This is an archive of past discussions with User:Alfietucker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
I was reinserting referenced info to the passage, which was removed only with an edit summary "fixing the passage." I fail to see how removing referenced info "fixes" a passage in any way. --Activism123421:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Never mind took a closer look. Although it does omit some details, it's pretty much a concise version, and I got hung up over the detail that was ommitted. Ignore this, it's fine. My fault. --Activism123421:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure a detail was missing after Acoma Magic's edit: I only saw that he had indeed tidied up those sentences, removing duplicated information and some poor English. Some friendly advice - do please check the text before jumping to conclusions and reverting another editor's work (i.e. AM's) as too-hasty action could lead to unnecessary ill feeling. Alfietucker (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daphnis et Chloé, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MOG (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.
I clicked on your link and there didn't appear to be an article. In principle I'd be happy to have a look, though it rather depends on its length and the subject matter whether/how much I will be able to help improve it. Alfietucker (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I had finished mucking about in my sandbox and had proceeded to create the Derby sex gang. It is similar to an article you previously contributed to, that's why I thought you might be interested. Ankh.Morpork03:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Tchaikovsky
My bad, apparently, Thought you had done the opposite of what you stated--changed 'but a number of musicologists now play down its importance' to 'but musicologists now play down its importance' so thought I was restoring 'but a number.' Please feel free to reverse my reversal and accept my apologies for the mix-up. Jonyungk (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Excellent catch on the Viola Concerto. I don't know how that "too difficult" line slipped past me when I was preparing the article for FAC. Tertis is on record as saying that he simply couldn't be having with the piece when he first encountered it, and changed his mind, decidedly shamefaced, later. See Kennedy, pp. 48–49. This sort of sharp-eyed detection of clangers is one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths. Warmest thanks for this one. Tim riley (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim - that's really kind of you to thank me for this, and particularly cheering to hear from you. I'm among many who admire your very good work. Please forgive my tardy reply - I've been away for the past few days and only just picked up your message. Alfietucker (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Richard Goolden
Glad you approve. Please change anything you're not happy with. After your nice note above I looked at your user page, which of course led me to Goolden.
One of the advantages of being an old codger, I find, is that one can irritate the younger generation by reminiscing. I saw Goolden as Mole in 1976 and he was every bit as good as the reviews say. He seemed to do practically nothing, yet he did everything. I lived a couple of streets away from him in those days and often used to see him in the shops, neatly dressed except for a bow tie that was all over the place. I was too shy to try to scrape acquaintance with him - I know better now, in my blatant sixties! Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Glad you approve. I'm also glad to see you and Brian doing sterling work to bring the article up to standard, though I do worry that Holst literature - which the article must, of course, reflect - is generally still largely in thrall to Imogen's writings about her father. I hope you won't take it amiss if I might mitigate some of the quotations in the article here and there accordingly, and perhaps add other more recent sources. For now (as I'm supposed to be doing other work) I might just do some tinkering/tidying up. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Please tinker and tidy ad lib. Brian B and I are both conscious of the Imogen Effect. We'll yell if we disagree with any of your tweaks. Tim riley (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The perfect antidote to Imogen is Dickinson – the Gobi Desert is moister. I am grateful for your work in tidying my music sections, but as I am doing some trimming and cutting myself at the moment, could you give me an hour? I keep getting edit-conflicted! Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I am done for the moment. The "Style" section is still pretty crappy and needs further work, but I'll leave that until tomorrow. Thanks again for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim, thank you for your kind invitation. Alas, I'm supposed to be trying to finish off a big project in my paid professional capacity, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to go through the article more carefully - perhaps towards the end of the week if the process is still going then? Certainly I'll be very glad to contribute if I can. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
No rush whatever. We'll keep the home fires burning till you have emerged from your professional project – with which, the best of luck. – Tim riley (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Put not your trust in Rileys! Despite my comment above we have after much grappling with the article decided to go ahead and put it up for FAC. I need hardly say that if you, as a key editor, can find time and inclination to look in at the FAC page we shall be very grateful indeed. And please accept my apologies for pushing ahead so relentlessly. Tim riley (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
No need to apologise - I've been buried with work, and right now feel like a squeezed-out orange - not really the best state to be of much use for this article. But delighted that you and Brian have taken so much care with it, and thank you so much for bearing me in mind. Good luck with the FAC process! Alfietucker (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Alfietucker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
