good article in which we can show him off to the world, not that shoddy effort!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad we've got all that sorted out. While you're all here, who'd like a cup of tea and some home-made shortbread? Tim riley (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just sat down at my Mac with an Earl Grey, but no shortbread unfortunately. Cassianto ^Talk 20:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passing swiftly over the fact that Macs and Earl Grey are both beyond the pale, we come to SchroCat's avocations. It'll be Round the Hornung next, mark my words. What can we do to save him? Tim riley (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raffles and Sandy? Julian and Bunny? I think they'd all go very well together... - SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bona Burglars. Hmm, nice! Tim riley (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We laughed about the connection, but I think Hornung's biographer was possibly thinking along the same lines. Talking of the latent homosexuality between Raffles and Bunny, he mentions the fact that both Raffles and Bunny were walking out with ladies at one time, and draws a parallel with Julian and Sandy introducing their wives (end of series 4). The biographer's comment on the relationships is "we note the assertion, but we are not convinced". Quite! - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll pass on anything named Sandy if it's alright with you lot!♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tim - mindful of how much I owe you, I may well be able to contribute something on Gielgud, as he's someone, other than the soul-inspiring one, about whom I know a little. Do let me know if I can assist. KJP1 (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're a gem my friend. Thankyou!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any way anybody thinks I could be helpful in this I would be interested in working on the Fry article too. A real treasure. I met him once (and shook his hand!) in the check-out line at John Lewis on Oxford Street. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll announce it on Fry's talk page of what is going to happen to it within a few weeks. Just to get the OWNers out of the woodwork in advance who might start objecting to the obliteration of the blog.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Profumo affair

Breaking away from the worlds of music and literature, I've plumbed the murkry depths of the Profumo affair, and got the article to a state where I think it is peer-reviewable. Any comments, suggestions, criticisms welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a pleasure. I was dimly aware of the affair at the time, but my innocent youthful self didn't really understand what it was all about. Shall gladly look in with an older, sadder, but not necessarily wiser eye. Tim riley (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A request: On 6 June The Times, in the aftermath of Profumo's resignation, referred to "a great tragedy for the probity of public life in Britain". Probably in its leader – it has the sound of that brute Haley. Can you give me a page ref that I can use to cite this directly, rather than second-hand as at present? Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed from the leader page. Surprisingly it's the third leader, after one about the winding up of the Rhodesia and Nysaland Federation and one about modernising the Co-op (I'm not making this up, you know!). The subheader for that bit of the leader is "A Shocking Admission", and it was on p. 13 of the 6 June 1963 issue. Here is the complete text:

A Shocking Admission

There can be few more lamentable documents in British political history than Mr Profumo's letter of resignation. In his reply the Prime Minister says: "This is a great tragedy for you, your family, and your friends." It is also a great tragedy for the probity of public life in Britain. Mr Profumo admits that he lied to Mr Macmillan, to his colleagues, and to the House of Commons in asserting that there had been no impropriety in his association with Miss Keeler. When a Minister of the Crown asks leave of the Speaker to make a personal statement and gives the House of Commons a categorical assurance on a particular point, the assumption has hitherto been that it could be unreservedly accepted. The fact that Mr Profumo has now, ten weeks later, admitted that he lied to the Commons about this particular point, and has resigned both from the Government and from Parliament cannot alter the fact that great harm has been done.

The question of why he has now admitted what he previously denied is bound to be asked. What is more important is that the admission has been made. It is worth recalling that the matter did not come to public knowledge until, under the shield of privilege, it had been raised in the House of Commons following a period of talk and rumour. At the time the prominence the press gave to Miss Keeler was deplored. Since then some newspapers have been justifiably castigated for their conduct in the Vassal! case, but the point must be made that not all newspaper conduct is irresponsible and that it is doubtful whether the truth would ever have emerged had the press not been seeking in the matter of Mr Profumo and Miss Keeler, so far as the law of libel would permit it, to do its job.

Fair comment, perhaps, if a touch self-righteous. Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third leader? Then perhaps not Haley, who knows? Thanks for the details. I will incorporate them into the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Tower House

My, that was painless. Thanks so much. Gareth, the Doctor and I will cogitate over what it needs for FAR. I can certainly expand the scholarship section, but it isn't well researched: you've got Pevsner, Crook, and a little bit in the Stourton, although that's really a re-hash of Crook. Does the British Library have "The House of William Burges" by Pullan, do you know? That would be very good. I go by a couple of times a month but I think you're a more regular visitor. Thanks again and all the very best. KJP1 (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prague was beautiful, thank you, but those full-on Baroque churches can be a little much for one of my refined sensibilities! Now bring me a glass of Sauvignon in the Drawing Room at Castell Coch. KJP1 (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to sort out those citations asap; as it stands this article isn't a GA, and I'll delist it if it isn't fixed soon. Eric Corbett 19:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only citation I thought dodgy I have mentioned, and I think will be fixed soon. If there are others that you think dubious, perhaps you'd say which on the article talk page. I like to think I have a handle on citations, but errare humanum est. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 3, 15, 18, 21, 31, 49, 51, 52 and 54 need to be fixed. Eric Corbett 19:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must be being even dimmer than usual, but I'm afraid I can't see what's wrong with them, though I confess I boggle when trying to interpret the wretched sfn note style. Tim riley (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take ref #3 for instance, which points to Crook 1981b, p. 58. Where is that? Eric Corbett 19:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I should have spotted that, but, as I failed to, I think the best thing must be to raise the nine citation queries on the article talk page. Do you concur? Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raise them wherever you like, but they need to be fixed. Eric Corbett 19:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think it was necessary to try and take the piss with your "authoritative editor" comment?[1] Eric Corbett 20:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I meant it! There are few editors whose views I respect more than yours! Tim riley (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to be bullshitted, and I'm deadly serious about delisting this article if the citation issues aren't fixed PDQ. Eric Corbett 20:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF, Eric. I have referred to you on other pages as an editor I respect. That is not bullshit. You may not be the most courteous of colleagues, but I respect your contributions, and have usually agreed with them. As to your comments about delisting, that is up to you, of course, though I didn't know it was in your gift to delist articles as you mention, above. Tim riley (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I did ask you to take a look at it last week as I wondered if you'd spot anything. I appreciate that you've been busy, but bear with us and hopefully the issue can be fully sorted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the issue will be resolved sooner rather than later. Tim seems to be unaware of the GA individual reassessment, which allows me to delist any article I don't think meets the GA criteria. I have delisted hundreds already, one more or less won't make any difference. Eric Corbett 20:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's so far off GA level that it's worth delisting Eric. It would be more constructive for you to provide further points and help us sort out whatever concerns you about it. KJP has the books and can look into that. If there's anything else bothering you with I'd appreciate you being honest and helping us try to fix them as soon as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sort out the citations and then I'll look at it again. Eric Corbett 20:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. @KJP1: as you have the books can you address the sources Eric is concerned with and double check each source used just to be on the safe side, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, now the heat has gone out of this, I just wanted to say how very sorry I was to have put you in this position. The fault was entirely mine, through having failed to check the references properly, but I understand, and very much regret, the position it put you in. My sincere apologies. KJP1 (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Falstaff opera article

Greetings Tim: After receiving your note that you'd taken my comments into account, I thought that I had indeed given you the "green light" via email direct.... Do please go ahead and let's hope that we get to FA. Actually, just checked what I'd sent you directly: it says " except for a quibble on the “Refs” section sub-headings (for now, at least), I’m fine with your uploading your version into place – and then moving it forward to featured article……" So - go for it! All the best, Viva-Verdi (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gielgud images

Good morning Tim. I was just taking a look at the Gielgud images available on Ebay and there seems to be a wealth of good, uploadable options. I'm happy to help again - let me know which ones you would like to use on the article (presented in roughly chronological order): [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] And that's only from the first 5 pages of search results! --Loeba (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love people who upload both sides. Makes all of our work a lot easier. Terry-Thomas went from like, one, to five or six good pictures. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle for words to express my gratitude. That is a noble offer and I can't thank you enough. I think the images you have numbered 1, 4, 9, 11, 15, 17 and 19 are an ideal cross-section of JG's career. Am I right in guessing that the perspective of number 1 can be adjusted to make it fully flat rather than angled?

In the dusty recesses of my sandbox I've got Sir John to 1929 so far. I think he'll end up at about the same length as Sir Ralph. There are more good books on JG than on RR, so I am switching between five hefty volumes at any one time. Kind regards, Tim riley (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1 could certainly be straightened. If Loeba doesn't get a chance, I think I could. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before I push my luck so far that you both wash your hands of me, can I ask if these two images 1 2 would be all right? They are US publicity shots, with details on the back, and they would be excellent for use in the articles on the three D'Oyly Carte performers. Tim riley (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank the old American copyright laws! They make it so easy to find images for classic actors (that worked there), I love it. I'm not so good at manipulating graphics, so Crisco if you think you could flatten the first that would be great? The ones that need a watermark removed, I shall again defer to the graphics lab. Cool, well I'll try and start uploading some today. I often find that there's less room for images than we'd like, but it's worth uploading them all anyway so you can see which look the best. And yes, those other images you asked about definitely look like they're PD. --Loeba (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Mikado, eh? Adam will certainly be happy. Those both look acceptable to me. Alright, I'll get that image once I'm home and have my software. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you both! Tim riley (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba, are you sure that's an American publicity shot? The seller is based out of the US, but I see no indication that the photo was first published in said country. I've uploaded the image, but confirmation would be nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that did cross my mind, but the thing that indicated to me that it must be American is the "June 1936" date stamp. This is when the film was released in the US, whereas it was released in the UK in May (see Secret Agent (1936 film)). --Loeba (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel more and more guilty at the work you're both putting in. The straightened image is brilliant. Tim riley (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - No worries, Tim, I've put you through lost films and old books, so a little picture now and then isn't a problem. @Loeba: Very good point. I'll note that on the image page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, two down... File:Gielgud and Haas in Crime and Punishment.jpg (I think maybe this should be cropped more?), File:Julius Caesar promo still.jpg. I should get to a couple more tonight. --Loeba (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous! The first one didn't strike me as needing further cropping, but I yield to your expertise on this. Tim riley (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Loeba: If anything I'd give a bit more head room. But we can't retake the photograph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two more: File:The School for Scandal 1963.jpg and File:Gielgud and Leighton in Much Ado 1959.jpg. The Ebay page for the first gives the date as 1955, but looking at the play's article it appears that it should be 1963 so I went with that? --Loeba (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richardson and Smith

Hello Tim, how are you? I hope you are well. I see you have just nominated Ralph Richardson for FA; I am sorry I did not take part at the peer review before, but will enjoy taking part at the FAC. I would like to draw your attention to Ian Smith, whose article I have just nominated for FA here. You probably remember the UDI article that went to FAC relatively recently; Smith was the "rebel" Prime Minister who declared Rhodesia independent in 1965 and led the country until 1979. This is quite a long article, I must warn you (about 14,000 words), but I hope you find it interesting all the same. All the very best, and have a great rest of the weekend. Cheers! —Cliftonian (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Ian Smith and UDI very well. I was a schoolboy (aetat 13), but we took an interest in world affairs. I think we rather blamed Harold Wilson, but then we blamed him for everything. I shall enjoy reading your article. I have to do two other big reading jobs first: one is for Wikicolleague who has written two articles for a learned periodical, and the other is the PR of Ezra Pound. But I hope to get to Smith within a few days. Meanwhile, I trust matrimony is suiting you. Tim riley (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No rush; indeed no obligation. Married life is suiting us very well, thank you—indeed, rather better than I thought it would. Of course we are only a month in... ;) Anyway, thanks and I look forward to corresponding more soon; have a great weekend. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The man peering over your shoulder, above right, went to your school. I shall drag you into his PR in due course whether you like it or not. The best I can do by way of old boys are Arthur Askey and Paul MacCartney. Tim riley (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know he did! He was up Grant's if I remember correctly. I thoroughly look forward to being willingly dragged in. Hope you're well and having a great start to the week. Cheers, —Cliftonian (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I have a proposal re the Smith article. With 14000+ words, it will be hard for any one reviewer to go through it in sufficient detail to do it justice. So I suggest we split the workload: you do the first half, I'll do the second (or vice-versa if you prefer). That way I think all the article will get appropriate attention – what do you think? Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a very astute, not to say cunning, plan. I reckon (notes etc excepted) the half-way point is at the end of "A republic; failed accord with Douglas-Home". If I do down to there, are you OK to take on "Bush war" to the end of the text? This is a bit unfair, as I get all the interesting political bits, and I'm happy to swap if you prefer. Speaking of swapping, I have just, chez Riley sandpit, got to the famous 1934 Gielgud production of Romeo and Juliet, where he and Olivier alternated as Romeo, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to. Sir John will be delivered to PR in the next week or two, DV. Meanwhile yours to command on who has first crack at Ian Smith. Tim riley (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be OK doing the second half of Smithy, no problem. My knowledge of theatrical history is slight; I imagine that the 1934 R&J association, clashes of style etc., was the reason why Gielgud and Olivier disliked each other – I can't offhand remember if they ever worked together again, but I'm light on details. Your articles will, I'm sure , fully inform me. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. (None of your girlfriends tried to get off with Sir John?) Smith's a deal. I'll rap on your door when I've done my half. Tim riley (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Pound

Hi Tim, I appreciate the placeholder at the Ezra Pound PR but I've decided to go out on break for a while. I hope I haven't wasted your time, and if you have made your way through, or partially through, no reason not to post comments that I'll get to at some point in the future. Right now, unfortunately, I'm … well … let's just say I don't want to be here and leave it that. Thanks for all your help as always. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble, dear Victoria. I hope you haven't suffered the attentions of one of the bullies who infest Wikipedia. I look forward to seeing you back when you feel up to it. Tim riley (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim. Re the PR, this is probably one of those "hold that thought" moments. When Victoria is well enough again we would delight in your input and openion, as always. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't that as much as mid-winter doldrums or something. Anyway, the sun is peeking out, the temperature is -7 c. (seems almost balmy these days!), and I'm feeling a tad bit better. Sorry for making a fuss. Victoria (tk) 17:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor in ""bad standing" according to our friend User:RexxS ;-], I guess it won't stand for much @Victoriaearle: my congratulating you, Ceoil and anybody else who worked on it for excellent work.. Can you just clarify to me though Victoria the precise minute that you'll return to wikipedia though, otherwise I might take you to the arb and demand an educated estimate from them :-]♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Tim for monopolizing your page when I went through a bit of a sulk! Just popping in to say to Dr. Blofeld that his ping never pinged me. Which begs the question of how often pings get lost or editors think they're pinging when the pingee doesn't get the "echo". That's all. Victoria (tk) 17:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright I was only kidding, some of us here don't take things deadly seriously all of the time like others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newly available archive

Afternoon, Mr R, I'm not sure if you're aware, but The Spectator has recently made available online a copy of its entire archive. It's got a pretty good search facility, all the text in html, and ability to zoom into and out of page images to see where articles run over the page. I'm not sure how long it has been up and running, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't there six months ago when I was looking! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Up to 2008, by the looks of it. Plenty enough for what you need, Tim, though not quite useful for finding information on my project today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I didn't know. Thank you very much. As right-wing rags go, it's got a very fine pedigree, and I'll enjoy rummaging in the archives. Tim riley (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward Chapman (actor) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

from one of BBC Radio 4’s best-loved programmes''], London, Random House, 25 October 2012]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

You are cordially invited to witness the birth of a new volcano and its subsequent growth. We rather hope that it will break the surface soon. Please RSVP before February 31st, and any feedback regarding our latest event would be greatly welcomed. Yours truly, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A delightfully worded invitation! How could I decline it? I'll look in today or tomorrow, I hope. Thank you for asking me. Tim riley (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is our pleasure. (Apologies, still in a bit of a Tudor mood). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Profumo affair

Brief courtesy message to let you know that Profumo is now at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a scale starting at rage, via fury, frenzy, murder and massacre, I wonder how you imagine I view the phrase "courtesy call" and its spin-offs? I trust you were doing this to send the old buffer up, but if not, kindly don't do it again! Oh, those salesmen who bedevilled my harmless existence as librarian at the Crown Estate with "courtesy calls"! Being of a singularly forgiving character I have supported your excellent article. – Tim riley (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I speak? Sorry to bother you with a bit of Profumo business, but a reviewer has questioned the use of a non-free image of Profumo in the article. This was to be expected. I have broadly stated my rationale for this in the FAC ( link here), but I would welcome input from other reviewers on this matter, if you can spare a moment. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drama dari Krakatau

Greetings! This is a note to inform you that Drama dari Krakatau, which you have previously reviewed at the GA or PR level, has been nominated for featured article status. If you wish to revisit the article, your comments would be welcomed at the nomination page. Thank you! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Falstaff

This is Imogen, in 1952, on hearing Falstaff in Vienna (a German translation): "I was THRILLED with Verdi's Falstaff, which I'd never heard before! I suppose it ought to be in Italian really, but oh I enjoyed it so much, and I realised for the first time how much Ben owes to him. There are orchestral bits which are just as funny to listen to as the comic instrumental bits in A. Herring!" I thought this might amuse you, and if you want to incorporate it I can provide full citation details. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does, and I would, please. Tim riley (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's from p. 169 of Grogan, Christopher (ed.): Imogen Holst: a Life in Music (2010 revised edition). The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, Suffolk. ISBN 978-1-84383-599-8. No perf. date given, but probably late March or early April 1952. No details of the performance, either, though I imagine it was at the Vienna Opera. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have email! Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marie Hayward, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elektra (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) 17:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing another favour!

Hi Tim, Could I put in a request for a PR when you have a chance? It's for the writer E.W. Hornung, who is only remembered nowadays for one of his characters, rather than the rest of his considerable output. There's no rush, so whenever you get the chance, it would be much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a pleasure. I am between projects at the moment, and have bags of time to do peer reviewing. Tim riley (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P. H-W

Good heavens! I was delighted - and surprised - to see a Wikilink to a blue-linked P.H-W article, and then added a few notes on one of his published pieces, Words and Music from 1981. Out of curiosity, I looked at the article history and was pleased to see that you had created it - only today!! Bravo!!Viva-Verdi (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice message to get! PH-W kept cropping up in other people's articles, and it seemed time he had one of his own.Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enid Blyton

Hi Tim, I wondered if you'd be interested in reserving the review for this and tackling it when you have a spare moment? It really is an important article and needs a good reviewer such as yourself. I think it's good for GA as it is, unfortunately though Eric has retired and he has the books which are needed to develop it to FA... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! Not a word to my nonagenarian Mum about this: she was an Eng Lit teacher and forbade any Blyton books in the house when we were children. Shall review, but from the commanding heights of ignorance. Let me know when to wade in. – Tim riley (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, must have been Noddy!! Me on the other hand, my mother actually encouraged me to read the books she'd enjoyed as a child and reading the Famous Five ended up being one of the most enjoyable parts of my childhood! Can you reserve the review and review it whenever you're ready?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right! Will do. I hope you mean Eric has retired from this article not from Wikipedia: we can ill spare him! Tim riley (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia I'm afraid. He hasn't edited since the 11th. I hope at some point he'll return but he had a spot of bother with a young administrator.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bloody hell! He may not be cosy but by God he's good. I hope we'll have him back soon. Tim riley (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a member of Wikimedia UK? I join a few days ago and am currently brainstorming for some possible Books to get a grant from them for here Looking at the state and lack of coverage of the Ava Gardner article and seeing that Audrey Hepburn and Liz Taylor's articles are already bloated, it might be worth requesting those books too. No doubt you're probably happy to borrow books from the British Library though. I believe WPUK will buy the books I request and send them to me and I send them back after I've finished with them and I can keep them for as long as like.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review much appreciated thankyou. Yes the article needs a lot of work still, if I had the works that Eric has I'd begin developing it further so the prose flows better. It's fine for GA though and provides a decent overview. Hoping he'll return and continue...♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as to Enid Blyton I am no fan, but as to the desirability of Eric's return, a heartfelt amen! Tim riley (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your "piping titles to match use in main articles" in English National Opera article

I have to disagree with you here, Tim. If you look at the opera and ballet articles themselves, both use "The" with a capital "T" as part of their names. That extends to the Royal Opera's website as well. Take a look and please reconsider. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not dogmatic about this, and was following (I think) the usage in the main text, rather than the titles, of the other articles, where in mid sentence the definite article isn't capitalised, but am content to go with the consensus, natch. Tim riley (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed, and if it were left to me I'd leave the titles uncapped, but by all means revert if you prefer. I'm happy to go with your decision. Tim riley (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you've have reverted, I do fell that it looks better and is the actual name of the company. We have the "The" v. "the" issue here sometimes in Santa Fe, since the company's official name is actually with the cap "T" as well...... Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Far from persuaded, but content to go with the flow. Tim riley (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Re: Falstaff: I've had few direct contacts with other wiki opera project editors, except Mr. Tell, who would be a good resource, I agree. However, I shall ask our fearless leader, voceditenore, for her input. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Spot on! Voceditenore's input would be most welcome. Tim riley (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After Chopin

Many thanks for your review, Tim. On further examination I see that 'modeled', although used in that form by Taruskin in his comments, is not cited by me as part of a direct quote, so I will move to the double l. I am in London at present after a slightly hairy few weeks in Kyiv - due to go back there in mid-March, let's see. My apartment there is on one side of the Maidan, my office on the other, so I have been used to strolling across it twice a day, but even excitement becomes tedious after a while. I will certainly take a peek at Sir Jack presently. Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stockton and Darlington Railway

Thank you for your comments at peer review. After making minor changes as a result of my holiday reading, I've now taken the article to FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stockton and Darlington Railway/archive1. I think I might try a biography of Robert Stephenson next. Edgepedia (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Peel, yet another Yorkshireman...

I'm honestly not doing it on purpose, but I've got another obscure Yorkshire cricketer at PR. It was going to be something or someone else but the GA process is a bit stagnant these days, which has slowed down the other ones which are brewing. If you can stand it, any of your comments would be appreciated here. I quite understand if you are too busy, or the thought of commenting on someone else from God's Own County sickens you! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balls, my dear Sarastro! What would Lancastrians do without Yorkshiremen? We'd have to deal with Southerners instead, which would be even worse. Shall look in tomorrow, with much pleasure. I do a bit of GA reviewing now and again: is there anything I ought to be looking at there? Tim riley (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a glutton for punishment, I've two up there needing reviewers (the third, about the D'Oliveira affair, finally has a good reviewer, but sat for a long time; I was hoping to put that up next. Never mind). Edwin St Hill, which is going nowhere near FA, but is the result of a lot of painstaking research about a very obscure cricketer, and Gubby Allen. Allen is heading for FAC, but there is some way to go and it is around 2,000 words too long at the moment (eek!). I think it's probably GA-ready, but I'm a long way from happy with it, so you may want to wait on that one. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shall make it my business to look in, with innocent eye at St Hill and deeply jaundiced eye at Sir G Allen. You, meanwhile, may like to reciprocate by looking in at the peer review of Falstaff (opera). As a character from The Magic Flute you will, I'm sure, have some wise words on an operatic article. Tim riley (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure. I'll hopefully get to that tomorrow, but I warn you that my love of The Magic Flute does not reflect a deep musical knowledge! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imogen Holst, yet another bloody composer

I've been working, without much enthusiasm, on the Imo article. It might be peer-reviewable by the weekend, but can I ask your advice on one particular issue: at what point, do you think, should "Imogen" become "Holst"? In previous similar circumstances I have adopted the surname when the subject ceases to be a child, but here the issue is complicated by her father, who must I think have the prior right to be known as "Holst". So I have kept her as Imogen until after her father's death, and surnamed her thereafter. What do you think of the transition at this point? Are there any alternatives? In Grogan's book he solves the problem by referring to them throughout as "IH" and "GH", but I don't think that option is open to us. Another possibility is to do what I did with Cosima Wagner, whom I referred to as "Cosima" through the whole article. Any thoughts/ideas? Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Lord! There's no right answer to this. I think it's unavoidable to call her Imogen while Gustav is still alive, but if I'm honest, looking at the present text I find it disorienting to have her suddenly become Holst half way through the article. At best it breaks the flow of the prose and at worst it is momentarily confusing. If it were my decision I'd stick with Imogen throughout, though I admit that's not ideal and is the opposite of WP's norms. I'd be inclined to leave it as it is for now, and specifically ask all peer reviewers for their views on the matter. If you do, I'll be voting for all-Imogen, but I shouldn't be surprised if you get a consensus for switching to Holst after 1934. – Tim riley (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right – the sudden change from "Imogen" to "Holst" is confusing and disorientating, especially with Gustav so recently gone. I have decided, after all, to go for all-Imogen, and use the Cosima article as a precedent. I will defend this (with your stout support) at the PR. Thanks for good advice. Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hornung

Following a very productive and useful PR (for which, once again, my thanks), E.W. Hornung has made his way to FAC for wider consideration. Any further thoughts or comments would be most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Dupe links script

This might seem silly—because I used the script within the hour—but now I can't seem to find the page and I'd like to add it to the linking guideline, so that others may enjoy this time-saver! Can you please remind me where one can find this script? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Lord! I'm not good at such things, and I forget how I got this tool. I am asking cleverer editors than I to look in here and explain. Tim riley (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think about it I believe I can use this new prodding device: @Cassianto: @SchroCat:, which I hope will get two young and clued-up editors on whom I rely for help to wade in. Tim riley (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used my browser's history and found it here: User:Ucucha/duplinks. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good! False alarm, gentlemen, but I'll no doubt be knocking at your doors for help again soon enough. Tim riley (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The prod worked Tim. Next week SchroCat and I will teach you about doorbells and light switches ;-) -- Cassianto (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

News headline: Maniac Using Shakespeare First Folio as Blunt Instrument Slays Two at British Library. Look about you very carefully when entering from the Euston Road, cheeky young sod! Tim riley (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha!! -- Cassianto (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review request

While I hate to get greedy, I also have a co-nomed article at FAC that needs a review: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix/archive1. If you have the time and are so inclined, I would appreciate your input on the article. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After your heroic marathon effort on Falstaff you have every right to be as greedy as you like. I shall of course look in, though I warn you, the only thing I know about Hendrix is that he lived next door to Handel in the West End. Tim riley (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's most generous of you; thanks! It might be all the better that you don't have any preconceived notions about Hendrix, as you'll approach the work unbiased. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Gi' me t'ball, Mr Stoddart. Ah'll get t'buggers out before lunch"

Just to let you know that Mr Peel is now at FAC. The review is here. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most comfortable supports seen in the dressing room for ages – a pleasure to review. Tim riley (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PR request

Hi Tim, any news when the next FAC will be up? I've got something being prepped now, Tjioeng Wanara, and any feedback at the PR would be greatly appreciated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect timing. I have not five minutes ago finished a long and immensely enjoyable scrutiny of SchroCat's recent creation John Gielgud, roles and awards at FLC. (Do look in!) I'll gladly join the Tjioeng Wanara peer review next. Tim riley (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to stop by, but likely when it comes time to close the review (if I review and support, that means two delegates are out of action for that nomination). Thank you very much, again! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I'd quite forgotten that both you and SchroCat are FL delegates. Tim riley (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question

It occurred to me that per WP:ENGVAR, Sgt. Pepper should be rendered without the terminal punctuation as Sgt Pepper. Does this sound reasonable, or am I making an issue where none exists? I note that the TP is included on the most recent CD release, but those were all printed in the States. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody will object to the full stop, I think: although it has been little used after Mr., Col., Sgt., Dr., Rev., etc in British English since the early 1970s it was still pretty much the norm in the mid 1960s when the LP came out. Tim riley (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 172

Regarding the sources: it seems that I need to source every "cantata ABC was written for occasion xyz" (although we have a sourced article for ABC, and two lists of Bach cantatas, with the dates and occasions). - No problem, but I will need a bit of time. (It would be easy to source all these to Dürr's book in German, but I thought it would be better to have English online sources.) - One source was noticed to be self-published, - most of it can be sourced by others, perhaps in addition, what do you think? - Mincham is self-published as well. Both offer food for thought, and music examples ;) - Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Durr's book is one of the ones I have ordered for Monday at the British Library. I am not one of nature's linguists, though I was taught German as a boy, so I foresee much cursing and recourse to dictionaries while I struggle through Durr's text. My job will be to check the existing citations to ensure that a quoted source says what the article says it does, and that there is no copying-and-pasting or close paraphrase of copyright material. If you add other citations in the meanwhile, that's fine, but I won't be checking them, but just a representative sample of the existing citations. I don't expect to find any problems. Tim riley (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To my knowledge, the English Dürr (2006) is more or less a translation of the German (1971), updated and movement text translated, - that should make your work with the German easier. Latest news: the title, will bring that up in the FAC page. Alfred Dörffel was on the Main page today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gielgud

It would be a pleasure, and I should arrive there tomorrow or very shortly afterwards. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enid Blyton

Greetings. Any chance you could comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Enid Blyton/archive1? Hoping to get this core article up to FA following on from your review! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Canopic-jars-sons-of-horus.tif or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page. This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EP again

Tim, thanks again for reading and for the support at Ezra Pound. I found your comments to be particularly forthcoming and thus welcome. Victoria (tk) 22:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big Fish, Little Fish (play)

Nice of you to fill that in, thank you. Just a heads up: I've nominated it for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Big Fish, Little Fish (play) if you would like to suggest a hook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Wiki guide, philosopher and friend Ssilvers has added lots of good stuff, and I think the article will serve rather well now. Your suggested hooks are spot on. I enjoyed your straight-faced suggestion for 1 April. Tim riley (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Ssilvers to the DYK credits for the nomination (it was missed earlier, somehow). Glad you liked it! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Less downbeat topic next time

Mindful of your suggestion at the Flight 825 FAC that I pick a "less downbeat topic next time", I have just nominated an account of the "Golden Girls" story—the Zimbabwean women's hockey team that defied the odds to win gold at the 1980 Moscow Olympics, just a couple months after the big Rhodesia–Zimbabwe political transition period ended. The story is unusual, uplifting and, I hope, quite entertaining—short but sweet. As always your thoughts would be very much appreciated if your schedule allows. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shall look in. Sounds most engaging. Tim riley (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imogen, Gielgud, Falstaff etc

I'm back, with a bit more of a spring in my faltering steps. I have now opened a peer review for Imogen Holst, and will be pleased with any comment you can make there. I wasn't able to read Gielgud on my travels (couldn't get a decent WiFi) but I'm on to it now, and comments will follow shortly (by the way, no girlfriend of mine ever took a shine to Gielgud, or anyway ever advertised it to me). And where do we stand with Falstff now? I expected to see it at FAC – problems? Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Big Fish, Little Fish (play)

On 19 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Big Fish, Little Fish (play), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Hugh Wheeler's Big Fish, Little Fish (1961) was one of the first Broadway plays to explore the theme of homosexuality in a sensitive and honest way? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Big Fish, Little Fish (play). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Edward Lewis agreeing to sell Decca to PolyGram

Doing a PolyGram word search, there is no other mention in the Edward Lewis (Decca) article that Lewis, before he died, agree to sell British Decca to PolyGram. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sale of Decca is mentioned in the ODNB quote. Silly to repeat it. Tim riley (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attempt to correct and improve the Polygram reference. Unfortunately in so doing you have falsified a direct quote, which is unacceptable under WP rules. I have moved the (extremely important?) name of the company to a footnote to avoid deliberate misquotation. Tim riley (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the company was sold to PolyGram is extremely important as it shows that Decca did not maintain its autonomy as the pop division was absorbed into Polydor Records. The classical music division did maintain some autonomy. So PolyGram should be mentioned in the body of the article instead of inside a footnote. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Important to Decca, but not to the late Sir Edward. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leonora Corbett, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Blithe Spirit and Malvern Festival (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) 08:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'Oliveira affair

Another favour to ask! I've got this article at PR here; it is technically another cricket article, but this one is a bit different as I'm sure you're aware. Any comments would be appreciated. And not a Yorkshireman in sight! Sarastro1 (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Fair warning: though I'm a lifelong Liberal I wrote most of the article on Alec Douglas-Home, so am predisposed to argue his case, such as it is. More anon. I am, of course, old enough to remember the affair – eheu fugaces! Tim riley (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform you that the article is now at FAC here, and any further comments would be appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Experienced

Hi. As you recently reviewed the article, would you care to weigh in on this discussion? It concerns whether a particular review quote should be removed from an article. --John (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question (b)

When writing about "The Blue Danube" by Johann Strauss II, should the title of the waltz be set in quotes as with a song, or italics as with a longer piece or song-cycle? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and one I'd never thought about before. Somewhere in between a song title and a symphony, one might say, so tricky, but I see the article on the composer goes for italics, and I think I'd follow suit. Very flattered to be asked, but I disclaim any expertise! Tim riley (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forthcoming FACs

I am about ready to nominate Imogen, but I don't want to do it at precisely the same time as you nominate Gielgud; given the likely overlap of reviewers, I'd rather there were a couple of noms intervening. I think Gielgud should have priority; if you're ready to go ahead in the next 24 hours, I will defer Imogen for a while. If you feel you need a little more time, I'll go ahead with Imogen now – either option is fine by me. Please let me know. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a sensitive Wikicolleague you are! Thank you, dear Brian. Please surge ahead with Imogen. I propose to keep Sir John at PR for another week or so for two reasons: (i) one much valued contributor has yet (I hope) to add more, and (ii) I am off to the ancestral shack in the Lakes tomorrow for a week, so can't, away from my bookshelves, do the post-PR necessary about added citations till I get back next week. I shall have web access though and will await Imogen's apotheosis and will have the greatest pleasure in contributing at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Traby Croft progresses at a snail's pace I'm open to distraction and I look forward to seeing both at FAC: please drop me a note when your relative buttons are pressed on these two! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tranby Croft, I presume - I love scandals (am working on the Jeremy Thorpe affair at the moment, walking on eggshells). My internet provider is currently not providing, so all operations are temporarily suspended (I am currently a refugee in our local library), but I'll go ahead with Imogen as soon as normal service resumes. Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(later) The gremlins have quailed before the mighty Imogen and have restored my access, so all being well, Imo will be at FAC this evening. Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and now it's there. Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will pop along shortly. Yes, it is Tranby Croft - a quick peek on the very rough draft, which may get to PR around Christmas time at this rate! - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Carole Lombard

As you were beaten to it on the Thompson article perhaps you could reserve the review for this one, another Loeba article which I've just prepared. Also one of my favourite actresses and one of the biggest early Hollywood film stars.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar

Would you perhaps have time to review this article, which is languishing rather at FAC? Trust all is well.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Will enjoy looking in over the weekend. Tim riley (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robey PR

Hi Tim, the Prime Minister and I respectively request your company in his office, which, very much like today's cabinet office, is full of absurdity and mirth. Cassianto ^talk 15:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be there. I owe you replies to a couple of emails, too, which I'll get too shortly, Tim riley (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some plain words for you

I hadn't looked at the article for some time; you are doing a great job there. pablo 19:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I hope you will keep an eye on the page, and comment if you think I go astray. Meanwhile, do look in at the article talk page, where I have raised the idea of moving the page back to "Plain Words" as that is what the new edition is called. There are pros and cons to this, and all comments will be gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me - I don't see any cons, really. pablo 21:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Henry Vallins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banfield (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) 08:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth David bibliography

Nice stuff, I was just promoting another food article, and decided to click through on this page. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's most pleasing. Thank you for that. Tim riley (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for keeping the "Peace" and bringing a Great Idea into play. Fdizile (developer) 15:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Pepper peer review

Hi, Tim. I've put Sgt. Pepper up at peer review and I would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions you have for improving the article in preparation for FAC. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly, but I have promised to complete one PR (below) and do two others. If the PR is still open I'll be there by the weekend, I hope. Tim riley (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't feel rushed; I plan to keep it open until at least 30 April. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since others are equally busy this week and I could certainly use the feedback I've decided to leave the Pepper PR open through the first week of May, later if needed. Hope this helps ensure a proper Riley review! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Glad to have a few days' breathing space. One and a half PRs yet to do and then on, with glee, to Sgt P. Tim riley (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthian

I see you are busy as always, but your further wisdom on the Ruth article, in your own time, would be greatly appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's top of my list. Have been travelling up to the Riley ancestral shack all day today, and will dive back in to editing tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gubby Allen

Not a Yorkshireman this time, but someone far more unpleasant! Gubby is up for PR here and your eyes would be much appreciated on this one if you can spare the time. I'm not a fan of his, and hopefully that doesn't come across too much. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bugger! I knew the odious old buzzard would come up sooner or later. I'll be there in a few days' time, but first I am committed to review Sgt. Pepper and then, for Dr B, Enid Blyton, if you please! Tim riley (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enid Blyton

Many thanks for the FA review Tim. I'll do what I can to address your comments, but sadly even I am sometimes forced to compromise. ;-)

I know what you mean. One fights the good fight, but there comes a point ... Tim riley (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dog it was that died

You seem to inundated with peer review requests, so I am a little reluctant to add another, but I don't mind being fourth or so in line. This time I'm back with political scandal in the shape of the Thorpe affair, an episode in recent history that I am sure you remember very well, as I do (couldn't stop laughing, callous young brute that I then was). There is a problem with images: Thorpe and Scott are both still alive, so nothing free available. Any suggestions you have beyond the rather bloodless location shots will be very welcome indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will add to my list. A sad business, and v. distressing to the young Riley, as an idealistic gay Liberal. Mais où sont les neiges d'antan, which, as Julian or possibly Sandy would say, is your actual French. Tim riley (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Martin Miller (actor, born 1899)

Hi Tim, I was wondering if you, Cass, Brian or anybody watching has anything on this actor, like a Times obit link or something. He was a minor character actor but he appeared in many notable productions and I was hoping to pad it out with some bio info as I've really found all I can on him online and want to make it seem less like reeling off a list. Virtually all hits I can find are simply a credit for a film rather than anything solid.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Times gave him a brief obit (one column inch), which I am sending you by email. Tim riley (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've rummaged a bit more and found a few reviews and news items that may be of use. I'll send them by email. Tim riley (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All comments gratefully received

With the Frederick Delius article heading for TFA, I'd be glad of comments on the article talk page about a suggested addition to do with a pop song. I think it of peripheral interest but perfectly harmless, and the editor proposing the addition makes the very good point that if we don't add it judiciously now, there will assuredly be hordes of Kate Bush fans trying to insert it when the article appears on the front page (in the lead, I shouldn't wonder). I am inclined to vote for action now, putting pragmatism before purism, and would welcome comments from anyone who keeps an eye on this user talk page. Tim riley (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now attended to. Thanks to those who were kind enough to look in. Tim riley (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it worked out that way too. A sentence was all it really needed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir George FAC

Greetings, just a note to let you know of Sir George's FAC which has just been listed. Thanks again for all your help at the PR! Cassianto ^talk 09:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gubby

Just checking that you haven't forgotten. I'd hate to deprive you of the privilege of dealing with dear, dear old Gubby... (There's no great hurry!) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't forgotten (though undeniably old and forgetful). I'm just doing Sgt Pepper, as previously promised, and will then turn to the wicked Sir George. Give me till next Wednesday, please, and don't close the review before then. Tim riley talk 20:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Monteux

I see from my "List of projected TFA dates" that the 50th anniversary of Monteux's death falls on 1 July next. Do you want this nominated as TFA? The only question is that, with Delius on 10 June (and Gustav Holst in September) we might be overegging the classical music pudding. If you're happy to go with it, so am I. Brianboulton (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are a tower of strength over anniversaries, which I'm pretty hopeless at clocking. I think a conductor is a different enough beast from a composer to make PM a reasonable nominee. If I ever knew the procedure for nominating I have forgotten it: may I impose on your kindness to do the honours and I'll watch and learn. Tim riley talk 10:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. There's time enough – I'll do it in 2 or 3 weeks. One thing you could do, if you don't mind, is to check out that all the external links are still working; we don't want "dead link" messages all over our TFA. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will be my privilege and pleasure. By the bye, Norman Scott is now top-but-one in my pending tray, with Sgt. Pepper PR done (most enjoyably) and the wicked Sir George next in to bat. Tim riley talk 16:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Pepper FAC

I'm notifying editors who commented at the Sgt. Pepper peer review to inform them that I've nomed the article at FAC.
Hey, Tim. You've been so helpful that I hate to ask for yet another favour, but I can't seem to get anyone to do a source review at the Sgt. Pepper FAC. The article would likely have been passed by now, but nobody will commit to a source review. Are you willing? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. I'll put a marker down at once. Tim riley talk 18:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Tim. I hope that you know this already, but if ever I can of assistance please don't hesitate to ask me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did and I will. But it's very nice to see it said, nevertheless. Nearly finished doing the review. 356 citations, forsooth! Watch this space. Tim riley talk 19:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thorpe affair

I've nominated at FAC, having answered (I trust) your comments on my talkpage (incidentally, I like your new bolded signature). Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paris

Unfortunately I have too much on my watchlist to really notice such changes but checking in on it I'm astounded to see it's grown by 100kb is is now a whopping 269kb. The main editor seems to be User:SiefkinDR who has expanded the history section into something way too detailed for the main article and should be moved to History of Paris and the early shortened version restored. He seems to be working in good faith, but it was already pushing it at 165kb when it passed GA, even for Paris. I'm afraid though that if it is cut down again we'll lose valuable material and it won't resemble my version of it. But I don't want to offend Siefkin by restoring to an earlier version. What should I do? I think my earlier summary should be restored and Siefkin's work moved to the main History of Paris article. I hope he understands why. If he can do a good job cutting it back to 170-180kb though then I'd support it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Lord! It is indeed difficult to know what to do, and one hates hurting other people's feelings, especially after such sustained and impressive hard work. But I agree the history section is much, much too long for the article, and needs its own page - which would be a whopper in its own right. The thing to do, I think, is argue it out on the article talk page, where I will happily join in the discussion. I think it can be done diplomatically, on the lines (perfectly true) that the additions are very good but are too detailed for the overview article and should be moved to their own page. The MoS is pretty clear that huge articles should be split up: WP:TOOBIG. But, oh dear, one does hate raining on anyone's parade. Tim riley talk 19:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to former version. I see a discussion has already begun on talk page about it. Proof that I have way too much on my watchlist as I didn't even notice the changes or discussion until now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PR request

Tim, After a hefty re-write, the royal baccarat scandal—or Tranby Croft affair, if you prefer—is up for peer review. If you have the time, or inclination, I'd be very grateful to hear any thoughts or comments you may have (although not too much about dratted commas!). Much obliged if you can, but entirely understandable if your hands are full elsewhere! – SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gubby Allen...

...is now at FAC here. Any further comments gratefully received. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeux

Beautiful Jeux is graced by a picture scanned by you. I think it would be good to add a date, would 1913 be right? Is it from the premiere? - How I would love to see something similar in The Rite of Spring, - it still looks like the article about a painting, at a glance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC) ps: personal connection: the one who got me tickets for this just died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly 1913, but whether it was taken in connection with the world premiere or just the British premiere later in the same year I cannot be sure. Probably the former, I think, though the image is from a London paper: now I get the magnifying glass out I see the picture is attributed to "Gerschel" - presumably Charles Gerschel, a French photographer. I'll add this info to the image page. I send my commiserations, dear Gerda, on the loss of your friend. Tim riley talk 10:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page appearance: Frederick Delius

This is a note to let the main editors of Frederick Delius know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 10, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 10, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Frederick Delius (1862–1934) was an English composer. Born in the north of England to a prosperous mercantile family, he was sent to Florida in 1884 to manage an orange plantation. Influenced by African-American music, he began composing. After a brief period of formal musical study in Germany from 1886, he embarked on a full-time career as a composer in France, living in Grez-sur-Loing with his wife Jelka. His first successes came in Germany in the late 1890s; it was not until 1907 that his music regularly appeared in British concerts. Thomas Beecham conducted the full premiere of A Mass of Life in London in 1909, staged the opera A Village Romeo and Juliet at Covent Garden in 1910, mounted a six-day Delius festival in London in 1929, and made gramophone recordings of many works. After 1918 Delius began to suffer the effects of syphilis, became paralysed and blind, but completed some late compositions with the aid of Eric Fenby. His early compositions reflect the music he had heard in America and Europe; later he developed a style uniquely his own. The Delius Society, formed in 1962, promotes knowledge of his life and works, and sponsors an annual competition for young musicians. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edmund Gwenn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lilac Time (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) 08:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for lending your talent to the Sgt. Pepper peer review and FAC. Because of some wonderful teamwork during the last month, the article is among the best on Wikipedia today. I couldn't have done it alone, and I hope that someday I can return the kindness and generosity that I've enjoyed during this process. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk\|contribs)} 16:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much touched, dear Gabriel, but though the comments from many reviewers including me are doubtless admirable, getting the article up to FA is squarely down to one GabeMc. But your charming barnstar is nonetheless received with delight. – Tim riley talk 16:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the beauty of a collaborative process; each person plays an important role, and the end product is almost always better for the diversity of opinions and skill sets. The article was pretty decent before the PR, but after the PR it was impressive, and now – after the FAC – its quite satisfying to know that our readers have access to one of the best articles currently available on the topic. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin

Of course the greatest batsman of modern times played for the greatest county! I've noticed the article a few times, but I failed it once upon a time not that long ago, and I'm pretty sure that it doesn't meet the GA criteria and I don't want to be the miserable so-and-so who fails it again. And the nominator seems to have got himself blocked. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! Sorry for putting a well-meant oar in! Shall subside. Tim riley talk 19:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking again, it's perhaps not as bad as I first thought. I'm almost itching to get in there myself and see what I can do. But no sources, I'm afraid! It's a bit of a travesty that his article is not at least GA when you get these silly fools writing about cricketers from the 19th century that no-one has heard of. (Incidentally, another Yorkshire piece of Tendulkar-lore: when our wicket-keeper Richard Blakey made his England debut in 1993, India made a ridiculous score (it was the 3-0 series when Gower didn't go if that rings a bell) and Tendulkar convinced the umpire that he had hit a ball that the umpire had given as byes so that Blakey would not concede a bye on his debut. Of course, he didn't score any runs either, but lets not go there...) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Travesty? True, but it is much, much harder to write at GA/FA level about the very greatest than about the smaller fry. I have been happy to do composer FAs on Fauré, Stanford and others, but I'm not brave - or arrogant - enough to take on Bach, Mozart or Beethoven (all B class) or, in other branches of supreme excellence Vermeer or (hush!) P. G. Wodehouse. That's a charming story about ST and Blakey. Tendulkar seems a genuinely good guy. ~~No wonder he didn't fit in at Headingley.~~ (Censored) Tim riley talk 20:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are doubtless right about the smaller fry. I think it is easier for cricketers; I cannot even imagine where to begin on a "big name" from a bigger sphere, whereas I could see how to go about, for example, Sobers or Tendulkar. Somewhere on my invisible to-do list are Viv Richards, Sobers and maybe even Warne or Botham. But doing Mozart (who you may gather I'm something of a fan of!) ... no way! My only worry over tackling Tendulkar et al would be that the articles attract somewhat ... nationalistic editors, and there are no decent sources other than trawling old possibly unbalanced English sources. (Here endeth the soliloquy, brought about by losing the work I was doing after a computer glitch!) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Lancastrians...

There's an FLC just launched about a cheeky chappie, if you feel in the mood! - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Israel the Grammarian

You kindly said to tell you when this goes to FAC, which it has just done. Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Titian

Tim, I hate to be a pain when you have been so good in reviewing articles I've worked on, but would you mind revisiting Pope Paul III and his Grandsons; a portrait of a dodgy hoary old pope by the finest of 16th c masters. ty. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and supported, with pleasure. Nb that I suspect "overgaze" should be "overglaze", but I didn't quite like to make the assumption and change it myself. Tim riley talk 09:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slinks away in shame. You're right. Ceoil (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Richardson

I really think you need to mention his role as the wheelchair-ridden tycoon and Sean Connery's father opposite Gina Lollobrigida in 1964. I've added it but knowing how much of a perfectionist you are with the prose you'll probably want to find a way to further reedit it to your satisfaction!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow

Following an email from Wehwalt, I've sent you (and BB) an email about tomorrow. Yours, Bencherlite ^Talk 16:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My songs

Thank you for your support and spot checks in the FA review of my songs! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a privilege and pleasure. By the way, if I haven't already done so I pass on to you some wise advice given to me by Brian Boulton: while the article is on the front page go away and ignore it. Much better for one's blood pressure and nerves to wait till the caravan has passed and then tidy up after the vandals, loonies and well-meaning ninnies have moved on. Tim riley talk 14:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was harmless so far, - perhaps the image of a church helps ;) - nobody added an infobox ;)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Snapdragon Productions Ltd unblock request

As to your unblock request at User talk:Snapdragon Productions Ltd, first, please don't make unblock requests for other users. Please feel free to comment there but I think a request is disruptive since I can't tell if the user is actually interested in returning and it clogs up the backlog even more. Second, the user was not blocked for their edits but for their username. Organizations are not permitted to edit here as an organization because it is likely to be shared by multiple people; individuals edit. If the user wants to stay, they need to come up with a name that is appropriate. I hope that answers your concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wasn't sure I was up to speed with WP's rules for the bureaucraticals, as I said on the page. But it seems a shame to penalise an editor for candour and demand that she or he adopts a furtive pseudonym. We had an entire WP editathon not too long ago arranged by and round an editor who was specifically a representative of Covent Garden who declared her interest from the outset. Tim riley talk 20:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delius on Tuesday

Are we all set? I read through it, changed one word, otherwise it reads splendidly. I think you were going to check out the ext links? Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was and have. All fine. Tim riley talk 07:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to follow your wise advice and hibernate for 24 hours while Fred is on the front page. We can have a post-mortem on Wednesday once the mob has moved on to the next TFA. Tim riley talk 16:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... the composer who has my name in an opera title ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Wyss

Thanks for starting her off, Tim. I've added some further details. I tracked down her DOB in Grove V, but her DOD is still missing. It's quite amazing how BB went from describing her as "excellent" and "outstanding" in 1937 and dedicating works to her children and being godfather to one of them, to regarding her as "a moron" and "daft" by 1945. This seemed to be his way, though. When someone had outlived their usefulness to him, he just switched them off, and from then on acted as if they'd never existed. He did the same with David Hemmings; he went from complete infatuation, to having no contact whatsoever with Hemmings from the moment his voice broke during a performance in 1956, for the remaining 18 years of his (BB's) life. Maybe this is part of why I find much of Britten's music emotionally very cold and unattractive. Still, a fascinating subject to explore and write about. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Britten was a strange mixture of generous kindness and ruthless selfishness, but I don't think a composer's personality necessarily informs his music: Wagner was a vile human being, but the music...! Glad you approve of my start, and thank you for building on it. Tim riley talk 16:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I'm so sorry if my initially removing the Grove reference alarmed or dismayed you - I was being rather literal (about the fact it didn't mention Gyde) and hadn't noticed you'd put it in to confirm the date of the founding of CPNM/SPNM. I've now slightly reworked the sentence to make clear what is being verified by each citation. Alfietucker (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It passed me by, in truth. I was absorbed in Our Hunting Fathers, which is now open for inspection on presentation of visiting card. Tim riley talk 13:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shipwreck

SS Arctic disaster is at peer review, awaiting your kind attention if you are so inclined. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and, while I'm at it, a request for help. As I have mentioned, I am researching the life and misdeeds of the roguish Horatio Bottomley (Liberal MP for Hackney South). In the first decades of last century he was one of the best-known people in England, and his photograph must have been published all over the place. Unfortunately, none of the many images available online give original publication details such as are required for FA purposes. The same is true of the images in the two main biographies. Do any of your old press sources give any helpful indications of the original publication of any of these? I'd be glad for any help on this. Jappalang, thou shouldst be living at this hour. Brian hath need of thee. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(continued this one on BB's talk page) Tim riley talk 09:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Britten

Useful and constructive discussion about English/British between Deb and self moved to Britten talk page for permanent record. Tim riley talk 18:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shocked to the core....

RVW is the last of the big beasts? I'm shocked and saddened at the omission! - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your message briefly had me cheering, you ratbag! I thought you were volunteering to help me upgrade the RVW article, till I clicked on your mischievous link. I have a 1970s album of AWK's pieces, in one of which the Ambrosian Singers deliver words, innocently meant, that would infallibly incur a Fatwah if sung now. Heigh ho! Ketèlbey was, I think, in that grey area between the Ronald Binges and Robert Farnons on the one hand and the Eric Coateses and Edward Germans (and even in light vein the Edward Elgars) on the other. And to speak truth the filler on my CD is Luigini's Ballet égyptiene, which I love more than the entire Ketèlbey canon, but then I am old enough to know about Wilson, Keppel and Betty and also to know Richard Murdoch's words to Luigini's score. Tim riley talk 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He he! I don't think you'd thank my ignorant input on RVW: I really would be more of a hindrance than a help, and you should count your chickens accordingly! One of the reasons I've never attempted the greatest of all C20th British composers (aka AWK) is that I am an utter musical duffer, and it shows whenever I try and write anything (as you saw with "Die Forelle"!) As to W, K & B: they were wonderful, and certainly an article in need of a good future work-over! - SchroCat (talk)

Your Trout article is damn' good, so less of that if you'd be so kind. I'd be willing to devote a day or two of my remaining years to working with you on Ketèlbey. Yours to command. Tim riley talk 19:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I'm going to hold you to that one - I have witnesses and screenshots etc, so there's no escape from it, however much you try and wriggle free! It won't be til sometime next year (at the earliest), as Cass and I have some flaming Lancastrian to sort out! before I move onto John Barrymore and his legendary ~~drinking~~ (oops, acting) career to bring up to spec, among other bits and pieces. And, hopefully, a few more bottles of red with you, Cass, BB, BL (and anyone else passing through London!) - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ye of little faith! I have eight pages of notes on Ketélbey assembled this morning. More anon. 20:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts...

I've been thinking over your kind invitation to get involved in working on RVW. My first reaction, to be honest, is I might be a liability, given first of all my freelance existence which means I sometimes have to abruptly drop whatever I'm doing on WP for days or over a week or so (or at least, as a rule, not do anything very sustained while I earn my bread); second, I've not exactly had a lot of experience in rebuilding WP articles, so I may need some clear instructions as to what's expected. But on reflection, I think I should make an exception for RVW (plus, I'm very aware of the honour of your asking me to pitch in). I did miss the GvH boat, after all, and it would be nice to have a go with a close colleague of his. So the will is there, if the invitation is still open, and you don't mind someone who is still learning the ropes. Alfietucker (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How very gratifying! I am provisionally committed to work on Lord Salisbury with Wehwalt in August or thereabouts. How would Sept or Oct suit your calendar? There is no rush or deadline of any kind.

When I have collaborated on FACs before, the two or three of us have divvied out the tasks in advance, so that you can have as much or as little as you like. For example I wrote most of the Britten article, but only a couple of minor bits of the Neville Cardus one. Brian B and Gerda A wrote most of Messiah and I just did a chunk of performance history and the recordings section. With Disraeli I got Dizzy into the Commons and Wehwalt took him from there, with me adding a coda about the novels. So really, whatever you fancy doing will be fine with me. I have chez Holst and Delius cunningly got Brian to do the hard bits – the overview of the music – while I craftily bagged the easy bit, the biogs, but I am wholly biddable on this for RVW.

As an amuse gueule, I send you a story from a friend who is a luminary of the Royal Philharmonic Society etc. Mrs VW was presented to the Prince of Wales at some RCM bash. Was it she, he enquired, who had asked him to sponsor a music foundation on Ischia? "No, no, sir," she replied. "You must be thinking of Susana Walton." "I see," said HRH. "Will it be any good?" There was a long pause before Ursula's answer: "Well, sir, she's an excellent gardener." Tim riley talk 20:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That made me laugh - thank you! From what I gather from a friend of mine who also knew Ursula, she sounds as if in private she could be quite sharp-tongued especially about people either she or her husband disapproved of or were disappointed by.

I would say I don't know RVW's music in quite so much depth as I know, say, Britten's or Holst's; but that's probably not particularly relevant given that we have to write up according to reliable secondary sources. Maybe that's a good excuse for me to catch up on what the latest scholars have added to Michael Kennedy's insights.

That said, I'm intrigued by RVW's involvement in such bodies as the British Council and the Society for the Promotion of New Music (both during the 1940s), so if we're thinking of doing a special section on this I would be glad to take this on.

Sept or Oct, so far as I can tell, should be fine by me, though freelancing does mean that sometimes a big job turns up unexpectedly. Assuming that doesn't happen, though, I should think I can fit in some work then. Let's firm up nearer the time. Alfietucker (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, you are too kind, - what I did for Messiah was mostly taking things out ;) - I added He was despised on the side. A change I would like to make is replacing the redundant side navbox with the composer's image (it could all be in a bottom navbox, as in Utrecht Te Deum, and I wonder how may people actually get the idea that it IS a navbox, not a image with a strange frame, - I think that's what I thought for a long time about the opera articles, - it never occurred to me to click on "show") by the infobox from the other , - what do you think of a beauty contest? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still up for Salisbury on my return from sea. But I understand that things come up. Sounds like a very worthy project, and I understand if you are engaged in something else, but we'll make it work one way or another.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No change to plans needed. Lord S is next on my list of biggies. RVW follows on his heels. I hope you are enjoying yourself extravagantly. Tim riley talk 20:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. In between ports and trivia competitions, I am working in a desultory fashion on John Hay.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need. I've dealt with him already Tim riley talk 21:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page appearance: Pierre Monteux

This is a note to let the main editors of Pierre Monteux know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 1, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 1, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Pierre Monteux (1875–1964) was a French (later American) conductor, who directed orchestras around the world for more than half a century. After violin and viola studies, and a decade as an orchestral player and occasional conductor, he began to receive regular conducting engagements in 1907. He came to prominence when he conducted the world premieres of ballets such as The Rite of Spring, Daphnis et Chloé, and Jeux. From 1917 to 1919 he was the principal conductor of the French repertoire at the Metropolitan Opera. He then led the Boston Symphony Orchestra, the Concertgebouw Orchestra (1924–34), Orchestre Symphonique de Paris (1929–38), San Francisco Symphony (1936–52), and from 1961, aged eighty-six, the London Symphony Orchestra. Monteux's chief love was the music of German composers, above all Brahms. He disliked recording, finding it incompatible with spontaneity, but made a substantial number of records. He began to teach conducting in Paris in 1932. After moving permanently to the US in 1942, he founded the Pierre Monteux School in Hancock, Maine, which has continued. His students included Igor Markevitch, Neville Marriner, André Previn, Lorin Maazel and Seiji Ozawa. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New article on review

Hi Tim. I have Æthelwold ætheling on review at A Class. Many thanks if you can review it. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a privilege and pleasure. Shall join the review on Tuesday as tomorrow is earmarked for walking-boots and a circumambulation of Derwentwater with a serious lunch half-way round. On Tuesday I shall be sober and suitably critical. – Tim riley talk 18:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SS Arctic disaster

Everyone seems to be away at the moment, but I've put up the Arctic shipwreck at FAC, as a sort of light holiday reading. I'd be pleased if you'd check it out there, when you have time. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It shall be done, next on my list after Æthelwold ætheling, above. I’m away too, but am at the Riley ancestral shack near Keswick, where we have broadband access even in these remote parts. Parenthetically, I made the mistake of looking at the WP Keswick article yesterday – a helluva lot of work needed, and I guess it’s my duty to do it. Heigh ho!) Tim riley talk 18:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Ballet

Thank you for querying my unjustified assumptions which were not backed up by facts. Offending sentences now removed. Pstaylor (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad my tag was helpful. It's a most interesting article, even to a non-balletomane. Tim riley talk 11:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal intermarriage

After a little tidying up and some further expansion, following the peer review of Royal Intermarriage, I've nominated it for 'Good Article' status. If you have the time, a review of your support (or opposition of course) would be great. Thanks Sotakeit (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can rule out my opposition. At a quick look just now the article is in fine shape. I'll review it later this week if someone else doesn't get in first. Tim riley talk 11:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks Tim for all your help. Do give me a shout if there is anything you want me to review. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London is curently languishing in the peer review backlog, so any time convenient at peer review.

There is no hurry with the ISBNs. I see that the three articles I have put through FAC were not consistent how ISBNs were shown, and no one queried it. I wonder whether sorting them for this article might be a waste of your time better spent on your intriguing new article. I look forward to seeing it. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well fine as to the variegated ISBNs in that case. If perchance they become a matter for concern at FAC I'll wade in then. My own current efforts are not on a new article, but on Keswick, Cumbria, from which I am, as I type, a mile or so away, at the Riley family country house in Portinscale. The present Keswick article is pretty poor and I'm working on it privily here, and am not past 1276 AD yet. A peer review on a pleasing topic will be a nice break. More there, soonest. Tim riley talk 17:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Had a quick look at your sandbox. Is it worth mentioning that (according to The Historical Atlas of the Celtic World) the area was part of the Kingdom of Strathclyde until about 1018, and then briefly in Scotland until 1092. (You have 1029 as a typo.) However, I dare say that with your local knowledge you will say that is a gross over-simplification! Dudley Miles (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly is worth mentioning! – thank you. Would be kind enough to give me a page number? I can get the rest of the biblio details from WorldCat. I'm back in London today, and will look properly at your nature reserves page tomorrow. Tim riley talk 16:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

p. 104 text. "Weakened by Viking attacks, the British kingdom of Strathclyde became a satellite of Scotland before it was finally annexed c. 1018." p. 105 map shows north west England between the Firth of Forth and (about) the River Esk as an area of Strathclyde lost to England in 1092. PS I seem to remember reading elsewhere that Strathclyde recovered after the Viking attacks before finally it became a Scottish satellite and I can check this out if you wish. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you have given me already will do beautifully, and I have gratefully incorporated it into my draft. I foresee another week's or fortnight's work on my Keswick labours before they are ready for the main space. Meanwhile, having so enjoyed the London nature reserves peer review I am hereby drawing it to the attention of User:SchroCat and User:Cassianto, both of whom know a thing or two about featured lists and may have something to say at the PR. Tim riley talk 21:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can look and review the FLC, but as a delegate I don't normally support unless it's getting late in the process and the list is struggling for attention. I'm very happy to look it over and comment appropriately though, and will do shortly. While on the subject I'll do a bit of publicity for my two: John Barrymore on stage, screen and radio, which has been going a while, and List of works by Leslie Charteris, which I launched today. Any comments and suggestions are welcome (esp if people can find my English errors in the Americanese of Barrymore)! I'm not around tomorrow though—a bread-making course in Borough Market beckons! Pip pip - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A fair quid pro quo, and I'll look in at both over the weekend. My maternal great-grandfather was a master baker from Düsseldorf, transplanted to Liverpool, so I'm blest if I'm shelling out for a breadmaking course at Borough Market: I have it in my genes. While you're at B Market be sure to check out Elliot's Café. Superb. Tim riley talk 22:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim for recommending my article. Unfortunately I have only just noticed your comment and I took it out of PR too soon. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot's is nice, but I have happy memories of Maria's and their lovely breakfasts, which I thoroughly enjoyed this morning. The course was fantastic, and I am now all breaded up for the remainder of the week with me own produce, before I need to start all over again! – SchroCat (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kildea's claim about Britten's medical condition

Useful exchange on this topic cut and pasted from here to Talk:Benjamin Britten to make it available to future editors of the article. Tim riley talk 18:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin

I have played Mr. (full stop carefully included) Benjamin at FAC and was able to find a source on that Benjamin quote stating that a similar tale was told of Disraeli. Your input would be very welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have added my enthusiastic support at FAC. The Dizzy reference is very pleasing. Tim riley talk 16:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I dood it!"

... or, at least, if I were We hope I'd say that. We (mostly We hope) have been pushing to bring Red Skelton to FAC, and have opened a peer review for pre-gauntlet comments. Since you're quite well versed with actor biographies, we'd be much obliged if you could leave some feedback. You might even see a familiar face or two ;). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was a.w.o.l. today on a swift sortie from London to Winchester, but I'll clock in at the review tomorrow, once I have done justice to the GAN of Royal intermarriage, which is top of my to-do list. Tim riley talk 18:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal intermarriage? Now there's a topic! I've never actually looked into how the local royalty choose their spouse (spouses for men, at least until the 20th century). Thanks Tim. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Sargent

Proprietary? Please insert mention of the Leicester Symphony Orchestra into the appropriate spot in Malcolm Sargent's article. He's noted as the founder in 1922 and continued to serve as conductor until 1942. Sources are easily available if necessary. Thank you.Pkeets (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not proprietorial, I assure you, and I am far from the "onlie begetter" of the Sargent article. You will see from the exchanges above that I believe in the WP collaborative spirit. But we can't, nor should we try to, cram every minor fact about a subject into a 4,000-word biography. Even in the 302-page biography of Sargent by Aldous there is only one brief mention of this ensemble. It was (forgive me) disproportionate to mention it in the lead section, and my personal opinion is that it fails the notability test for coverage in the main text of the biography. Editing, especially perhaps for a GA or FA, requires us to identify and home in on the essentials and discard the rest, however personally appealing one may find this or that detail. If there is a consensus that the Leicester ensemble is notable in this context I'll go along with it with due meekness. I must in fairness add that the earlier biography by Reid has a bit more on Sargent's stint in Leicester, and there is some interesting stuff in there about women players in general and Grace Burrows in particular that you may find interesting if your library can conjure up a copy for you. Failing that I can send you scans if wanted. Tangentially, I think the nomination of the Burrows article for deletion as not notable, though no doubt well meant, is misguided, and I shall be saying so on the discussion page. – Tim riley talk 18:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment on Burrows. However, I do think that a 20 year association with LSO is worthy of mention somewhere in Sargent's article. It was one of the projects that helped him get started. Pkeets (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I look again at the article I see we have mentioned the orch in the third para of the "Early career" section. It's a long time since I worked extensively on the article and I grow old and forgetful. So much for my pontifications above! Tim riley talk 19:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your diligent copyediting on royal intermarriage. Although a registered user since 2005, I've only started editing articles (for want of a better word) properly quite recently, so you've been very helpful. Sotakeit (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How very pleasing! Thank you! Tim riley talk 09:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back to reality

I'm glad that you're having a splendid time in Paris. Incidentally, there is a corner of the Champs-Élysées that is forever Brian, i.e. where I punched a French boy on the nose in the course of a school visit (he was being really annoying) and nearly caused a diplomatic incident. Be that as it was, I have a half-formed plan I'd like you to comment on. I have done little work on music articles for a while (only Imogen since the Tippett nightmares of a year ago), and I'd rather like to get beack into the groove. Not with a major composer biog, but a history and analysis of a work I know well and enjoy. What comes to mind is Noye's Fludde. I've looked at the current article, which could certainly be expanded – presently no background, composition history or musical analysis, etc. I thought I might do this (after Bottomley, which is nearly peer reviewable) while I still have JSTOR access, as there are some important journal articles that I'd need to use. Generally you know more about Britten than I do; I'd value any thoughts you have on this as a possible project – when you are safely home of course. Brianboulton (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There live not three good men unhanged in England; and one of them is fat, grows old, and is back home. The church operas are rather a blind spot for me, and I am not tempted to dip in. The article has enjoyed the attention of many top-flight editors, including Viva-Verdi, Alfietucker, Jack of Oz and other luminaries, but there remains more that could be said, as you observe, and a session in the Boulton research-and-writing studio would do the page a power of good. In fact, the only thing to be said against the idea is that your getting Noye up to FA will leave the three Church Parable articles looking a bit slender by comparison. If your JSTOR access ends, I can easily toddle down to the British Library where access is always available, to look up particular things, though I know it's really whole articles one wants to read and absorb. – Tim riley talk 09:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my page stalking, but just to say I'd be very happy to be involved in upgrading Noye's Fludde and any or all three of the Church Parables. Alfietucker (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive?, you innocent youth! Why do you suppose I baited the Alfie traps here with peanut butter to enlist you to Bad Sir Brian Boulton's mission to revise. Tim riley talk 17:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I regret your abstinence, but look forward to working with the excellent Mr Tucker. I will also drop polite notes on the talks of the other editors you mention. Incidentally, talking of men who are fat, grown old etc, Horatio Bottomley should be hitting peer review within a couple of days – I'll let you know when. Brianboulton (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Just a note of thanks for your help with the Red Skelton PR! We hope (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How very nice: thank you! It was my pleasure, though I couldn't contribute more than a few scraps as the text was already so good. Tim riley talk 14:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Monteux

Hi there, Tim. I noticed you cleaned up Pierre Monteux's article from "front page onslaught" as you put it. But, did you change "French-American" back to "French (later American)" as well? I believe "French-American" is the correct wording. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be worried about that phrasing: to an English reader it suggests mixed parentage or ancestry or membership of a particular group (cf African-American; Italian-American etc) rather than someone who simply started out French and later took American nationality. Regards. Tim riley talk 16:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear you know more about the subject than I do, so I'll agree on this one. Regards. Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old Bottomley

If you are in reviewing mood (or just want a bit of diversion), Horatio is now at peer review, and would welcome your attention (but keep your hands on your wallet). Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I was wondering only yesterday when the old villain would be popping up at PR. I'll be there. Tim riley talk 18:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A gift for you!

	Welcome back!
	Hope you enjoyed Paris! Would love to see you working on wine or Parisian articles sometime! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Doc, how very pleasing! Thank you! I briefly fancied my chances at writing or improving wine articles till I realised that we have some formidable experts already on the case: I confine myself to drinking the stuff now, on the basis of sticking to what one is best at. I see you have sent me Dom P, which is fine, but perhaps Krug next time? Tim riley talk 23:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear and so forth

Good to know you had an enjoyable time in Paris. I'll be there Sunday and am looking forward to dodging the tourists (I never consider myself one, of course!). If you have some time on your hands, I have a new peer review, of John Hay, here. Will start gearing up on Salisbury once I have better internet.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't we tourists who block up the pavements in Paris: it's the Parisians themselves. When their pavements are full they send the overflow to London to block ours up too. On ne passe pas! I'll look in chez Hay with pleasure. Tim riley talk 07:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PR Request

Hi Tim, I was wondering if you would be able to provide feedback on the article about Departures at its peer review. As you know, when it comes to writing I'm a bit of a working stiff, but the love is still there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be very pleased to join the peer review. I'm looking at John Hay at the moment, and will move on to Departures when I've done there. Tim riley talk 10:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arigatou. Do you have any upcoming articles that I could review in return? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing major. I'm doing odds and ends at the moment. Besides, "in return" is nonsense considering all the help you give me with images, bless you! Tim riley talk 16:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, but 2 images vs. a 6k word article is a little one sided. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Kudpung. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Joseph Layraud, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 14:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted out! Gosh! Tim riley talk 21:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old Bottomley

Horatio, bless his corrupt old soul, has entered the realms of FAC. (I wonder what he would make of my snapshot?) Brianboulton (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About £50,000 in damages I should think. I'll be there soonest. Tim riley talk 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cathérine Hübscher

Dear Tim, About eight months ago you re-inserted the "accent aigu" that I had deleted in "Cathérine Hübscher." I am French speaking and the fact is there is no accent aigu in "Catherine." Just check the French-language entry for Madame Sans-Gêne and you will easily confirm that. Also, there is no accent in "Lefèbvre." It is spelled "Lefebvre."Rchateau (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I was surprised at the accents, but one can only go by the sources. I checked them most carefully at the time, as I recall, but I am happy to bow to your Francophone superiority. There are associated articles you might care to look in at: see the dab page Tim riley talk 09:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turned out nice again!

Evening Tim, I come with begging bowl once again, for another SchroCat & Cassianto special. This time it's the PR for George Formby for which I'm hoping to gather comments, complaints and constructive suggestions. If you're able to visit I'd be extremely grateful—there's no rush on this at all. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Jules Massenet

To oblige an opera-buff friend of mine who particularly asked me to upgrade the article, I have done the best I can. The slight problem is that Massenet's operas mean practically nothing to me (I have seen just two in a fifty-year career of going to the opera, and I do not agree with Sir Thomas about Manon -v- Brandenburgs.) I think I've got the biography and reputation sections more or less right, but my overview of the music is frankly inadequate. I am therefore taking the liberty of pinging opera-loving Wikipedians who may perhaps find time and inclination to look in and remedy some of the deficiencies… So, @Alfietucker:, @Brianboulton:, @Cg2p0B0u8m:, @GuillaumeTell:, @Viva-Verdi:, @Wehwalt:. Quite understand if you are otherwise engaged, Messieurs, but I'll be grateful for any contributions. – Tim riley talk 17:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for expanding and improving this article - it really is a major improvement! (For once I do agree with Tommy...) Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent! As you have views on Massenet's operas, may I twist your arm and ask you to revise my feeble attempt to sum up his music? No rush, and no pressure, but it would be much appreciated. Tim riley talk 17:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With some extra material now added, I have chanced my arm and put the page up for peer review. Anyone inclined to look in will be most warmly welcomed. Tim riley talk 17:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will be there shortly! - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to you on the Featured Article. I have answered you comments on my talk page. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Plagis

Hi Tim, how are you? Just dropping you a note to let you know that I now have John Plagis at FAC here. Plagis was the top-scoring flying ace of WWII for both Rhodesia and his ancestral home Greece. As always any thoughts you might have would be very much appreciated. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad to see you busying yourself on these pages. Shall look in chez Plagis over the weekend. Tim riley talk 18:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Later: And now done. Hardly worth wiping my boots on the doormat – a fine article, on which I've managed to find just two, exceedingly minor, comments. Bravo! (And here's to your continued flourishing!) Tim riley talk 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, I'm sorry to bother you but Brian suggested at the FAC that you might be able to help in sourcing an obituary for Plagis in one of the English papers. We both think it's relatively likely he had one because of his military decorations, particularly the DSO. I'm afraid I don't know the exact date, only the year, 1974 (and I suspect it might actually be 1975). Anyway, if you are able to help out with this, I would be very grateful. Cheers and have a great week. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No bother whatever, but I have failed you: there's no obit in The Times, The Guardian or The Observer. I'm going to the British Library for a rummage in various books on Friday, and if you can think of any book that might have anything suitable I'll be pleased to look it up for you. Pray ponder – best wishes, Tim riley talk 19:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Tim, I will take you up on this. I believe the British Library has an archive of The Rhodesia Herald. Do you think you could possibly check if this is the case, and if so if there is an obituary for Plagis there? —Cliftonian (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make it my business to find out. I'll report back on your talk page, I think. Watch that space! Tim riley talk 19:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The animals went in two by two (hurrah)

Noye's Fludde, a joint effort with the esteemed Alfred Tucker, is now at peer review. Your expert comments are awaited with bated breath. Brianboulton (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS the note re Massenet duly acknowledged - I have a slight backlog of promised reviews but I'll get there when I can.

Shall join the Noye PR forthwith. No rush on Massenet: as I say, I wrote it to oblige a chum and in truth if there is an opposite of WP:OWN that's pretty much what I feel. Tim riley talk 16:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also have it on my list and will (or may) get to it soon(ish). It helps if I actually like the music, and that has been an ongoing challenge for me with Britten. One day, maybe the penny will drop. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two wise heads together

June 2014: in thoughtful mode, Boulton and Riley plan their next project.

Wot no bow tie? —Cliftonian (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text=The inaugural meeting of the WikiOAP Society (WOAPS) had a small turnout. - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or was it the Wiki Over Eighties Society (WOES)....? - SchroCat (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! I see the paunch filter wasn't working on the camera. Happens a lot when I'm about. In truth a memento of a thoroughly delighful séance, reruns of which I could be signed up for with no difficulty at all. Thank you, Brian. Tim riley talk 17:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second that! A festive reunion maybe in order I think! Cassianto ^talk 00:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noye business (like shoye business)

I wonder, could you spare a moment to revisit the PR and give your opinion on an issue raised by the redoubtable SchroCat? Brianboulton (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is to advise you and other peer reviewers that the article has been nominated at FAC, and that any further comments should be raised there. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Sorry to butt in but does that include ALL comments/queries, or just ones relating to its, er, greatness? In other words, if I have some relatively trivial moan or query - that without the FAC process I would just change, or raise on the article's Talk page - do they now go to the FAC discussion page too? Sorry if it's a stupid question - I am interested in the article, but ignorant about the FAC process. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC) PS Excellent section header btw[reply]

Hello, and welcome, DBaK! I think for sheer convenience I'd direct all queries and suggestions to the FAC page, but that's just my view. The article talk page, or editing the article, remain options for uncontroversial minor points. Regards, Tim riley talk 19:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and sorry for the slow reply; I have been away for a few days. Have I missed (sorry) the boat? Some discussion upon which I stumbled seems to have now been closed ... where is now appropriate for me to contribute my whingeing and irrelevant 1.2p worth? Please advise. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DBaK - as a page stalker (and being involved in upgrading Noye's Fludde), I can tell you your comments would be very welcome at the FAC page. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have contributed ramblings there that will probably get me cast into outer darkness in a brisk march tempo. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Library assistance sought

I wonder, Tim, if when you are next at the BL you could look up a couple of things for me? I am currently researching the political career of Margaret Bondfield (obscure now but important in her time). Her autobiography A Life's Work, published in 1948, is very difficult to find – nothing on Amazon or ABE, and I've drawn a blank with ILL. A while ago I took some notes from a copy I found (price £140!) in a bookshop, but I need a bit more information, in particular the page refs that deal with her father's activities as a member of the Chard Political Union and the Anti-Corn Law League. Basically I need the page range that deals with her life up to age 13 – not many pp as I recall. I have sufficient refs after that. The book won't be my main source, as there is plenty of information on her later career, but very little on her childhood and family background. For the same lady, I need a reliable source for her parliamentary election results in Wallsend, 1926, 1929, 1931 and 1935. The best source is probably this, though there may be something more immediate, e.g F.W.S Craig's Parliamentary Results 1918–49, another generally unavailable book. If you can help with these matters, I would be very, very grateful – there is of course no hurry, as the article won't see daylight before the end of this month, if then. Brianboulton (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your ears must have been burning! I have this very moment been writing this to a friend: "The Thaxted festival is by no means news to me. I wrote the 'Life' half of the Wikipedia biography of Holst (craftily lumbering my Wiki-colleague Brian Boulton with the Works, which I always find more difficult). Holst lived there, took part in the Festival, and even gave the name of the village to the hymn version of the big tune from 'Jupiter'. Here, by the way, is a picture of the joint authors of that article, rather later in the King's Cross symposium than might be ideal if we wished our wives or servants to see it." I was just looking in here to copy and paste that scandalous picture, and lo! Of course it will be a pleasure to rummage on your behalf. It's too late to order the Bondfield book for Monday (48 hrs offsite retrieval), so I've ordered it for Friday. In between I'm off to Harrogate to the International G&S Festival for Thespis, rather well reconstructed and featuring a friend of mine from the US as Jupiter. Tim riley talk 12:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silvers, I presume, in Thespis; sounds most interesting (I am something of a fan of lost operas, novels etc; you can pontificate on them without having to watch or read the bloody things). That infamous pic has caused widespread amusement, my various loved ones trying to guess which of us was the most squiffed. Thanks so much for taking on the BL chore; Friday will be fine. I will actually be in London that day, celebrating Mrs B's birthday (tea at Fortnum's, don'tcha know). Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I trust the tea has gone down a treat. I am behind schedule, but will be at the BL tomorrow without fail, barring WW3, earthquakes, Judgment Day etc. Tim riley talk 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now rummaged. Notes will be transcribed and pasted on your talk page shortly. Tim riley talk 11:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gramophone

[22] is unfortunately broken (I knew but forgot), would you have access? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, no. I don't know if the British Library has got a subscription yet: I'll be there on Friday and will have a look. Alternatively, they have paper copies there, if you tell me what it is you're looking for. Tim riley talk 10:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest suggestion

Tim, I'm rather hoping that an aficionado will take up the invitation you've just made (I wouldn't want to appear a gate crasher on that particular article); but for what it's worth, I am particularly interested in Strauss's activities as a conductor (to do with research I'm doing away from WP) so would be glad to help if it's needed. (I'm thinking I'd better back off from the discussion now - SL is hardly being reasonable, and I fear losing mine!) Alfietucker (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That being so, pray ignore the admonitory email I've just sent you. Tim riley talk 18:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, should I still be thinking ahead to RVW? Glad to see the positive development on the other page. Alfietucker (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still have RVW on my calendar for Sept, though in truth the way things are going he might well slip into Oct and Nov, if that's all right with you. Have we discussed how we're going to divvy him up between us? I usually try to bag the Life and stick my collaborator with the hard bit - turning the Music into words. I am particularly inclined to try that trick with you as you are patently equipped to do it superbly. But I am quite prepared to split the labour the other way round if you prefer. Meanwhile, I have to get Lord Salisbury from his cradle into the Tory leadership before handing over to Wehwalt who will see him through his premierships to his tomb (Lord S's, I mean, not Wehwalt's). Tim riley talk 19:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually October or November might suit me better: I'm in the process of buying an apartment, and will be probably moving the first week or so in September. So I'm very happy to postpone if that suits you. And yes, I'd enjoy the challenge of writing the section on RVW's music. Presumably there may be other appropriate subsections we can discuss (whether to do or not, how, etc) as we go along: e.g. RVW as teacher; or RVW as a mover and shaker of British music (and the apparent discrepancies between his apparently reactionary sayings and his actual "doings"). Anyway, very much looking forward to it. Good luck with Salisbury (I seem to remember rather admiring him when doing my 'A'-level history and studying the Scramble for Africa many moons ago)! Alfietucker (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one for the review queue

Following your very valuable and appreciated comments on George Formby, we have now taken the article to FAC. Should you have a little time, any further comments would be nmuch appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get discouraged

You said, on the FAC talk page, that you'd review fluorine's FAC today (as of this post) with British Library books if no-one else came first. It is well-known that Sandbh came first and reviewed twelve sources. Don't abandon your effort just because of that: I'd love it if you reviewed more sources (I'll be contributing to the "corrections" along with R8R Gtrs) to convince Ian Rose that the article is of FA quality. Parcly Taxel 04:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be pleased to do do, but it will be tomorrow rather than today owing to a diary clash that has come up. More tomorrow, Tim riley talk 06:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. Comments added to FAC page. Tim riley talk 11:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'Oyly Carte

Never, ever, in all the years I was directly involved in amateur productions of G&S operettas (including at King's just along the Strand from the Savoy), did I ever hear D'Oyly Carte referred to as Carte. Look, his opera company was the D'Oyly Carte, neither the Carte nor the Richard D'Oyly Carte, so the claim that D'Oyly was a given name makes no sense. This looks to me like one of those unfortunate Wikipedia cases where some "authoritative" document is being imposed to trump actual established usage. Don't bother to answer, though. I'm not going to go to war over it, daft as it is. Awien (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Awien: I quote you the DNB, the facts from which are to be found in many of the other biographies that can be found (such as Ainger's on G&S): "Carte, Richard D'Oyly (1844–1901), theatre impresario, was born on 3 May 1844 in Greek Street, Soho, London, the son of Richard Carte (d. 1891) (originally Cart; he frenchified the surname) and his wife, Eliza, née Jones. The name D'Oyly, arising from his mother's side, was a forename (not part of a double surname), by which he was addressed." The "D'Oyly Carte company", for example, is the same format as the "John Gielgud company", or the "Laurence Olivier company", as opposed to the "Gielgud company" or the "Olivier company". I hope this explanation clarifies things for you. - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sullivan, who was a close friend, addressed the impresario as "My dear D'Oyly"; to Gilbert, whose relations with him were more distant, he was "Dear Carte". His wife was Helen Carte, his son was Rupert D'Oyly Carte solely because he was given those two forenames, and Rupert's daughter Bridget Cicely D'Oyly Carte was likewise given the forename, but a forename it remained: to the members of the D'Oyly Carte Company of my youth, Carte's granddaughter was "Miss Carte". There's nothing Wiki-ish about all this: it's simply a matter of factual accuracy. – Tim riley talk 14:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate your taking the trouble. Awien (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1998 FA Charity Shield FAC

Hi Tim, Nikki spotchecked some online refs and found a few issues that I believe the nominator has corrected, but I'd like a further check to be sure. Do you think you could have a go at that? The nominator has posted some links at the end of the FAC page that may be of assistance. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. As book refs are mentioned I'll put them on my list for the British Library on Wednesday (20th). Tim riley talk 06:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holst 140

I have nominated GH at WP:TFAR for 21 September, his 140th birthday. Can you check out the blurb, edit if you think necesary. Before the date I'll read through the text, check for egregious additions/distortions, and also see that all ext. links are working. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - not meaning to gatecrash, but I've taken the liberty of copy-editing the "Music" section of the article, as an edit drew my attention to a sentence which needed fixing (almost certainly due to Dickinson's less than clear writing!); I thought I would comb through the entire section while I was at it, carefully checking sources and adding a couple of others. There's just a bit of collateral editing I've done in some other sections, the most substantial being Holst's introduction to Purcell, which by his own account as well as Matthews' was crucial to his development. Hope that's all ok. Best wishes, Alfietucker (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alfie: Your changes look fine to me, but then the Works part was BB's work, and I'll defer to him, natch. Brian: blurb looks spot on. Looking back, I particularly enjoyed co-writing this article and revisiting it I think is is a good job. Tim riley talk 00:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skagen Painters

Hi Tim, don't ask you to review many articles these days as I know you're busy but this is a particularly cultured one which I thought you might like to review for myself and Ipigott.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I will, dear Doctor! I'm unusually busy this week but will fit it in a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 00:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim. I'm very glad to see we have such an excellent reviewer for this. I have really enjoyed reading your contributions on music, especially those on British composers and their works. Please don't feel there is any rush on this. I have been working bit by bit on the article since July 2010 and realize more could be added on the artists and their paintings. I thought however it would be useful to aim for GA, especially as Danish art has not received much attention on Wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld has been an excellent collaborator on this and other articles related to Denmark. Any suggestions you may have for improvement (under the review itself or more generally) would be warmly received.--Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't work much on this one, it's primarily Ian's, in fact I wasn't going to work on it at all but managed to make some minor additions and edits. It's more difficult to research than cities. No rush, but if you could reserve it for whenever that would be great!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to thank you for taking the time and trouble to review this article. You made a considerable number of sensible suggestions which have led to a much better result. I was wondering if you would like to take a quick look at Carl Nielsen. I spent quite some time on the article a few years back in connection with Music of Denmark. Maybe you could give me some indications as how it could be promoted GA -- unless of course you would like to collaborate with me on further work yourself.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a good look at Nielsen. I'm rather snowed under at the moment, and I can't foresee my doing any research on him, but I may have some suggestions for improving the article. More on that a.s.a.p., which won't be all that soon, I fear. Tim riley talk 18:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Take your time.--Ipigott (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For giving us the truly magnificent John Gielgud article. Even without its new shiny gold star, it would still have been one of the finest articles I've read on WP. - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for that, SchroCat, and thank you even more for towing me into harbour when I was becalmed. I am quite certain I wouldn't have done it without you. Tim riley talk 08:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many congratulations to both of you - it is, indeed, a magnificent article, not only readable but really enjoyable. Alfietucker (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Alfie's praise. Congratulations gents! Cassianto ^talk 12:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well done to all concerned from me also. A great achievement. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeedy. Tim and Brian's articles are the very few biographies that I have looked forward to reading all the way through; it is so hard to establish a confident narrative voice, yet they continue to do so. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A hearty congrats to you and Schro!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And further congratulations on the FA promotion of Jules Massenet - a truly impressive achievement (particularly since he was - theoretically at least - outside your comfort zone! It was cheering to see you warm to the task.). Alfietucker (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Alfie! I did indeed warm to the task, and ended up rather liking the old boy, though his music still leaves me fairly frappé. Sometimes a subject takes me over and an intended wash-and-brush-up becomes a full FAC overhaul. Stanford was another such; I don't like his music nearly as much as I like Parry's, but he was a delight to write up, whereas I found it a struggle to get Sir Hubert even to B class. (And in case you were thinking of suggesting it, no! Well not till after RVW anyway.) Tim riley talk 13:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hesitate to claim any expertise on Parry, though I do like the usual suspects plus I happen to have Jeremy Dibble's biography, so I'd be very happy to "gear up" to give his article an overhaul sometime if there's a favourable wind. Meanwhile, very much looking forward to working on RVW. Alfietucker (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Bondfield

Once again I must ask for assistance in plotting the minutiae of this lady's career. She stood in Woolwich as a candidate for Labour in the LCC elections of March 1910 – this I know. She may have contested the Woolwich LCC by-election in November 1911, the result of which was reported in The Times of 18 November 1911. She may also have contested Woolwich in the 1913 LCC elections, reported in The Times, 7 March 1913. Can you confirm her participation in 1911 and 1913 (she lost on each occasion) from the newspaper accounts indicated? Book sources are too vague. I'd be most grateful. Congratulations on Gielgud, by the way. I see I get an unsolicited mention, above, from a kind soul. Brianboulton (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can congratulate me on Massenet, too, if you like: he breasted the tape overnight, but I digress. Did you know Miss Bondfield's fellow Lab candidate in 1910 was a clergyman? The Rev Jenkins Jones. (ref: "London County Council Election", The Times, 7 March 1910, p. 7.) I see your pal George Lansbury had been the Rev's running mate there in 1907.

Woolwich LCC Nov 1911: No – as it was a by-election caused by the resignation of Hastings Jay there was only one candidate per party, and the Lab candidate was W S Sanders. (ref: "Woolwich L.C.C. By-Election – Polling", The Times, 18 November 1911, p. 6)
Woolwich LCC March 1913: Both Sanders and Bondfield were Labour candidates:
- W J Squires (Municipal Reform party) – 8,378
- H K Wood (Kingsley Wood, I think – also MR party) – 8,300
- W S Sanders (Lab) – 7,618
- Miss M Bondfield (Lab) – 7,598

(ref: "London County Council Election", The Times, 7 March 1913, p. 10)

I am emailing you on the subject of The Times archives. Tim riley talk 11:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent service, as always. Did you know that G.B. Shaw campaigned actively for Bondfield and The Revd. Jones in 1910? And still they lost. Unlike you, with Massenet – of course congratulations. Two in a couple of days is formidable. Brianboulton (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised that GBS's intervention did no good. Was there ever another public figure so brilliant but so devoid of common sense as Shaw? As for two in two days, SchroCat had two in one day last week, but we'll keep quiet about that: we don't want him swanking about it. Tim riley talk 18:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These young people...Damn 'n blast 'em. Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar Hull

Following on from Plagis, another WW2 flying ace, Caesar Hull, is now at FAC here. As always your thoughts would be very much appreciated. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be there anon. Tim riley talk 15:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast! =) —Cliftonian (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hang about. As you will see from the next section on this page, I have been straying off piste. Any comments will be gratefully received. Tim riley talk 16:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll peruse it over the weekend and provide what help I can. Looking forward to the change of pace, I always enjoy something a little different. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keswick, Cumbria

Having mucked both @Wehwalt: and @Alfietucker: about over the start date for joint FAC campaigns to overhaul Lord Salisbury and Ralph Vaughan Williams respectively, I have compounded my sins by briefly playing truant to overhaul the article on Keswick, Cumbria, where my parents sought political asylum from Liverpool in 1973 and where my aged mum still lives. (I spend a week there every month and am now in residence.) I have it up for peer review, and comments would be most gladly received. So in addition to pushing my luck still further with my two colleagues above, I am pulling at the sleeves of @Brianboulton:, @Cassianto: and @SchroCat:. Geoger isn't my strong suit, so please feel free to be severe in your criticism if you have time and disposition to look in, Tim riley talk 16:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do shortly. In the "Regular events" section, Steve Jones, who you have listed, is a disambig link, but I'm not sure what the correct destination should be! Pip pip - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't find much to criticise. I do remember stopping there on one of the two times I went to the Lake District, but have no clear recollection of the town itself. I'm much clearer on Cockermouth, possibly because I went to an auction there. Incidentally, Designate and I have laid Franklin Pierce at FAC, you asked to be informed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

In the media: Plagiarism and vandalism dominate Wikipedia news

News and notes: Media Viewer—Wikimedia's emotional roller-coaster

Traffic report: Viral

Featured content: Cheats at Featured Pictures!

September 2014

More FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Jules Massenet and John Gielgud to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR (specific and non-specific date slots) and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. (Who's been a busy boy this summer, then?! Very impressive, sir!) Bencherlite ^Talk 13:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thank my learned friend for those kind words, and will ponder on suitable dates. Tim riley talk 13:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and sorry that I never made it to the FAC of Massenet as planned. I am busy, found an interesting critic and collaborator who made me look at all Bach works again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can help answering the question about publishing dates for my dream, raised in the GA review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just listened to Perahia on Britten, will listen to Perahia tonight. The interview could go to both articles, I think, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Featured Article: Notification

This is to inform you that Gustav Holst , which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 21 September 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. (Note: I am helping Bencherlite out with TFA notifications while the bot that normally does this is inactive) Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

Arbitration report: Media viewer case is suspended

Featured content: 1882 × 5 in gold, and thruppence more

Op-ed: Automated copy-and-paste detection under trial

Traffic report: Holding Pattern

WikiProject report: Gray's Anatomy (v. 2)

Recent research: A Wikipedia-based Pantheon; new Wikipedia analysis tool suite; how AfC hamstrings newbies

To all and sundry, near and far

I have the London Philharmonic Orchestra up for peer review. This follows successful efforts to get the LSO, BBC SO and RPO up to GA, and after this there will only remain the Philharmonia to do to get all five London orchs to GA. I am therefore indulging in shameless canvassing, inviting any of these luminaries who have both the time and the inclination to look in to the peer review: @Alfietucker:, @Brianboulton:, @Cassianto:, @Cliftonian:, @Cg2p0B0u8m:, @Dr. Blofeld:, @Ipigott:, @JackofOz:, @SchroCat:, @Sjones23:, @Ssilvers:, @Wehwalt:. Perfectly understand if you have better things to do, of course, but one lives in hope. – Tim riley talk 18:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelstan A

You have very generously looked at Æthelstan A twice for PR and GAN, so I fear I am unreasonable mentioning it, but I have now put it up for FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelstan A/archive1. Any input gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable be blowed! Delighted to look in, probably tomorrow. (Before I get cracking properly, oughtn't "miniscule" to be "minuscule"? More anon. Tim riley talk 20:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. And I pride myself on my spelling!! Ah well. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keswick paragraph order

I gather at the PR somebody stated that culture should be at the bottom, but how many of them actually have a lot of experience with writing articles on cities? Culture is usually well up in section ordering, above education, sport and transport. Transport or healthcare and media is usually near the bottom. For the London article though I see the transport section is unusually high up the article under economy. In Keswick's case though the coverage of the notables which is usually covered last seems OK to be last and the events coverage seems less important than the info on education and transport so I'm not going to question the ordering further. Obviously each article is different, it's just I've worked on thousands of settlement articles over the years so I'm used to a rigid structure of layout! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but I agree with the PR reviewer (Cliftonian) that the people para provides a splendid peroration – it would be a pity for the article to tail off and end lamely with four car parks, I think. Tim riley talk 09:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point I suppose! I'm just very used to using the layout in the Copenhagen article for example...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Keswick your ancestral home then? I could have sworn you linked me a different article when you said you were there for Christmas or something. I love Cumbria, in fact I'd happily work on other articles in the area.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I probably pointed you to here, which is where my mother's house is. I refer to it as the ancestral shack (white row on left-hand side of second image in gallery) but in truth I was born and bred in Liverpool, and my parents moved to the Lakes in 1973 after I had left home for the bright lights of London. Tim riley talk 10:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, do focused masters such as yourself and Brian ever despair at the amount of work needing doing across wikipedia or ever feel indecisiveness over what to edit? Some days on here I really don't now where to begin! You and Brian always seem to have something going and know what you want.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Focused masters", forsooth! For myself, the answer is Yes, I sometimes despair. But we all do what we can – and after all, I suppose nobody makes any of us do anything on WP. Still, I know what you mean: not only the ever-increasing to-do list one rashly takes on, but batting off the nasty minority - the trolls and bullies - and trying to accommodate the well-meaning drive-by editors, while striving to maintain the WP spirit of collaboration with the overwhelming majorty of fine editors we are lucky enough to work with. Your own record at GA and FA is outstanding, and if I catch you despairing again I shall be ticking you off, so there! Tim riley talk 22:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It gets frustrating seeing articles like Llanycrwys which needs so much work, and nearly every Welsh village is like that. Henllanfallteg is even worse. When you see such poor entries it puts you off picking one to get to GA because so much basic work needs doing overall! I try to balance the work I do on here, if I didn't see so much work needing doing at a very basic level I'd probably focus more on GA and FA! Anyway I'll stop whinging.. :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie B

This link will take you to a BBC page where you will hear the actual voice of Miss Bondfield (after the stuff about erecting a plaque in Chard). Note the elocuted vowels of the shopgirl from Chard. Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shall dip in, and will also look forward to your new Swedish accent the week after next. I have noted the start of my deputising duties come Saturday. Bon voyage! Tim riley talk 21:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes – very posh, but cf Pygmalion on talking like a lady in a shop. Nothing wrong with a bit of polishing. Tim riley talk 21:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: See also this hilarious Pathe News clip [23], of MacDonald introducing his 1929 cabinet, forgetting half their names and nearly forgetting Miss B altogether. Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear God! Nice to think the country was in such secure hands! Tim riley talk 21:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: And here [24] is Lansbury talking circ 1935. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Margaret Bondfield/archive1 is now at peer review, when you have a moment. No great hurry as I shall be away from Saturday, but I'd like if possible to have a few comments in the bag before I go. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to copy edit modify and chop

Hi Tim, Kate Vaughan has been published and I'm going to bed but if you feel like improving then that would be great. Plan is to DYK it in the next few days. Do feel free to correct or delete my mistakes. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shall tinker, but I too am off to bed. More tomorrow. Tim riley talk 22:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. I've left some queries on the article talk page. As to my changes, do amend or remove ad lib. Tim riley talk 13:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas?

... waking that morning he scampered downstairs to find out that the work he had left that night had been completed by elves who had worked through the night to finish it...

Thanks it looks more than good enough for DYK. I would like to mention her "comedy company" that you have found. I found this person on "women in red" which is an interesting resource but Kate appears to be a missing jigsaw piece in a number of other areas. Thanks Tim. Victuallers (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Thank you for asking Chris the speller about the wp:hyphen. The lack of use of the hyphen is at epidemic proportions. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of English Heritage properties in Somerset

I see you are doing the GAN review for Scheduled Monuments in Somerset, so I thought I would mention that the same editor has List of English Heritage properties in Somerset languishing in FLC with 2 supports. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that pointer. I've looked in and added my twopenn'orth: it's a splendid page and a pleasure to support for FL. One thing I'm not clear about: I have so far successfully resisted pressure to get a smart-phone, and so I cannot satisfy my curiosity about how a big table like the one on the EH in Somerset page would show up on a small, hand-sized device. On my laptop and desktop, however, it looks first rate. Tim riley talk 17:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help you there. I have a blackberry but I could not stop it dialling people at random so I stopped using it! Dudley Miles (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pleasing vision. "Good morning, Your Holiness/Mr President/Mr Asange/Madame Fifi; I don't think we've spoken before". Tim riley talk 17:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be so bad. The problem was that it was dialling friends in the memory, and they got irritated at getting calls from me when I was not there. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping in (as someone who both has this talkpage on a watchlist and has a smartphone to hand...) - in portrait alignment it's prettymessy; you see the first four columns (up to the coloured one with grade) and can scroll across to see the next three. However, they're very llllooooonnnngggg and stretched out; Cleeve Abbey takes two screens, Butter Cross one, with the text in the last column only about three words wide.

In horizontal/landscape mode, you can see the whole table but still have the same length problems - the last column doesn't get any wider and so seems to go on forever. The mobile interface (and, to be fair, the constraints of a small screen) sadly just don't play well with tables. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most interesting: thank you, Andrew (and what a pleasure to greet you again!). @SchroCat: you're not only one of the FL tutelary deities but also a man who never leaves home without half a dozen high-tech devices about his person. I'm sure you who know about such things have a view on tables etc…? – Tim riley talk 18:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - bit late to the party on this as I missed the ping - that flaming red thing has been flashing on and off constantly with all sorts of stuff recently. First things first: the list is now no longer at FLC, as I've just promoted it (and, shameless plug, nominated [Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of works by John Buchan/archive1 my own list] at the same time!) There are a fair few of our tables that don't work brilliantly on phones - the screens are just too small, and if there is a decent amount of info in any one column, then it all looks terrible (I have the same thing with some of "my" lists too). They work much better with tablets - iPad, etc - and most of them look pretty good (including the EH Somerset list). Most of all, they work well on PCs. I'm sure mobile is becoming increasingly popular, but tables will always be an issue on phones, although with the growth of screen size on most mobiles, I'm not sure how much of a problem that will be! Pip pip - SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are a delight and a disgrace, SchroCat! Thank you so much for that overview of tables on small screens, and of course I'll fall for the advertising campaign and look in at the Buchan list. Tim riley talk 20:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PR for the Wigan Nightingale

Evening squire, After the son came the father is all very much in the cart-before-the-horse territory, but the little clean up of the Formby Snr article got a little out of hand and turned into an overhaul. For better or worse, the Wigan Nightingale is now at PR for comments, criticism and complaints. If you have the time or the will I'd be delighted to hear your views, but I appreciate that your Wiki time may be limited. Pip pip – SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'll gladly look in, and don't I know how an intended wash-and-brush-up can turn into a full-dress FAC campaign! Meanwhile I refer the honourable gentleman to the section above. Tim riley talk 23:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK and POV

Hi Tim ... see below. Do reconsider your POV wrt infoboxes. You should see how Wikidata is exploiting the data. Not "needless" duplication I think. Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to elaborate on that? I hope I am not closed-minded on the topic of info-boxes. They seem to me to be pointless clutter nine times out of ten, but if there is a sound technical reason why they should be considered I'd be very willing to learn it.

(Butting in) It means they take the "facts" from an IB and make them available to dissemination to other sources, like the boxes on the right hand of a google search. Sadly some people looking for knowledge stop at the Google search page and don't bother to visit us, and thus they don't ever actually learn anything. Wikidata is a huge problem: it mistakes data for knowledge and facts for understanding, without ever understanding the difference. On the few occasions I have ever visited the alien pages of Wikidata, I've found the pages there to carry serious errors, but that's the problem of trying to get computers to rip "facts" from anything: they always get the wrong end of the stick! - SchroCat (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey! That's telling me good and proper. I'll stay with my infoboxsceptic position unless anything more persuasive to the contrary turns up. Tim riley talk 19:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think why Ssilvers and I are listed as creators of the article: that surely is to Victuallers' sole credit. It was a pleasure joining in afterwards, though! Tim riley talk 17:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of Victuallers, particularly in my case, as I was, at best, a minor helper on this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like Carmen, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As do all right-thinking people, dearest Gerda, but I'm not at all sure why you mention her here...? Tim riley talk 18:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

Op-ed: Media Viewer software is not ready

Traffic report: Refuge in celebrity

Featured content: The louse and the fish's tongue

WikiProject report: Checking that everything's all right

Windsor

Hello, Tim riley. You have new messages at Talk:Windsor.
Message added 19:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not My Life

Hi Tim, Thank you very much for contributing to the FAC discussions of my articles in the past. I have submitted another article for featured status here. The article is about Not My Life, another human trafficking documentary film. Any constructive comments you are willing to provide at the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Krøyer's paintings of Marie

Hi Tim, I wondered if you'd be happy to review this one too, another Skagen-related article. P.S. Krøyer's paintings of Marie.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasure, but before I sail in will you check the copyright status of the lead image? I can't see how Marie's half comes under "100 years afer death of artist" as she died in 1940. At a quick glance (not, heaven knows, that I'm an expert in WP's arcane rules on pictures and copyright) the others look all right. Tim riley talk 20:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! Perhaps @Ipigott: could shed more light.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The painting is in the public domain as Denmark has a 70-year after death copyright, but perhaps the licence tag is wrong (once my robot army takes over Commons all these matters will be taken care of with ruthless ... sorry what, professor? I shouldn't mention the robot army until we are ready to strike? ... [coughs] No, nothing [whistles innocently]) Belle (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But is it PD in the US, which I think it has to be to qualify as PD for Wikipedia's purposes? Tim riley talk 11:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According the "Amazingly Complicated and Mysterious US Copyright Resolution Chart" (The Eight Wonder of the World; Exhibited In Front Of Royalty; The Sensation Of The World's Fair; Children and ladies of a nervous disposition are advised to take precautions against nervous shock of the brain.) and also the more understandable quick reference, yes, it is. Belle (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I picked this one (partly in error, as I was going after the Manchester church one and got this by error): Tim, do you still want to do this one, or are you able to pick up on St John's Church, Manchester instead? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to swap. I had only got as far as jotting down two points in the lead: "the beautiful Danish artist Marie Triepcke" (WP:PEACOCK, but so manifestly true that I wasn't going to object to it) and "with whom she became pregnant in 1905" (by whom, surely? They weren't both pregnant). I shall go and look at St John's Manchester now. Tim riley talk 11:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I didn't write that she was beautiful, but it is a solid fact :-) She's extremely nice to look at!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. Female allure is not my area of expertise, but even I can see that she was a beauty. Tim riley talk 13:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

In the media: Turkish Twitter outrage, medical translation, audience metrics

WikiProject report: A trip up north to Scotland

News and notes: Wikipedia's traffic statistics are off by nearly one-third

Traffic report: Tolstoy leads a varied pack

Featured content: Which is not like the others?

Benjamin Disraeli

Dear Tim Riley, I'm not sure if the basis of your objection to the addition of a reference to Falcieri is (i) insignificance, or (ii) the inadequacy of the reference cited. The latter I can correct, but there would be little point in doing so if your intention is to revert the addition in any event. By way of a plea for significance, may I point to (quite apart from Blake) (i) the references to Falcieri in both Parry's OUP biography (2007) and Douglas Hurd's Hachette biography (2013), (ii) Falcieri's long employment by Isaac d'Israeli, (iii) Disraeli's concern for Falcieri upon his father's death, (iv) Disraeli's procurement of a pension for Falcieri's widow, as well as (v) the portrait which Disraeli apparently bought in 1870 and which now resides at Hughenden? Are you dead set against his appearance, in which case I will not seek to pursue the precise missing page number? With best wishes, 45ossington (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the ref could have been corrected, and I'd have done that myself if I thought it appropriate. But the thing about an encyclopedia article is that it must concentrate on the essentials of the narrative, and cannot indulge in diversions into peripheral detail. The Disraeli article is already very long, and in all conscience I can't see Falcieri as central to the life and times of Disraeli. I suppose he could go in a footnote without damaging the narrative flow. Give me half an hour and I'll experiment with that. Tim riley talk 18:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@45ossington:, how about that as a compromise? Tim riley talk 18:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim; that seems entirely reasonable. Falcieri's career is such an extraordinary one that one (i.e. I) can fall into the trap of thinking his individual appearances on the stage were more important than they really were. With best wishes, 45ossington (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shall look in at Falcieri's article soonest. He sounds a fascinating subject. Glad we are ad idem, as the lawyers say. Tim riley talk 21:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Bondfield

Just to let you know that this good lady is now on trial at WP:FAC; any further comments/quibbles gratefully received. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Æthelstan A

Just a query on your helpful /ˈæθəlstæn/. It looks to me as if it does not cover the 'A'. Is this right and if so can you come up with something for it? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that I'm mispronouncing the diphthong. I have rendered it in IPA as the short "a" as in cat. If it is a different sound can you give me a rhyme or two? Tim riley talk 08:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are at cross-purposes. I meant that it looks to me as if /ˈæθəlstæn/ is the first word 'Æthelstan' but does not cover the second 'word' "A", as in "late". Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem! Riley brain now in gear. This is what you want, I think: /ˈæθəlstænˈeɪ/ (that's input on the edit page thus: {{IPAc-en|ˈ|æ|θ|ə|l|s|t|æ|n|ˈ|eɪ}} – Tim riley talk 11:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

Featured content: Oil paintings galore

In the media: Indian political editing, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Congressional chelonii

Recent research: 99.25% of Wikipedia birthdates accurate; focused Wikipedians live longer; merging WordNet, Wikipedia and Wiktionary

Traffic report: Wikipedia watches the referendum in Scotland

WikiProject report: GAN reviewers take note: competition time

Arbitration report: Banning Policy, Gender Gap, and Waldorf education

October 2014

Keswick

To anyone kind enough to watch this page: Dr Blofeld and I have put this article up for FAC, and comments will be most welcome on the review page. Tim riley talk 10:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given your interest in geography (I meant to take a look at Keswick but it got such support I thought my review lenses were put to best use on less-reviewed candidates!), I thought you might be intrigued to look at Spokane, Washington - I took a look (review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spokane, Washington/archive3) and copyedited and would be keen to see what someone else thought of the prose. I wonder at what point I start not to see prose issues when copyediting long articles.....cheers, Cas Liber (talk • contribs) 03:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In truth I am a duffer at geography. The Keswick overhaul was my first attempt at an article on a place, and that was purely because Keswick is where my family's house is. I spend a week there each month, visiting my old mum, and I got interested in the history of the town when I wandered into the local library. I'll gladly look at Spokane, but I can't promise many words of wisdom. Tim riley talk 20:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you'll have something positive to contribute. It's the copyeidting and prose I am most interested in as I think it's pretty complete otherwise....Cas Liber (talk • contribs) 02:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July to September 2014 MilHist reviews

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period July to September 2014, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. During this period you undertook 13 reviews. Without reviewers like you it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal note, Tim, pls don't take this as a sign that we're co-opting you as a member (although you're very welcome to join officially if you choose!) but simply as a token of appreciation for your very helpful input on MilHist-related articles...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How very nice! I didn't realise how many articles I look in at that are within the Milhist purview, but I'll be glad to go on doing so – from my decidedly unmilitary standpoint (I'm waiting for the inauguration of the Queen's Award for Cowardice, for which I'd be a shoo-in.) – Tim riley talk 14:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and ye shall receive:

		Queen's Award for Cowardice
		For your life-long dedication to your safety and wellbeing, and your exemplary ability to hide and stay out of trouble, I hereby grant you this Queen's Award for Cowardice. -- Her Majesty, the Queen of Spades.

PMSL! A fine award! - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, Silvers! It will join the Milhist gong in my trophy cabinet, while I plot my revenge. Tim riley talk 20:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

From the editor: The Signpost needs your help

Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism

News and notes: Wikipedia article published in peer-reviewed journal; Wikipedia in education

WikiProject report: Animals, farms, forests, USDA? It must be WikiProject Agriculture

Traffic report: Shanah Tovah

Featured content: Brothers at War

Support and request

Hello. I just added my support for your article on Keswick, Cumbria. Although the article already has a lot of support I presume one more won't hurt. Meanwhile, I am looking for support of the article I wrote on an American television sitcom called Temperatures Rising. Care to take a look and offer any comments? At present time I have two people supporting it. Thank you. Jimknut (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting the Keswick article, Jimknut. I'll be glad to look in at the Temperatures Rising review. Tim riley talk 16:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Opera House editathon

Hello. I work at the Royal Opera House in London on the website. I'm organizing an editathon on the works of choreographer Kenneth MacMillan on 25 October 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ballet/October_2014_editathon My predecessor in the job Rose Vickridge mentioned that you had been a huge help in the organization of the Ashton editathon in June 2013, and that you had expressed interest in any future events, so I thought I should get in touch in case you haven't seen the event page already. I hope very much you'd be interested in attending this year; let me know your thoughts. Rachel Beaumont (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rachel. I have left a reply on your talk page, and I've signed up for 25th Oct. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 13:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, thanks for this. I'm most concerned about getting the word out to editors such as yourself who might be interested but have missed the blog post. If you've any advice on how to achieve this it would be much appreciated.Rachel Beaumont (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately the notice of the editathon has now gone up as a banner at the top of everyone's watchlist page. (That's each user's personal page listing changes to any articles they want to keep an eye on – regular editors look at their watchlist page more or less every time they log in.) You can see it by pressing the Watchlist tab on the top right of the page. Beyond that, if you haven't already, you could post a message on the user talk page of everyone who attended the Ashton bash last year but hasn't signed up for the forthcoming event. I've posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ballet (feel free to edit/expand it): I'm not sure how active that project is, but it can do no harm. We could also post a similar notice at Talk:The Royal Ballet, Talk:Ballet and Talk:Kenneth MacMillan. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 12:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, great to meet you on Saturday and thanks for all your amazing work. Good point about The Royal opera article; I'll take a look. Another thing – I'm writing an article about the editathon to go on the ROH website and wondered if you'd like to contribute a sentence about the day? Quite late notice as ideally I'd like to get the article out tomorrow, but would be great if you could. Many thanks. Rachel Beaumont (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to post this, so am putting it here and on your talk page: a draft sentence for your report, if wanted:

"What a stimulating day! Two speakers with incomparable experience and wisdom (and wicked humour) and a well-nigh-perfect mix of editorial skills with the balletomanes and the Wikipedians complementing each other and working together to improve so many articles." Will that do? Feel free to tweak. Tim riley talk 02:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ballet

I added year categories to your articles, if you create any more can you also add Cat:xxx ballet premieres? Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Can you find anything on Samuel William Fores and Albion Mills, London in The Times archives?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed you on this point. Tim riley talk 19:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Keswick passed FA!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Just noticed we both have 26 featured articles each! Only you did most of the work for each one, I didn't!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely. I was very much a junior partner chez Neville Cardus and Messiah, and shared the work on Britten, Coward, Delius, Disraeli and Holst – not to mention Keswick. Tim riley talk 10:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Happy Yorkshireman writes...

After a long absence, he's back begging. Jhall1 and I have been working for what seems like years on Jack Crawford (cricketer). All I can say is that Crawford isn't a Yorkshireman, I'd appreciate any comments on the talk page (no formal PR here) and favours gratefully returned if wanted. It feels choppy to me, so feel free to tear into it. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely delighted to hear from you! Your sudden absence had several of us wondering and a bit worried. Welcome back! I'll look in without fail at Crawford. If you're keen on reciprocating, Dr Blofeld and I have Keswick, Cumbria at FAC. Safely north enough of Lancashire for you to look in, if you are inclined, but don't feel obliged. Tim riley talk 19:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I was just popping over to FAC to have a look, and I see it has been promoted already. Foiled! Let me know when you next need a review. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Jack Crawford is now at FAC here. Any further comments more than welcome! Sarastro1 (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

In the media: Opposition research firm blocked; Australian bushfires

Featured content: From a wordless novel to a coat of arms via New York City

Traffic report: Panic and denial

Technology report: HHVM is the greatest thing since sliced bread

'dward

I've put Fort Belvedere up for GA along with a few other stunners from my threadbare portfolio, lord knows why. Is the fort article basically sound, or would you withdraw it? I have scant experience of GA-nomming. Many thanks, Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well worth a shot at GAN, I'd say. You might flesh out the lead a bit, perhaps, but the main text looks comprehensive and is a pleasure to read. Tim riley talk 16:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MacMillan

I've started a few more stubs for his ballets and the dancers who created roles with him. Don't worry, there will still be plenty of work to do on the day itself. Edwardx (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't that the truth! It's a daunting prospect, but I'm looking forward to it. Tim riley talk 16:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

Op-ed: Ships—sexist or sexy?

In the media: College player falsely linked to sports scandal by Wikipedia; the Nobel Prizes

Arbitration report: One case closed and two opened

Featured content: Bells ring out at the Temple of the Dragon at Peace

Technology report: Attempting to parse wikitext

Traffic report: Now introducing ... mobile data

WikiProject report: Signpost reaches the Midwest

Searching The Radio Times

Any like-minded editor who watches this page may be glad of this, from the G&S mafia (a.k.a. SavoyNet), viz a pair of links apropos an excellent new resource from the BBC: the first gives the details and the second links to the search site. – Tim riley talk 17:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gough Whitlam at TFAR

Hi Tim, you (and your talk page stalkers) may be interested in a thread I've started about Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Gough_Whitlam, where possibilities for marking the death (aged 98) of this former prime minister of Australia include re-running a TFA. I'm interested in getting lots of views so I'll be leaving this note on various pages (and apologies, TPS-ers, if your talk page is not one of them!) Thanks, Bencherlite ^Talk 08:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kate Vaughan

On 21 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kate Vaughan, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Kate Vaughan (pictured), who developed the skirt dance, was considered the greatest dancer of her time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kate Vaughan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Auguste van Biene

Hello! Your submission of Auguste van Biene at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

Featured content: Admiral on deck: a modern Ada Lovelace

Op-ed: Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution—a wiki-protest

In the media: The story of Wikipedia; Wikipedia reanimated and republished; New UK government social media rules; death of Italian Wikipedia administrator

Traffic report: Death, War, Pestilence... Movies and TV

WikiProject report: De-orphanning articles—a huge task but with a huge team of volunteers to help

Talkback

Hello, Tim riley. You have new messages at HandsomeFella's talk page.
Message added 19:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello again. I would really appreciate if you would elaborate on your rationale for your personal preferences in the article on Alec Douglas-Home. Your answers so far have been desperately unsatisfactory. Thank you. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been slightly better if you hadn't baselessly accused another editor of ownership (if it had been me, you'd have received a blast of old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon in return). Without delving too deeply into the issue, or wanting to get involved, the lack of full stops between initials is a rather British approach to the matter: colonials tend to overuse the full stop, spreading them round needlessly where they are not needed (a little like they do with the comma, really). - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SchroCat. I didn't exactly accuse him of ownership – I politely asked if he was sure he was not displaying such symptoms. Just like he wasn't (first) baselessly accusing me of arrogance. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, I note and smile wryly at the Mark Twain quote (a recent addition if I mistake not) at the top of your user page. I have suggested that this editor may like to seek a consensus at the article talk page. No more here, please, HFella. Tim riley talk 01:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Tim riley:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Thanks from all the users of the project for your generous help. Victuallers (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Francis Poulenc

To anyone who watches this page or happens to look in, with a view to FAC in due course I have Poulenc up for peer review, where any comments will be most gratefully received. Tim riley talk 11:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Auguste van Biene

On 27 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Auguste van Biene, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Auguste van Biene composed incidental music for the play The Broken Melody and performed the leading role of a cellist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Auguste van Biene. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Wilkinson

As promised, now on review here. Comments most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They shall follow, assuredly. Looking forward to it. Tim riley talk 01:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ballet/October 2014 editathon

		The Wikimedia UK Barnstar
		Dear Tim, thanks for all your help at and before Saturday's editathon, I think that everyone, Newbies, regulars and critics got much from the day.
		_{this WikiAward was given to Tim riley by Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) on 11:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC) for contributions to the UK chapter}[reply]

What a very pleasing thing to get! Thank you, Jonathan. And thank you also for your part in organising a most enjoyable and productive event. Tim riley talk 12:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought it was good too. Tim and I were both dressed for the occasion in bow-ties. FYI, here's a link to the relevant page that I mentioned: list of bow-tie wearers. Andrew (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not My Life

Hi Tim, Thank you very much for your contributions to the Not My Life FAC. The article is now featured, and I have requested that it be granted a main page slot. Any input you would be willing to provide at the corresponding discussion would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

Featured content: Go West, young man

In the media: Wikipedia a trusted source on Ebola; Wikipedia study labeled government waste; football biography goes viral

Maps tagathon: Find 10,000 digitised maps this weekend

Traffic report: Ebola, Ultron, and Creepy Articles

Recent research: Informed consent and privacy; newsmaking on Wikipedia; Wikipedia and organizational theories

November 2014

Wondering where you went

Hi Tim! Great job on the work you've done recently at FAC, particularly the recent Keswick, Cumbria FA. Im writing because I was wondering if you still wanted to bring your many talents to help the Spokane, Washington FAC. They would be much appreciated! You got my hopes up when you expressed an interest in looking into it a while back, and Ive been checking to see if anyone has been posting any feedback on the FAC page, but I havent heard from you in over two weeks lol. I know you keep yourself busy around here and just wanted to know of your plans. Right now the FAC has sort of stalled with no new feedback in over a week and now Ive started to run out of my ideas to improve the article, so if you still can spare the time and are still interested, the time to act is now. Would love to have you onboard. Thanks!G755648 (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry! I fully intended to look again but got distracted. Put it down to old age and absent-mindedness. I'll put a marker on the FAC page straight away, and look in properly over the next day or two. Tim riley talk 14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for advice

As a leading Wikipedia guru, can you give me a bit of advice. (What do you mean flattery?) I need to create a stub article on Hermeneutic style, but should it be shown in the article title and text in italics or what? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wouldn't say so, but it's your area of expertise, not mine. To my layman's understanding it is on par with Baroque or Augustan prose and similar labels that we don't italicise. That's my advice, but caveat emptor! Tim riley talk 14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, if we are both wrong and someone who knows better shows that it should be italicised, it will be the work of an instant to effect the change. I look forward to reading the article, despite your disclaimer that it won't make me understand what the word "hermeneutic" means. Tim riley talk 21:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paris

A perfect example of why it's a bad idea to promote a core high-traffic article. Way more trouble than it's worth. It's gone to the dogs. They're all over it now, before we know it it'll be back to 2005 status. I don't care enough about it to watch it and dispute things. The same feeling I get on the Kubrick article. Long term it's going to be more trouble than it's worth. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked at it for ages, and now I do I am horrified at the ludicrous mess it has become since I promoted it to GA last year. I have initiated a GAR, because to me it plainly fails several GA criteria as it now is. Tim riley talk 14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's been too much editing of it to keep track of everything. Way too many conflicting interests to make it worthwhile. The best thing I think would be for somebody to promote it to FA and try to get it protected from editing. It's the perfect example of the pitfalls of being an open wiki and that excessive editing can sometimes be a bad thing. I'm sure Paris isn't the only article. I'm sure @Aymatth2: would agree with me on this. Peter Sellers is one which would have ended up in a similar state if it wasn't for the extreme amount of time Schro and Cass have spent protecting it from the dogs. That's the price to pay for maintaining a quality article on a core topic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not thought of it like that, but you're right of course: the more popular the topic the more likely the page is to suffer the well-meaning attentions of POV and OR enthusiasts. I spend quite a bit of time removing good-faith uncited additions from Disraeli and Elgar, but the more obscure pages I've piloted or co-piloted to FA suffer less in that regard. That's not to say we don't get some drive-by amendments that are genuine improvements, but they are few and far between. Tim riley talk 16:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page is a victim of that since almost ten years already, Tim riley, and no admin has ever done anything about it, or even really looked enough to see the problem. I came to thank you and apologise for your re-correcting the English that I had already corrected today - all that work was heavy-handedly reverted by someone with their 'own' vision of things. Blofeld knows exactly of what I speak - unfortunately. Thanks, and cheers. THEPROMENADER</span ✎ ✓ 00:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, to be fair, have no authority to wade in unless commanded by a consensus of the rest of us editors to do so. I'm chipping away at the accretions since GA last year. Very pleased indeed to find a thoroughgoing Parisian riding to the rescue. Promenader – any resemblance to Edmund White's Le Flâneur, one of my favourite books? Tim riley talk 00:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately not! But I'll look that up for sure. The nom de plume came from a website I ran until my work ran me away from it around five years ago. And I do love to walk ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's my joint-favourite book about Paris, with Alistair Horne's Seven Ages of Paris. Highly recommended. Tim riley talk 00:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What brought me here was "A Movable Feast" ; ) Thanks! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promenader is one of the few who seems to have his head screwed on and what is required. And he cares enough about Paris to deal with the idiots.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And has now been blocked by FP on the somewhat spurious grounds of pointing out that people are edit warring and showing ownership, rather than trying to build a consensus. All rather silly, especially as it seems that we have an admin who has lined up with POV pushers. Such is life - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised Schro if Caden at something to do with that, I see he's been involved with User talk:Metropolitan getting him unblocked. Pathetic really that he sees this as a way to get his own back on Cassianto or whoever. Siefkin is working in good faith but I'm sorry to say he's made a complete hash of the history. It just doesn't flow any more. So many short unsourced paragraphs and that now. The best solution would be to restore to a similar version which passed (including the shortened landmarks section currently) and then for you Promenader to go through and correct errors and improve it. Now that he's blocked it's likely to degrade even further by the POV pushers.There's way too much editing going on by incompetent editors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Tim riley: and @SchroCat:, perhaps an objective opinion on the Paris talk page about what can be improved in the article's present version (compared to its Sandbox version) would be helpful - and feel free to forward this suggestion to anyone else, too. A few opinions would do a lot to help. Thanks a million in advance. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too tied up at the moment to be able to spend much time on Paris. The situation that surrounds it is one I try as much as possible to avoid, as little positive or constructive tends to come out of ongoing endless arguments between two entrenched sides. At the end of the day, life is too short to have to deal with some of the opinions on that article, especially when I have limited Wikitime at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 'what is Paris' discussions of yore are not what's going on there now - it's about article quality. But I understand. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Wilkinson

Just a note to thank peer reviewers and let them know that I've now closed the review and opened an FAC page here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Another cracking job. Tim riley talk 15:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on deletion

Tim, this came across as extremely rude. You're entitled rto your opinion - and it was a valid one - but the way you put it across creates a hostile environment for editors and I really hope you refrain from comments like that in future. Not everyone has thick skin! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 18:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Sorry, but there is nothing remotely rude about the comment, let alone extremely rude. Mildly brusque, maybe, but not rude. – SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, as always, do your homework before firing off accusations. We are busy people, with finite time for editing, and it is irritating to have it wasted. Tim riley talk 18:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yet another (talk page stalker) Can you turn down the rude in here, please? I can't hear all the rude going on outside ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's Paris rude, you must be positively deafened. I so admire your perseverance in the face of artillery fire that would have many of us taking cover. Tim riley talk 18:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you know. It's like the sound of street traffic; you stop noticing it after a while. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, and I chuckled, but chez the Paris article I see you as Horatius at the bridge, and I'm one of those at the front who cried "back!" (wimp that I am – see award for it here). But I wish more power to your elbow, sir! Tim riley talk 21:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe - how flattering of you to make such a comparison, sir. But lately I've been painted The Boy Who Cried Wolf, and penned for it, to boot. ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite an award! I'm still chuckling ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should see Paris today ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the page or the city? I prefer the latter. Tim riley talk 15:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, me too, the latter by far. But according to the article talk-page, I'm now an 'elitist bourgeoise wannabe "intellectual"' (buffing fingernails on shirt, looking around for award). I've been promoted; my dream has finally come true ! (pops champagne ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to blow my lid with the state of the religion section of the Paris article. It's absolutely disgraceful. The work of a clear moron. Seriously what can we do to maintain a half decent level of quality? Restore it and get it protected? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was done only to show Siefkin "who's boss", content had nothing to do with it. I'm about to blow it - yet again - too, only because no-one will do anything, and just by coincidence, Sunshine just somehow turns up... in totally the wrong place (two sections up) asking the wrong questions (not even reading any comment, or even the section, probably, about today's bad behaviour). This is very odd, I'm thinking he was called there... either yesterday, or today... as a distraction? Anyhow, this is painful, both for the article and us. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

In the media: Predicting the flu, MH17 conspiracy theories

Traffic report: Sweet dreams on Halloween

BNA access

Hello, Tim riley. 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.

Chris Troutman (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say! Delighted. Thank you, sir! Tim riley talk 15:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PR request

Hi Tim, I was wondering if you could take the time to review September Morn, which is up for review at Wikipedia:Peer review/September Morn/archive1. As this article has been controversial in the past, I'd understand if you didn't feel up to it. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to do so, though I am to the visual arts what walruses are to roller-skating. For domestic reasons (bouncing between two flats only one of which has internet access at present) my editing is a bit sporadic just now, but I'll look in soonest. I don't give a hoot about controversy, and will just give you my honest and highly inexpert opinion. While we're in French cultural vein, would you care to look in at the peer review of Francis Poulenc, whom I'm aiming to get to FA in due course? No controversy there – just a lovable man who wrote lovable music. – Tim riley talk 15:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love to, once I go over The Fifth Element (another French article... my, they certainly do get around). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: October 2014

This Month in GLAM – Volume IV, Issue X, October 2014
Headlines
Australia and New Zealand report: National Library Conference; Feminist Art Edit-a-thon Finland report: Edit-a-thon Course "Bring Culture to Wikipedia" France report: Edit-a-thon & Mass upload Germany report: GLAM on tour Sauerland; WMDE World Café at the Conference of National Cultural Institutions Italy report: War Books; EAGLE project; National Library Conference Netherlands report: Images donated by Nijmegen municipality archive; World Day for Audiovisual Heritage Sweden report: Wiki Loves Monuments; Europeana Task Force UK report: The breadth of UK GLAM work: chemistry, ballet, tanks and more USA report: News from Philadelphia & New York City Open Access report: Open Access Week; peer-reviewed OA journal publishes Wikipedia article Calendar: November's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe • Global message delivery • Romaine 23:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of London Philharmonic Orchestra

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article London Philharmonic Orchestra you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make a comment about my new project?

Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org?

Done. Tim riley talk 20:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henson

I have started to add comments on the article's talk. Brianboulton (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super stuff! Thank you very much, sir! Tim riley talk 13:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emile Littler

Hi, as the creator of the Emile Littler article, would you know if he owned racehorses at all? The owner of the winner of the 1971 Irish Derby was Emile Littler, and its too unusual a name to be coincidental I'm sure! I'd like to put a link in if possible but can't find anything to confirm it 100%. Any info gratefully received, thanks. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume so...I found so many references in the Guardian archives to horses owned by "Emile Littler", and so have erred on the side of probability and inserted a reference into the article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I said that without moving my lips, did you notice? Tim riley talk 16:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you, I've linked Littler from the Irish Derby article now. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is, I see, a "Sir Emile Littler Challenge Cup" (Handicap Chase) run at Plumpton, so you can be quite certain he was a man for the horses. Tim riley talk 16:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)...he was also Sir George's brother-in-law don't you know! There are mentions of Littler's equestrian interests in Robey's autobiography I'm sure. Cassianto ^talk 18:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you all, much appreciated. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

In the media: Amazon Echo; EU freedom of panorama; Bluebeard's Castle

Traffic report: Holidays, anyone?

Featured content: Wikipedia goes to church in Lithuania

WikiProject report: Talking hospitals

TFAR notification for John Barbirolli

Thanks very much for your high quality WP:FA contributions to Wikipedia. I've nominated a page you helped bring to Featured Article for "Today's Featured Article" consideration, nomination is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/John Barbirolli. Awesome bow tie. Bow ties are cool. — Cirt (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see him, precious again! - The Human Voice, - by the logic mentioned in that discussion you could use Britten's preferred version in Britten's article, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I was looking over Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations and I'm quite impressed at the high quality contributions you've helped with on Wikipedia! Thanks very much for all of your quality improvement efforts bringing pages on Wikipedia to Featured Article and Good Article quality! :) — Cirt (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a very pleasing message to get. Thank you so much. Tim riley talk 19:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of London Philharmonic Orchestra

The article London Philharmonic Orchestra you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:London Philharmonic Orchestra for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of London Philharmonic Orchestra

The article London Philharmonic Orchestra you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:London Philharmonic Orchestra for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help! email bust!!

My email is currently sulking – I can't read or send anything, although I see I have several messages referring tantalisingly to Christmas. Could you or another of the London mafia visit my talkpage, let me know what if anything has been agreed – and as necessary use the page as the means of communicating with me? Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Also, while I'm about it: This is to inform you that John Barbirolli, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 2 December 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are homing in on lunchtime on 4 December, but SchroCat may be able to update this.
(Barbirolli, I recall, is only a Featured Article because you gently prodded me into steering him thither, bless you!) Tim riley talk 17:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Details from Mr R are correct: it's at the Wehrwalt Arms. It's four of us, and probably/possibly Bencherlite as the fifth. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - lunch being around 1.00 pm (I may have shopping duties in the morning)? Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good time. I'll try and get there half an hour earlier to grab a suitably-sized spot. Tim is lunching elsewhere before joining us proles. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Hamilton

Can you find an obituary for this chap? I couldn't find anything.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, I'm sorry to report. I suspect we have both been tilling the same ground, and I can't think where else to look. The only male Hamilton in my copy of Who's Who in the Theatre is Neil, an American actor. Sorry, Doctor! Tim riley talk 15:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard III of England ex-GA Review

Tim. You were kind enough to review and fail the article some time ago at its nomination, citing a severe dearth of references etc. I believe they have been fixed; can you advise what to do next? Can you 're-review' it, or does it have to be re-nominated by someone else? Thanks for your help. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The standard process is to re-nominate from scratch. Once the article is on the current GAN list, I – or any other editor – can choose to review it. I'd be glad to do so, but perhaps it would be better if another editor came forward to do this review: a fresh pair of eyes, you know. But if nobody does within a few weeks, please drop me a line and I'll willingly pick up the reins. – Tim riley talk 21:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Tim. Is it better for an involved or uninvolved editor to nominate it? I.e., can I do it now or should we wait for a neutral party? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 22:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is much better if an involved editor nominates it. We get into all sorts of mire when an enthusiastic visitor nominates for GA or FA an article he or she hasn't actually written. Only the main editors of an article can realistically be asked to answer for it. If, as I take it, you have upgraded Richard III's article you should most certainly nominate it and steer it through the review. I have been looking at it since our earlier exchanges above, and I am immensely impressed. But I strongly recommend putting it up for WP:Peer review first. Tim riley talk 22:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Poulenc

After a peer review so thorough that it felt like the WP equivalent of going three rounds with Mike Tyson, I have put Poulenc up for FAC. Anyone kind enough to watch this here talk page is most cordially invited to look in, as indeed is everyone else. Tim riley talk 18:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keswick

I have just finished Strathclyde and the Anglo-Saxons in the Viking Age by Tim Clarkson, which put the early history of Cumberland (between the River Eamont and the Firth of Forth) in a different light, and also checked T.M. Charles-Edwards Wales and the Britons, the first volume of the Oxford History of Wales. In Roman times it was the territory of the Carvetii. Charles-Edwards thinks it may have been in the short lived British kingdom of Rheged after the Romans left, but Clarkson questions whether this kingdom ever existed. In the seventh century the area was conquered by the Kingdom of Northumbria, and remained under its control until the Vikings destroyed the kingdom in the late ninth century. The Kingdom of Strathclyde conquered it in the early tenth century. After that it gets complicated. Strathclyde was conquered by Scotland shortly before 1070 (not 1018 as the source I gave you before said). According to Charles-Edwards Cumberland was Scottish until William Rufus conquered it in 1092, but Clarkson says that it was conquered by Siward, Earl of Northumbria, who died in 1055, and it was never part of Scotland. Not sure how much of this you will think is relevant to Keswick, Tim, but I can supply references. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this, Dudley. My first thought is that you are better placed than anyone to tweak the Keswick article, and if you are inclined to do so you will have the grateful thanks of, Tim riley talk 22:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful thanks as promised above hereby duly delivered. Thank you so much. Tim riley talk 10:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for London Philharmonic Orchestra

On 27 November 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article London Philharmonic Orchestra, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the London Philharmonic Orchestra recorded all of the 205 national anthems used at the medal ceremonies of the 2012 Summer Olympics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/London Philharmonic Orchestra. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk • contribs) 00:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the storm rages...

Life goes on, and I have just put A Handful of Dust at peer review. Your comments will be much appreciated. I have seen the note re Plonk, above, and naturally I will be there. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC) PS. It seems you've forgotten to to list Poulenc on the FAC page – at least, I can't see it there, although the review itself is active. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Thank you very much for spotting my absent-minded omission. Tim riley talk 21:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

Featured content: Orbital Science: Now you're thinking with explosions

In the media: A Russian alternative Wikipedia; Who's your grandfather?; ArtAndFeminism

Recent research: Gender gap and skills gap; academic citations on the rise; European food cultures

WikiProject report: Back with the military historians

Traffic report: Big in Japan

Temperatures Rising

Thanks a million for your FAC support of Temperatures Rising. Unfortunately a consensus was not reached and the article was not promoted. Although it had your support along with three others there were two reviewers who opposed the article. I addressed all the concerns of one of them (Nikkirama) but he (or she) never acknowledged this. The other opposition came from Graham Beards, who complained about the article not having a production section. Alas I cannot add this section at present time as I have no valid sources of information about the modus operandi of the series. Temperatures Rising is not available on DVD so there are no audio commentaries or "behind-the-scenes" extras, nor are there any books or websites devoted to it. Graham Beards also kept harping about the prose being "unprofessional" and "not engaging" even though I had a copy-editor plus two published authors look over the text. Beards was at times rather vague about what he thought was wrong with the article. Maybe I'm over-reacting but I found much of his criticism to be done in a seemingly smug and condescending manner. At current time I will leave the article as it is but in the near future I will post it as a good article candidate. Again thanks for your FAC support. Jimknut (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'A second welcome.'

Thanks for 'A second welcome'. Not all edits on this ip address are mine, but your kind words appreciated. I've just seen your very fine article on HHH (whom Lucas admired). Thank you - Dr H deserves this detailed treatment. A pity photo copyright laws are so strict - I'd like to have illustrated the L article similarly. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.32.51.236 (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice message to get! Thank you. Tim riley talk 20:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's rules on copyright go well beyond the legal requirements and equate pretty much to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Nonetheless, a single copyrighted image of the subject of a biography is permitted, and I have added one of Lucas. Tim riley talk 21:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the trouble - as good as the warmest welcome! (I've sent scans of others, including some early ones, supplied by the family, to the NPG.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.32.51.236 (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Yeses

I'll try to tweak Kenneth...but it's quite sensational as it stands! You've just given me a mild cold sweat as I see your proper formatting of newspaper subscription required refs as opposed to my simple ones...Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever else you will be sent to Purgatory for I don't think it will include using different formatting from mine. I fear my ignorance of ballet may be obvious here and there in my draft, so all tweakings will be gratefully viewed. Tim riley talk 20:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Barbirolli tweak

Hi Tim. I'm not wild about the wording in the article: "which he helped save from dissolution in 1943 and conducted for the rest of his life" ... without some other clue, that would lead readers to believe he was physically present in Manchester most of the time, which I take it he wasn't. ("He was also chief conductor of the Houston Symphony from 1961 to 1967", for instance.) In the blurb, I went with "was its music director for the rest of his life" ... that's accurate, yes? Maybe readers won't be as quick to assume from that that he was there permanently. But feel free to tweak as you like. - Dank (push to talk) 04:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tidy up once the piece is safely off the front page. In fact JB wasn't the Halle's chief conductor for the rest of his life, stepping down and becoming conductor laureate in the 1960s. At all times his work at Houston and elsewhere was carefully slotted in to allow him to meet his Hallé commitments, so the original text is correct. I'll see if I can work out a wording that is correct without repeating the word "conductor". Tim riley talk 11:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poulenc

Congrats to the new feature! - My work in progress, sort of a Christmas present: BWV 243a, comments welcome. (DYK that it wasn't composed for Christmas?) On conductor's birthday, I started Bach's Missa (concert 1 February). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda! By happy coincidence I lunched with two Wikipedia colleagues in London today, and we raised an affectionate and admiring glass to you. Tim riley talk 21:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Gielgud

To anyone kind enough to watch this page: views on the desirability of an info-box will be gladly received on the article talk page. Tim riley talk 21:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JSB & BB

(moved down from previous section as it is now substantial enough to warrant its own slot)

I obliged there, wishing again that others would have to obey the same wise restriction of two comments per discussion, - which I gladly observe because it reduces wasted time ;) - different topic, don't want to make it an extra thread: I hope for BWV 22 growing to FA, and soon, because 7 Feb was the day of the first performance. Could you give it a reading and see if have additional sources, perhaps on the work's reception in Leipzig, or Bach's audition in general? Similar question for my planned Christmas gift, BWV 243a, see talk "Interpretations", good story about the reception, but lacking sources so far. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for email, - will go for a walk, thinking about endangered BWV 243a ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look out for two more emails of possible use. Let me know if they don't turn up. Tim riley talk 14:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helpful background and improvements. Please go over A Boy was Born, to perhaps catch unintentional freedom, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks spot on to me, though my extremely modest amount of German didn't run to "Retter" or (du lieber Gott!) "Fronleichnamslied" without recourse to my bookshelves. I confess I'd vaguely assumed the carol was named after the Cambridge College, in which case the title ought not perhaps to be translated, but now I look at the words, it is clearly named after the church festival, and so your translation is just what is wanted. I wish I was one hundredth as fluent in German as you are in English. Tim riley talk 15:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a diligent check! "Christ, der Retter, ist da" (originally: "Jesus, der Retter, ist da") is the last line of "Stille Nacht". I had no idea about the midwinter text so close to "Es ist ein Ros entsprungen". German article nominated for their DYK equivalent for around Christmas. (Last year it was here, intended as my Christmas present to the community, and leaving me completely unhappy, just what you want for Christmas ...). - I mentioned The Human Voice on my talk, titled "Compromise", with a musical example. - DYK that Knut Nystedt died. We had joked about inviting him to our performance of his "Komm, süßer Tod" (of all titles), for five choirs who start singing a four-part setting by Bach together, but in different tempo, the first choir 4 seconds to each quarter, the second 6, the third 8 ... - title: Immortal Bach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I blushed (again) reading your support ;) - This year's present was meant to be BWV 243a, a problem child - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... more precisely: do you think it deserves a POV tag? - Another great conductor died: Hans Wallat. Anything you would find to add, English preferred. Last article of the year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither maestro was on my radar, but requiescant. The POV tags at BWV 243 and 243a were disgraceful and I have removed them, explaing why on the article talk pages. In some national legal systems there is an offence called "misuse of process" and that unjustified tag was an example of such a thing. Tim riley talk 18:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isolde died also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As promised!

I'll remind you that yesterday (while under the influence, but with witnesses) you agreed to attend the Barrymore peer review. I'm glad to say that the curtain is now up on that particular show and your precsence would be most welcome! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already?? I had intended further researching it. Never mind.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasure. Looking forward to it. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now done, though the things I could find to quibble about are few and minor. A cracking job! Tim riley talk 22:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grimsby trawlers and All That

I'm looking for press accounts from the summer of 1936, relating to the disappearance and later discovery of the Grimsby trawler Girl Pat. Most coverage will be in the June-July period, but there may be further stuff relating to the subsequent Old Bailey trial in October. Also, any more recent mentions of the boat, e.g. what happened to the boat long-term, would be much appreciated. I have all the Pro-quest stuff from the MG, but would welcome anything from the Times or Telegraph, or from a popular daily such as the Express or Mirror. If you can help in any way, I'd be most grateful (I'm leaving a similar request with SchroCat). Brianboulton (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you a bumper bundle of scanned cuttings by email. If it doesn't turn up in your in-box, please let me know. It may be necessary to break up the bundle and send it to you in smaller chunks. Tim riley talk 21:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

Op-ed: Who edits health-related content on Wikipedia and why?

In the media: Embroidery and cheese

Featured content: ABCD: Any Body Can Dance!

Traffic report: Turkey and a movie

WikiProject report: Today on the island

Waugh's Handful

This is to thank those who peer-reviewed A Handful of Dust and to advise you that the article is now at FAC, here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jobswap

I've been asked to to a GA review for Robert Cade, an article I apparently peer-reviewed some years back. It's so long since I did a GA review that I don't really know how to proceed – I am so used to FAC reviewing that I would probably apply an unreasonable standard. Is there any chance that you could take this on, at the same time passing on to me a chore that you would like to get shot of? Any reasonable suggestion acceptable. Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. You could run an informal eye over my overhaul of Kenneth MacMillan if you liked. Not aiming at GA, you know, but just a good serviceable B class. Tim riley talk 11:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this with pleasure – although I'd better finish with Barrymore first. Brianboulton (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No rush whatever. I'm not proposing to take the article anywhere. I don't know enough about ballet in general or MacMillan in particular to be confident that what I have written covers all aspects adequately for GA (and it certainly isn't a potential FA). Tim riley talk 14:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Growth and Form

Hi Tim, I've done as you asked in the Reception section. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

Op-ed: It's GLAM up North!

In the media: Wikipedia is "a rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic mess"

Traffic report: Dead Black Men and Science Fiction

Featured content: Honour him, love and obey? Good idea with military leaders.

Salta, Cumbria

I've given this a look. There is virtually nothing at all in sources about the hamlet. As it is I think it is very comprehensive given this. Hopefully I've addressed most of your points now. I think it might be sufficient for GA, although of course it could never go further than that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Ronald

I've removed the Schonberg reference. If there's a source for it I think it would still be good to mention that Ronald was very early in making both piano solo and orchestral records. Ronald as a director of the Gramophone Company (1930) and a founding director of EMI (1931) is in Peter Martland, Recording History, p. 202. I found it in Google Books (I'd like to own the book, but at $80 it can wait until I have a job!) Do you think there's a good spot in the article for this? Best, ReverendWayne (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I've added the EMI directorship to the first para of HMV and orchestral appointments. Is that all right, do you think? A slight divergence from strict chronology, but it seems to sit happily there. Happy to ponder alternative placing if you prefer. I'll scout around for refs to his earliest piano and orchestral recordings. A pleasure to do business with you, sir! Tim riley talk 18:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Here's something that may help for the piano records: http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/notes/915531-B.pdf (Bryan Crimp's liner notes to APR reissue). I'll dig out the Claude Arnold book on early orchestral records to see if there's anything useful there. Best, ReverendWayne (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid! I'll enjoy looking there and elsewhere tonight or tomorrow. Tim riley talk 18:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: November 2014

This Month in GLAM – Volume IV, Issue XI, November 2014
Headlines
Australia and New Zealand report: ALIA partnership goes countrywide Belgium report: Workshops for collection holders across Europe; Founding event of Wikimedia Belgium; Wiki Loves Monuments in Belgium & Luxembourg; Plantin-Moretus Museum; Edit-a-thon at faculty library in Ghent University; Image donation UGentMemorie; Upcoming activities France report: Wiki Loves Monuments; mass upload; Musée de Bretagne Germany report: Facts, fun and free content Ireland report: Ada Lovelace day in Dublin Italy report: National Library Conference; Wiki Loves Monuments; Archaeological Open Data; BEIC Netherlands report: Video challenge; Wikidata workshop and hackathon; Wikipedia courses in libraries; WWII editathon Norway report: Edit-a-thon far north at the Museum of Nordland (Nordlandsmuseet) Spain report: Picasso, first Galipedia edit-a-thon, course in Biblioteca Reina Sofía and free portraits South Africa report: Wiki Loves GLAMs, Cape Town Sweden report: Use, reuse and contributions back and forth UK report: Medals, maps and multilingual marvels Special story: ORCID identifiers Open Access report: Open proposal: Wikidata for Research; Open Access signalling Tool testing report: Tools for references, images, video, file usage; Popular Pages Calendar: December's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe • Global message delivery • Romaine 22:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Cooper

Major actor, just GA reviewed it Talk:Gary Cooper/GA2. Need other opinions on the detail and if possible some further pointers. I personally think it would need a considerable chop before taking to FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look in over the next couple of days. At a quick first glance it seems dauntingly gargantuan, but I mustn't prejudge a careful reading. More a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 19:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my thoughts. To me, splitting a biographical article and hiving off the "works" and "personal life" sections is to be avoided if possible. The Cooper article seems much longer than the Barrymore one which you and I have both just supported, but the word counts are surprisingly similar. This may partly be a matter of the writing style: SchroCat is, as we know, an elegant and lively prose stylist, aided and abetted in this case by another such, Ssilvers. It is not in the least to the discredit of the nominator of the Cooper article that his conscientious exposition of the facts seems rather longer, and is at times a bit of a slog. Facts often are, and not every writer can dish them up as appealingly as those two maestros can, and the prose is perfectly acceptable. Be that as it may, in my view the Cooper article does not transgress the GA criteria, even though one would personally welcome the application of a pruning knife. Tim riley talk 12:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barrymore FAC

Hi Tim, As always, many thanks for your work on the Barrymore PR; the article is now at FAC, should you wish to comment further. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. One of the easier tasks I've undertaken here in the past few days, as well as one of the most pleasurable. Tim riley talk 12:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Featured List Candidate for Guy Sebastian discography

Hello! Since you've reviewed similar list(s), would you be interested in commenting at or reviewing my FLC for Guy Sebastian discography? It's currently urgently needing reviews, so any input would be appreciated. Thank you! — Usfun8991 (talk | contribs) 05:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, commenting on presentation rather than the content, as I am an ignoramus on the topic. Tim riley talk 12:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! So what's the conclusion from you, a support or oppose? — Usfun8991 (talk | contribs) 09:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the subject either to support or oppose. It certainly looks comprehensive to me, but what do I know? Tim riley talk 14:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

		Seasonal Greetings and Good Wishes
		Christmas greetings for 2014, and best wishes for 2015. Here's to another year's successful editing, more Mozart and Monteverdi, and down with the trolls, vandals and bores. Peace on earth and goodwill to all! Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, dear sir! What a pleasing message to get. In the spirit of Christmas I refrain from demanding the "less" inadvertently omitted before "Monteverdi". How lucky one is to meet so many good people editing Wikipedia! Warmest reciprocal greetings, Tim riley talk 19:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Dear Tim, a Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones and a Happy New Year! Have a really great one. Peace on Earth and goodwill to all men. Love from all the Asher household. — Cliftonian (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you a merry Christmas, I wish you a merry Christmas, I wish you a merry Christmas ... and possibly a little bit of Hanukkah cheer, depending on genealogic evidence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the same to you Ssilvers. — Cliftonian (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2014 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte, Lady Clark (of Tillypronie)

Hi Tim, many thanks for the review comments. Actually I'll be about, and I doubt anybody will hold either of us to a 7-day deadline (tho' we might finish earlier if you're around the next day or two), so I'm happy to start on the GAN if you are. Either way, merry Christmas. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me. I'm around till Sunday, then off to the ancestral shack in the Lake District on Monday for a week, though we have broadband there and apart from radio silence on Mon, I'm generally available. My only substantive reservation about the article is the lack of biographical details on Lady Clark and her husband, which really should be there, given that they are available. If you would like me to send the Times (and Who's Who) stuff, click on Email this user (left) and send me a one-liner to which I'll respond with the clippings as attachments. Meanwhile, I'll open a GAN review and copy & paste my comments into it. Over to you. Tim riley talk 15:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I've responded to all comments so far, including using the Times / Who's Who. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee election results

Featured content: Tripping hither, tripping thither, Nobody knows why or whither; We must dance and we must sing, Round about our fairy ring!

In the media: Wikipedia's year in review video; Checking in with Wikipedia's founders

Traffic report: A December Lull

Barrymore

Many thanks once again for your thoughts on the John Barrymore article. Could I ask you to make one further visit to comment on the question of the inclusion of a family tree. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've left comments. A fine bit of work but in the wrong place, meseems. I shall study it carefully though, as I may be able to learn from its construction, and improve my own efforts at family trees in other articles. Tim riley talk 11:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to collapse both sections. My comments are no longer needed as I have moved to neutral and the family tree issue has a rough consensus with your weighing in. I made several attempts to collapse but they did not appear to work. If you understand how that is done (I have no idea what I did wrong) could you give it a try so the text is not distracting from the rest of the FAC. If not, I at least tried.

The formatting for the tree is something I picked up from User:Scott by observing some of his trees.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's much food for thought there, from which I hope to benefit. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 15:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find this tree difficult to follow, because of the way the multiple wives are linked by dotted lines. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well how do you link your multiple wives? My point is that using WP codes rather than adding a home-made jpg is something I shall pursue. Tim riley talk 21:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Tim riley! As we gather to celebrate the changing of years and reflect on the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, I would like to wish you and yours a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Attached is a small snack which I hope will give you the energy to continue being an amazing person and editor in the coming year.

Happy editing,
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, dear sir! Warmly reciprocated. Tim riley talk 15:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Seymour Hoffman

Hi Tim, remember me? I've recently come back to brave Wikipedia again, after a nice long break. I'm still keeping things pretty low-key, but have [unfortunately?] become ambitious in one area... Earlier this year, Blofeld and I rewrote the Philip Seymour Hoffman article and I think we did a pretty good job. It's coming up to the one year anniversary of his death (February 2), and given that he was such an amazing actor it would be a nice little tribute to get him on the main page that day. You said to me many months ago that you "owed" me a review, so I'm afraid I've come knocking to ask...does that still stand?! It would be useful to get some advice on whether it's a viable FA candidate, and to help smooth out the prose if it is. Let me know how you feel about the idea, and if it would be a while until you could get around to it (completely understandable, given the time of year, but if you can't do it this week we may just dive straight in with an FAC nom anyway...time is short!) Hope you've been well :) --Loeba (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a pleasure to repay a little of the huge kindnesses you have done for me. I know nothing of this actor, and can approach the review with completely open mind. A pleasant task for the holiday week. More soonest. Timetable noted, and I promise not to hang about. Warmest seasonal greetings, meanwhile. Tim riley talk 23:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and b.t.w. where would you prefer me to post my comments? On the article talk page or yours? Tim riley talk 23:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thaaanks. Have you never seen a PSH film? Admittedly he has nothing in common with Gielgud and Richardson, but I'm sure you'd appreciate him. Maybe take a look at Capote (film), since you're a literary fellow. Anyway, should I just create a PR page for you to put comments on? Or put them on the talk page if you prefer, I don't mind. I'm aware that the article is long, so if there's any bits that you think need trimming please don't be shy to mention that. Merry Christmas to you too Tim, --Loeba (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Given your tight schedule I've left comments on the article talk page; a full formal peer review would be perilously time-consuming. This is a fine article and I look forward to its appearance at FAC. Tim riley talk 13:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba, please drop me a note if/when you go to FAC with this: I'll happily chip in with this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's really kind, cheers Schro --Loeba (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, quick question for you as I expect you'll know the answer. I just tweaked the article to say "Regarding his material legacy, Hoffman left his entire fortune (approximately $35 million) to O'Donnell" ...but then it occurred to me that maybe your money doesn't count as your "material legacy"? If not, what do you think would be the best term? --Loeba (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Material legacy is OK, but I wonder why you want it. To my mind the sentence is stronger without the four introductory words. I think one of the mistakes we are all prone to make in drafting is to imagine that readers need to be led by the hand - hence the rashes of "howevers" one sees all over the place. I think readers can cope very well with plain statements without a preliminary fanfare. Just my two penn'orth. Tim riley talk 23:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim! You have a point, and initially I just had it "Hoffman left..." but it didn't seem to flow from the previous content (about a fundraiser). It also occurred to me that many people forget/don't know that your legacy also literally means what you leave in your will, so I thought it might be worth stating clearly...I think I also have my A-Level history lessons deeply rooted within me, where we were shown useful "sentence starters" and repeatedly told "make the start of each paragraph clear!", "give your readers signposts of which direction you're going!", etc. I couldn't believe it when I looked at WP guidelines and saw that terms like "Furthermore", "On the other hand", "Some might say" and "Therefore" were BAD! It rocked my entire world Tim, I tell you. --Loeba (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That gave me a good chuckle. I suppose the point is that an essay or thesis is different from an encyclopaedia article. Essays are all about interpreting the facts, which is none of our business in Wikipedia. But in truth, dear Loeba, it's your prose and it ain't my place to boss you around. Tim riley talk 17:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Kenneth MacMillan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kenneth MacMillan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Happy Holidays!

Victoria (tk)

Nollaig

	Nollaig shona duit
	Best christmas and new year. Another year down, and so much more to write. Thanks for all your contribuitions and being part of the community. Hope January is at least resonabally tolerable for you. Ceoil (talk) 05:06, 254 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

From the editor: Looking for new editors-in-chief

In the media: Wales on GamerGate

Featured content: Still quoting Iolanthe, apparently.

WikiProject report: Microsoft does The Signpost

Traffic report: North Korea is not pleased

Dec 2014

Then why the hell does WP:OPERA bother to have an agreed upon format of everyone goes off and does their own thing? Viva-Verdi (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Tooley isn't really the sole property of the opera project. He is just as relevant to the ballet project, theatre project, biography project etc. As to the opera project's preferred format, as far as I can remember it is not used in any of Wikipedia's 35 Featured Articles about operas, opera composers, opera conductors, opera singers and opera companies, all of which have been taken to FA by editors who are not members of the project (a duck that will be broken if you and I take Falstaff there in due course). Be these things as they may, I send my warmest seasonal greetings. Tim riley talk 08:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal greetings

	Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2015!
	Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hutcherson

Hey there Tim, I saw your elaborate review on the talk page of Philip Seymour Hoffman and I was curious to see if you'd be interested in helping me out by giving a review at the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Josh Hutcherson/archive2. I've been struggling to get reviewers, so any kind of comments/help you'd be able to offer would be greatly appreciated. If you're busy or not interested, I'll absolutely understand. Thanks for reading! Gloss 06:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly read the article and look in at the FAC, though bear in mind that I am an ignoramus about the cinema. More soonest. Tim riley talk 21:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Gloss 19:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Colonel-Wintle.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Colonel-Wintle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: Quite happy for this to be deleted as another editor has now uploaded a better fair use image. Tim riley talk 23:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She Has a Name

Hi Tim,

Thank you again for your contributions to the Not My Life FAC. I recently initiated another FAC for the article She Has a Name, and I was hoping that you might have time to contribute. I know that this is often a busy time of year, but if you are able to provide some constructive comments, they would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly look in. Thank you for asking me. Tim riley talk 23:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, and keep up the good work

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Tim riley, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
KConWiki (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

It's been a pleasure reading your work (and meeting you)...may you write 2015 more bloody brilliant articles next year! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? Slavedriver! 2015 more articles? In passing, have you looked at my talk page? You are a studious presence there over my shoulder, and I cordially reciprocate your comments on meeting. I wish you the best of 2015s. Tim riley talk 21:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Tim riley!

Happy New Year!

Tim riley,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Edwardx (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the joys of Wikipedia is meeting some of one's favourite editors (or favorite, for I've had the pleasure of meeting several from our former American colonies). But it is a rare pleasure to meet not only a valued Wikicolleague but also his wife. A lovely day! Here's to more such delights in 2015. Tim riley talk 21:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.