User talk:Alfietucker/Archive 5

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Benjamin Britten

The Britten article is at peer review. I'm dropping this note as you have contributed extensively to the article, and if you have time and inclination to look in at the PR that would be very welcome. Tim riley (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I loved your edit summary comment about Walton etc, but 1953 was a long time ago (I was only a year old) and the music really did go down like a lead balloon. I think I have accommodated both our points, but please look in again, if you have time, and check you're happy with my changes. Tim riley (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim, that's very kind, especially as I think I was a bit acerbic in my comment. Still, I really don't think Gloriana could be thought 'uncompromisingly modern', certainly not in encyclopaedic terms: Walton and Vaughan Williams had already written more ferocious things, let alone such modernists as Schoenberg (already dead by then) and Stravinsky. It's quite clear from your citation that Andrew Porter is reporting the opinion of people whose idea of acceptable music was Verdi, perhaps Puccini and perhaps a pinch of Elgar at best, and had scarcely a clue about what had happened since. I've reworded accordingly. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Not entirely persuaded, but I'll go with your wording. What the first nighters were expecting was something like Merrie England, though (and I don't propose to go into details in the main BB article) HM the Q had seen and approved the libretto, and had heard bits of it in private previews. The Windsors' reputation as musical philistines is dented by all the reputable biographies of Britten. Thine, Tim riley (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with your assessment of the Windsors (check my edit to Gloriana made a bit earlier). I shouldn't confuse their view - least of all Elizabeth II's - with that of the royal and diplomatic mandarins who were also present at the gala (the Earl of Harewood, who described Britten's opera as "passionate, tender drama", clearly lays the blame for its "failure" at the gala audience), and - dare I suggest - some mean-spirited rivals of Britten's, and their supporters, who were jealous of Gloriana's high profile premiere and longing for him to fall on his face. btw, how extraordinary that anyone should think that Britten, or any decent composer, would have produced another "Merrie England" 50 years after the original was composed! But then, I guess, we've lived to see the success of Andrew Lloyd Webber... Alfietucker (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Shall go and look at the Gloriana article soonest. (Meanwhile, without signing up as a groupie of Edward German or Andrew Lloyd Webber, I should have been perfectly happy to have been at the ROH in 1953 if they'd put on The Yeomen of the Guard. I am proud to have seen that work in that house in 1995 though the ROH authorities were very sniffy about it. But I digress.) Gloriana is a mighty work, and with any luck producers will finally stop apologising for its original flop (e.g. prissy productions within productions) and just stage the bloody thing as written. Tim riley (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Well again, I wouldn't confuse oranges with apples. I *love* Sullivan, but I'm yet to be convinced by German... All very best, Alfietucker (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benjamin Britten, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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) 10:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Warlock and beyond

Trying to get the general and personal thoughts away from a specific article talk: nice to meet you! I try to avoid evaluating other editors' actions. My understanding is that there is no guide to tell us that the addition of an infobox needs a "formal justification", in any case, - that's where different views start. - Now even without a guide, I never inserted an infobox to a composer's article unless I had written it myself, and proposed on the talk of an opera and a composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well hello. I will be getting back to Warlock at some point, but I should be getting on with some 'real life' work (as a freelance writer). See you back at the coal face! Alfietucker (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for a new phrase! As for Warlock, imagine the top in the "basic" to look like that of Kammerorchester Basel, the second line not bold and smaller, I mean. Nobody can change infobox person easily, and I don't know another about people that does it. - Did you see my overview of infoboxes reverted and changed? (If not: talk of my thoughts.) Good news: most that I enter remain unquestioned. I am surprised so much happened while the arb case is open. - I like your "I tend to have respect for people who have done a deal to improve an article, but I'm not into ownership - I tend to take ideas/improvements on their own merits, regardless of their provenance." Having said that, respect for Tim is my only reason not to suggest an infobox for Britten (and Messiah, an FA nom in which Brian and Tim were so kind to include me), respect for Nikkimaria is my only reason to "swallow" the revert on BWV 35, because she made a few more edits than I did. (I realized that only after I added it, or would not even done it.) I am the "proud owner" of Messiah Part II ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Precious

people who have given pleasure
Thank you for quality articles on people "in the world of music, theatre and children's entertainment who have given pleasure will not be forgotten", such as John Noble, and for adding precision with edit summaries to match, the "innocent reader" in mind, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, and thank you! I am very touched by the honour you have given me, and by your implied offer of friendship earlier - or do I mean collegial spirit? Certainly I'm more comfortable with the latter, as at the end of the day I come here to edit and improve rather than to make friends. But still, I am touched by your award, and glad you have made such a friendly gesture. I look forward to our collaborations on the coal face! Alfietucker (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for redaction.

In this edit, you copied some material from the essay WP:BRD but referred to it as Policy.

This isn't a minor nitpick, as the entire point of the discussion is whether and how BRD can be cited as justification. The current discussion is confusing, as other readers might see your opening "Andy, the policy is quite clear" and assumed you copied form a policy. I urge you to redact your words, to help eliminate the confusion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, done. Sorry for the slip, but, as I've said, Andy was nonetheless in breach of BRD. Alfietucker (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A Hero's Life

I'm doing a round-robin of WP classical music specialists, having posted a suggestion on the article talk page back in April to the effect that as orchestras, Grove, record companies, concert promoters and all comers refer to the piece as "Ein Heldenleben" it would make sense if WP followed suit. Since then no-one has added any comment, pro or con, and I'd be interested, if you can spare a few minutes, to see what you think about the suggestion. Tim riley (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that (and sorry to bother you). Very grateful for your comments. Tim riley (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Thank you very much for the barnstar and your kind words. I am glad someone noticed my final comment on the right to say no. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Aram Khachaturian

Thank you for catching the typo.CorinneSD (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. Alfietucker (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Passion

St Matthew Passion: I didn't try to fix it, example: "Like other Baroque oratorio passions, Bach's setting presents the Biblical text of Matthew 26–27 in a relatively simple way, primarily using recitative, while aria and arioso movements set newly written poetic texts which comment on the various events in the Biblical narrative and present the characters' states of mind in a lyrical, monologue-like manner.", which doesn't mention that much of the biblical text is composed for chorus, and implies that Bach's great setting of the vox Christi is "a relatively simple way". We have St Matthew Passion structure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does need quite a bit of fixing. My knowledge and interest in Bach is more or less as a layman, but still I do think sometimes an interested "outsider" can see things that might be missed by previous editors of what looks like a not very lovingly tended article. I had a quick look at the St Matthew Passion structure as well, and my initial reaction is that it could do with some text/exegesis based on Bach scholarship. But the starting point, I'd think, is for those editors already involved to actually give more inline citations (certainly in the St Matthew Passion, but perhaps for both articles), assuming they are most likely to have the relevant source texts to hand. Alfietucker (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The scholars should, - I am just a singer, the source is the score. - I tried not to touch the Passion, to avoid conflict with those who wrote it. - I just added "Gratias" on top of my user, a link with a nod to a great teacher, also for the Mass in B minor structure, a work in progress, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toby Robertson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Phoenix Theatre and The Telegraph (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) 09:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Barilla edit

Same as what you have done. With the obvious difference that you are using it as a lobbying tool even though such a daily gossip has no place in an encyclopedia. 2.103.39.226 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forced conversion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inside Out (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) 13:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Britten

Hmm. Not wholly persuaded, but shall let your recent additions rest undisturbed. How are you on Tippett? Bold Sir Brian Boulton is working on getting MT's article up to FAC. If interested pray watch this space a month or so from now. More anon. Best, Tim riley (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You're a hard man to please - not that that's necessarily my objective. ;-) I'd be very pleased to do what I can to help with MT at FAC, though I can't claim as much knowledge about MT as I can about BB and GvH: pity I was so busy when these were going through, though I'm sure you all did a superb job without my input! Alfietucker (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I am implacable. Shall prod you when Tippett is on the tapis. Tim riley (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Riley's dwindling supply of brain cells has just flickered from stand-by to on. Weren't you in the throes of an exam, assignment or something equally ghastly during our Holstian excursions? I hope all went well. Tim riley (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
That's very kind of you. I actually make my living as a freelance writer and reviewer, and unfortunately there are times when I'm "under the cosh". I think it was one of those. But it's good to see you and Brian doing such excellent work on various articles. Did you see my query about Steuart Wilson? Alfietucker (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Monday Afternoon

You don't hang about, I see. Four afternoons ahead of schedule. I'm currently grappling with a tone-deaf Anglo-Catholic socialist priest who hasn't yet got a WP article, but will have by Friday Afternoon, I hope. Tim riley (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I just happened to have the books to hand - and also am working on a small Britten project for my 'daytime' job anyway. :-) Good luck with the socialist priest: did he have any dealings with Conrad Noel? Alfietucker (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Fortunately since Avery Brundage's day Wikipedians are not disqualified for being professionals IRL. In truth I think it wonderful that professional writers like you are willing to donate your services free chez Wikipedia. Bravo, that freelance! Bold Sir Brian Boulton has Michael Tippett at peer review now, should you care to look in. As to my priest, he had three brothers, each of whom has a WP article in his own, very different, right. If you can crack that code I will stand you a drink at any watering hole of your choice within the circumference of the Circle Line. Tim riley (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm - a frustrating feeling that I should know this one, but can't think right now... But in any case it would be very pleasant to meet up sometime. If I can't crack this, the drink shall be on me. I'll have a look in to Tippett and if I can offer any constructive/possibly useful observations I will do so. Alfietucker (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Ecce! Tim riley (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations - a splendid article for a splendid character! Alfietucker (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

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.

Islamophobia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tommy Robinson
Quilliam (think tank) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tommy Robinson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sir Peter

As a spin-off from my fossicking for the Britten article I've given Peter Pears an overhaul. If you have a moment I'd be glad if you'd look in, adjusting ad lib. Tim riley (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Great, look forward to giving this a proper look. Your message has come in just as I'm preparing to give a talk (due in two and a half hour's time!). Will have a look and adjust later. Alfietucker (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I shall be at the back, thowing orange peel. Hope the talk goes well. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Literature in 1957

Hello, Alfietucker, and thank you for your contributions!

Some text in an article that you worked on Literature in 1957, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, 1957 in literature. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Literature in 1957 at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Literature in 1957

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Literature in 1957. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 1957 in literature. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 1957 in literature – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. RubinkumarTalk 13:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give 1957 in literature a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Literature in 1957 Kolbasz (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies - I'd used "cut and paste" before, but had missed the fact there is a "move" tab. I will use this now. Alfietucker (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael Tippett

Just to let you know that I have nominated Tippett at FAC, here. All comments welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Tell Mama

From what I've seen of the article's history, User talk:Q81990 may have a WP:COI due to a long history of inserting information which is not related to Tell Mama but supports their work and finding, as well as some insertion of POV vocabulary. As an experienced user, can you investigate this or contact somebody who can? Thegreatelgrande (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I've had a quick look, and I'm not sure it's necessarily a WP:COI but it's certainly a WP:SPA. On the other hand User talk:Q81990 has been quiet now for almost two weeks, so I'd be inclined to leave the matter unless they resurface and, say, start doing tendentious editing or POV-pushing. Still, it's good to watch out for these things. Alfietucker (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You've just violated WP:3RR without discussing and proving you're point. I'm reverting. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've reported you here for not engaging properly in discussion and for violating WP:3RR. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Administrators do not look kindly on asking other editors to make edits. While I thought it was a BLP violation, the administrators at the 3RR noticeboard may not. I suggest that while the page is locked, we get broader input from a noticeboard. TFD (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Understood - though perhaps you missed my note here, posted when I realized the WP:BLP issue overrides WP:3RR considerations. I fixed it here sometime before the page was locked. Anyway, point totally taken - it's been a bit of a learning curve for me. I only hope the other editor involved is also learning and will be a little less reckless in their editing and of imputing motives to editors who revert or correct their work! All best, Alfietucker (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Headlines

Thanks - they are a pet peeve of mine because people use them thinking they are somehow a reliable source. I've even seen headlines that contradict what the article actually says, and a lot that go far beyond what the article says. Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Doug. Actually I can't tell you how welcome your words are! If it's any encouragement for you, it was actually one of your comments on the talk page of Islamophobia which gave me courage to remove that citation: I've had a few but heated arguments with people about headlines and straplines, which of course are never written by the author of the article but by subs who are only interested in getting people to read the story with a sensational hook (I know this, having worked in journalism for a while). Alfietucker (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Mo Ansar

Thanks for your edits to Mo Ansar. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's now on my watchlist. Alfietucker (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Citing YouTube uploads

I'm afraid that I've had to revert your recent edits to the Rochdale sex trafficking gang article. Per WP copyright policies and WP:YOUTUBE, we can't cite material which appears to have been uploaded in contravention of the rights of the copyright holder - in this case, the BBC. If the material didn't include direct quotes, I could probably have just replaced the refs with 'citation needed', but quotations need a valid citation. Possibly there is an official transcript of the broadcast available - I'll see if I can track one down. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. There is actually a link to the BBC iPlayer, but it will only be working for another four days. I might reinstate text using that as a citation. Would this be then as valid as a link that has died? i.e. not an automatic candidate for deletion? Alfietucker (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I see I've been beaten to it by another editor. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maajid Nawaz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page C18 (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) 08:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sellers

Thanks for stepping and for suggesting the very workable change. Unfortunately—and as you can see—some people do not understand about sourcing, and simply wish to "interpret" what is clearly written, based on their own POV, rather than reflecting what the sources say. Infuriating and irritating, but we will get there in the end - I hope! Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. Fingers crossed! Alfietucker (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

John Tavener

I take a fairly hard-line approach to enforcing BLP, and I make no apologies for that - it's a very important policy. I was not edit-warring, as there is a BLP exemption. If you look at the policy, positive material is no less subject to it than negative material. I regarded the material as contentious, since it involved evaluative statements about Tavener's ability as a composer. Certainly direct quotations should be properly sourced, and I see you have now done that. The statement about him being one of the best-regarded composers of his generation is also contentious - some critics did not have a high opinion him at all (he was sometimes disparaged as a "holy minimalist"). I've added a "citation needed" tag to that sentence, since I would rather not have further disputes, but it needs to be removed unless properly sourced. Neljack (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your actions, though I have to say your reading of WP:BLP doesn't seem to be quite in the spirit of the policy. I say this as someone who has worked in journalism for some years, and so have a keen awareness of libel and other such legal issues. Alfietucker (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Horatius at the bridge

Do not imagine, dear Alfie, that your mighty efforts to repel the forces of idiocy have gone unnoticed. I looked in just after Britten was replaced on the front page, and I was so grateful to see you, Gerda and others fighting the good fight. Perhaps you would be available in a day or so to join Brian B and self in a post mortem to propose what might be junked and what might be kept from the serious contributions yesterday? Tim riley (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe I would be available, and if so would be glad to help. Alfietucker (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Britten – mopping up after TFA

Very little to review, thanks to the vigilance of (ahem!) splendid Wiki-colleagues, but we have a handful of points that should be looked at, I think: here. No rush, but I hope you'll look in. I don't know that I have fully expressed my gratitude for what you have quietly contributed to this article. Well I do now. – Tim riley (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

While

From today's Manchester Guardian website (I'm allowed to call it that as I'm 4,000 years old):

More than 2 million viewers travelled back in time to see the origins of Doctor Who in BBC2 drama An Adventure in Space and Time while nearly 700,000 tuned into BBC4 to watch the Time Lord's first-ever adventure from 1963.

Were they on at the same time? They were not. The "while" is one of my bêtes noires. "The choir sang the Hallelujah chorus rousingly, while Miss Jones sang 'I know that my redeemer liveth' radiantly." Anyone for Ives! – Tim riley (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Totally sympathise with your point - though I don't think this is a problem when talking about Robert vs Ben, since it surely is clear to all that Robert and Ben were both interested in music during a specific period of time: indeed, just today I read an anecdote that Ben used to chase poor Robert off the piano by recruiting Mum with the announcement he had "a thought" (i.e. an idea for a composition)! Alfietucker (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
A Boy was Born: you added greatly! Thank you! - I found a detailed article by Sieck, feel free to use ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure. The Sieck article looks like a good find. I'm just "surfacing" briefly due to a bout of insomnia, but will have a proper look during daylight hours. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Not what I agreed

Have you noticed this? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 19:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear - yes, I did realise something of a tussle has restarted on this. It's perhaps a moot point whether actors who take leading roles automatically qualify for the "Starring" list: I personally think yes. Might, for instance, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang in which the child actors Adrian Hall and Heather Ripley are listed be a reasonable argument for retaining Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward? All said, though, they are given due credit in the lead, so perhaps it's not worth losing sleep over. Alfietucker (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Ha! I have to agree. With energy levels diminishing with this awful, cold weather, another hassle is best avoided. Hope you are keeping well. Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
You too. I'll certainly continue to keep a discreet eye on Moonrise Kingdom in case anything else happens/develops. Alfietucker (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Then you will soon notice that we have support AND also, that I am unable to keep the promise that I made to myself here on this page (gulp) — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Classical Music

I would like to understand your assertion that the addition of the Burgh (2006) claims are not 'helpful edits'. Burgh provides considerable insight into the notion that Classical music originated from earlier civilizations and the roots of classical music is, therefore, much older than the general populous believe. I have not correctly defined the referencing and would appreciate your contribution in this area. cams0ft (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I realise I made the edit before you'd finished your editing. I'm still rather sceptical about any claim to trace classical music's roots to anything pre-medieval, given the loss of evidence of performing traditions/dubious attempts to decipher what may or may not be notated music from the ancient world, but will try to have a proper look when I've a bit more time. Alfietucker (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Tragically Murdered

Alf, a friend of mine Epicforest said you know your stuff on Wikipedia, I made an edit about Nanette Hanson on the Bradfordians page, in it i first put she was killed then changed it to tragically murdered, there was a revert and it went from there downhill fast, is tragically murdered not a term to be used. Not asking for anything other than advice. 89.243.23.66 (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The well-known Brits Dylan and Rabbie

Thank you for that breeze of fresh air. The new editor, though wholly misguided, clearly meant well, and I hope I have been gentle enough in explaining the difference between nations and states. The cliché "rocket science" leaps to mind, but I have forborn. Tim riley (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Your heading made me smile. (I remember a good Irish friend some time ago - 20 years? When I was younger and more naive - asking me quite pointedly "Who's British?") I'm quite sure you handled the situation with great tact. Alfietucker (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Egregio Signor Alfredo, you are a great comfort to me, as well as a great WP colleague! Tim riley (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you - it's a particular pleasure working with you too. Alfietucker (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for A Boy Was Born

Harrias talk 12:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Nigel Short

Hi,

I have moved the Nigel Short (chess grandmaster) article back to the Nigel Short title, and added a hatnote link to your new article Nigel Short (singer and choir director). Since the Nigel Short the chess player is better known than Nigel Short the singer, as evidenced by comparing the amount of coverage these two men have received, it is Nigel Short the chess player who in all likelihood qualifies as the primary topic. That is, most readers who search for "Nigel Short" are probably looking for the chess player rather than the singer.

Incidentally, the article that you wrote on the singer looks like a very good one indeed with a clear and concise description of what he has done backed up by high quality references. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments about my article. I understand where you're coming from; it probably says more about me than about the chess grandmaster that I hadn't consciously heard of him until today (*dives for cover*). Well, I'm sure both Nigel Shorts are excellent in their respective fields, and maybe it's a matter of time before they're as well-known as each other. Alfietucker (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7