SCAM WARNING!
If you have been contacted by anyone using my name to write a Wikipedia article for you, it has not come from me, it is not legitimate, and possibly a scam. Please report what information you have to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org.
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between October and December 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
What a delightful message to get! Thank you so much, jengod. I love cooking and I love eating, and it is always a pleasure to write little articles about minor culinary topics. Tim riley talk16:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randall Davidson
Hi! You recently reverted my edit at Randall Davidson which mentioned the Housing and Town Planning Act 1909. Would you mind explaining why you thought it was disproportionate? At WP:Proportion, it says that undue weight should not be given to minor aspects, but this was a short sentence in a section regarding Randall's role in domestic political affairs during the time - I would have thought this would not amount to undue weight. Additionally it might be worth noting that the act was contested in the House of Lords, though I didn't make that clear in my edit. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Gazamp (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Among the other matters on which Davidson spoke in the Lords at about the time of the Housing and Town Planning Act were colonial marriages, election meetings in school rooms, House of Lords reform, inspection of laundries, prevention of corruption, liquor traffic in Nigeria, merchant vessels and first aid, outrages on Jews in Russia, Sunday trading, small holdings and allotments, street traffic in London and women in county and borough councils. In an article of a few thousand words we cannot give every single detail of a person's life: it is our job to concentrate on what is notable so far as the subject is concerned. The Housing and Town Planning Act is not mentioned in the Times obituary (1930), the Dictionary of National Biography (1937) or the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2011), and does not even merit so much as a passing mention in Bishop Bell's two-volume biography of Davidson (1935).
Discussions of this sort should be on an article talk page, where any interested editor can spot them, rather than on a user's talk page, visited by few. Tim riley talk08:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tim Riley,
I see you reverted my edit on W. Somerset Maugham. I would like to share my reasoning so that this does not result in an edit war. I changed the wording because the phrase "achieved national celebrity" could be confusing to many readers. I disagree with your reasoning for the revert for the following reasons:
"is prioritized in the OED" - The first meaning for a word listed in the dictionary is not always the most common one.
"is more appropriate for the time period" - It makes no sense to base wording of an article on the time period its topic is about. The meaning of "celebrity" referring to a person is more appropriate for the time period we are in right now.
As an editor that reads casually, I am concerned with the experience of casual readers. I think that this wording is problematic because it may make many readers, especially those born more recently, do a double-take since it uses a fairly frequently used word in an uncommon way and thus may confuse people. I would like to understand your perspective on this issue as I do not want an edit war, and I hope we can resolve this while keeping Wikipedia accessible to the general public.
This sort of discussion belongs on an article talk page where it can be seen by any interested editor, rather than on a user talk page where it will be seen by few. If you like to raise your proposal on the article talk page we can see what the consensus is. Tim riley talk17:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have to wonder whether reproducing the entire text is suitable anyway, although removing it will require major restructuring of the section at least. What think you? Any editorial thoughts or suggestions? Or even active fixes? (Btw, I think the Hector Berlioz FA page is a wonderful achievement. I'm not at all possessive about this particular page, which I'd just like to see improved.)
I don't object to quoting Berlioz's programme note in full – he's reasonably terse – and Microsoft and Google both offer decent attempts at an English translation.
Microsoft
The author supposes that a young musician, afflicted with that moral disease which a famous writer calls the vagueness of passions, sees for the first time a woman who unites all the charms of the ideal being of which his imagination dreamed, and becomes madly in love with her. By a singular oddity, the cherished image never presents itself to the artist's mind except in connection with a musical thought, in which he finds a certain passionate, but noble and timid character like that which he attributes to the beloved object.
Google:
The author supposes that a young musician, affected by this moral illness that a famous writer calls the vagueness of passions, sees for the first time a woman who combines all the charms of the ideal being that his imagination dreamed of, and in becomes hopelessly in love. By a singular oddity, the cherished image never presents itself to the artist's mind unless linked to a musical thought, in which he finds a certain passionate, but noble and timid character like that which he attributes to the loved object.
A bit of tweaking is needed ("vague des passions") and later in the text: "fixed idea" needs untranslating and leaving as idée fixe (did you know that Asterix's dog, Dogmatix, is Idéfix in the original French?) and both Microsoft and Google are understandably stumped by ranz des vaches: I particularly like Microsoft's: "he hears two shepherds talking to a cow in the distance".
Oh, thanks so much for that Tim, including the ideal fixes and doggy tidbix (DIK? - no! "... like a bunch of lovesick cattle - weight?). Yes, of course I fully concur (and am lazily relieved that the layout won't need shrinking - I'm rather attached to the manuscript images appearing alongside the relevant content, though I imagine that editorial opinions on that might vary...).
Oof... my excuse for coming to your esteemed talk page, rather than the article talk page was, of course, the particular copyvio aspect. I suppose that in addition to following standard copyvio process, we should really post my OP question (minus the personal effusions :) and your considered response on the article talk page (I'm happy to do that, of course :).
I suppose a residual concern could regard machine translation of idiomatic French phrases such as maladie morale ("moral disease"), where I assume the sense of morale broadly corresponds to the 5th entry here ("spiritual diseasemalady / ailment", perhaps[?]). Of course, I'd be happy to collaborate on such tweaks, even though my translation skills are notoriously atrocious, haha. 86.132.54.124 (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've finished translating Berlioz's comments via Google and Microsoft. If you care to look in at my sandpit and tweak I shall be pleased. I am now working on a new section for the article covering critical opinion from the 1830s onwards. Suggestions welcome. Tim riley talk17:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: Splendid Tim! (...one minor suggestion). So happy for the page... I believe it's worth it. (marginal note: please don't feel in any way style-cramped by my "attachment" to manuscript images alongside the text :) Cheers! 86.177.202.242 (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The manuscript score is online and it is clear that Berlioz put a da capo and repeat marking in the Marche au supplice. But I mean, really! "Oh, we're nearly there, chaps, but let's go back to the clink and start the procession all over again!" I'm reluctant to draw attention to this silliness. The repeat isn't mentioned in the article and I'm inclined to leave it like that. Tim riley talk17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing the GAR on Robert Hooke. I appreciate it.
I have been so immersed in it for the past couple of weeks that I can no longer see the wood for the trees. Did you happen to notice any suitable DYK hooks in passing?
I found a good one, but we can't use it :-^ In researching the aphorism attributed to Clairaut,
"Il ne faut pas croire que cette idée ... de Hook diminue la gloire de M. Newton ["One must not think that this idea ... of Hooke diminishes Newton's glory"], Clairaut wrote; "L'exemple de Hook & celui de Kepler [serve] à faire voir quelle distance il y a entre une vérité entrevue & une vérité démontrée ["The example of Hooke and of Kepler" [serves] "to show what a distance there is between a truth that is glimpsed and a truth that is demonstrated"]
I found that the original claim (Ball, W W R (1893). An essay on Newton's "Principia". London: MacMillan. p. 69.) and the many subsequent citations of it would fail verification if it were in a Wikipedia article!
The original source is Clairaut, Alexis (1759). "Exposition abregée du systême du monde, et explication des principaux phénomenes astronomiques tirée des Principes de M. Newton" [Abridged explanation of the world system and an explanation of the principal astronomical phenomena drawn from the Principia of Mr Newton]. Principes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle. By Newton, Isaac. Rigaud (ed.). Vol. 2. Paris: Desaint et Saillant.
The aphorism is attributed to Clairaut in Ball (1893), but the introduction (Avertissement) in Volume1 merely says that the Exposition is drawn in the main from the works of Clairaut or from the notebooks that he had previously given in the form of lessons to Madame la Marquise de Chastellet.
Academic standards have gone down the toilet. Something oughter be done! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yours is the rigorous approach that cheers me greatly. For an easily understood and wholly verifiable hook you might perhaps say that in addition to his scientific discoveries he designed the Monument in London and worked with Wren on the rebuilding after the Great Fire. Tim riley talk09:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to join New pages patrol
Hello Tim riley!
The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
Hello Tim riley, My latest FAC article is attracting little attention and is now possibly going to be archived without having received a support. Any chance of you taking a look at the article for me, with a view to helping to keep the nomination afloat? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! I have replied at my Talk page. If I had only realized that you were the author of the missing comma, I would have been much more reverential in my approach! Um Gottes Willen! I am ashamed.
I am too embarrassed to ask this at the Bliss Talk page (hmmm sounds dodgy) but is there a reason why some of the names of pieces are italicized and others not? Examples: Four Songs for Voice, Violin and Piano; but Music for Strings. I am sure there is some reason for this but, preferably without making the older children laugh at me and throw things, could you please explain how it works?
As a dyed-in-the-wool Savoyard I jumped to the wrong conclusion about "Sir Arthur" in your heading, but yes I am the perpetrator of most of Bliss's article. As I understand the MoS, music titles that are generic such as Mass, Gloria, String Quartet and so on are in Romic but titles that are names are italicised. This is rather a grey area it seems to me. I probably wouldn't italicise "Serenade for Strings" as there are several such, but "Music for Strings" doesn't seem to me a generic title, though I don't press the point. If anyone chancing to read these remarks thinks fit to expand on or contradict them I shall be pleased to see their comments.
You were quite right to insert the comma I neglected to add. I try to spot such omissions when I'm writing, but having been guilty of such lapses since the 1960s I doubt if I'm going to reform adequately now. Very pleased you're planning to look in at the Offenbach FAC. You'll be among friends: Gog the Mild is already weighing in, and so will SchroCat if he knows what's good for him. I hope Dudley and Cassianto might look in, too. Tim riley talk12:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes sorry, wrong knight! I was off down a complete rabbithole because I started with Roy Harris then found to my complete astonishment that Bliss had once taught him.
Thank you very much about the titles. As an area it sounds just perfectly suitable for me to run away screaming. Watch me!
Thanks also re the comma, and the good news regarding friends looking at Offenbach.
Wotcha Tim, that's a fine photo on your Userpage - you could have stepped straight out of Death on the Nile! If you have "World enough, and Time", I'd very much appreciate an extra pair of eyes at the FAC for Grade I listed buildings in England completed in the 20th century. It's currently enjoying one Support, and green lights from the Accessibility and Image reviews, but comments have rather dried up. You were kind enough to comment yourself at PR, and you'll see the ordering has been re-cast as two other editors were as mystified as you by my original structure! I see Herr Offenbach is hardly in need of my support, and he's already had Image and Source reviews, but if there's anything else I can help with, let me know. All going well here but the constant presence of builders is rather distracting. Fortunately, the large number of public holidays and religious festivals enjoyed in this part of the world provides some respite. KJP1 (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 27 June 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Tim riley! The article you nominated, Jacques Offenbach, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frederick delius
Hey man just questioning as to why you removed my Kate bush thing, is it not part of delius legacy that he was honoured by Kate bush? capstar (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it doesnt quite matter your opinion of how much you enjoy pop music, her song has carried part of his legacy onto the modern world, try not to let your bias cloud the facts capstar (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is neither here nor there. It may be relevant to Ms Bush's article that she plagiarised Delius, but it is not relevant to his. But if you wish to persist, please discuss on the article talk page where your opinions can be seen by any interested editor rather than here where they will not. Tim riley talk11:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think, with the greatest respect, that you have this backwards. Kate Bush refers to Delius and so it should be linked from her article to his: you are reading about Bush and you can click through to see the connection – it is outgoing from her, or rather, correctly, from Never for Ever. But Delius is mentioned or used by lots of people and it is not appropriate to add them all to his article, where it just looks like trivia ... it's just, in the nicest possible way, the wrong way round. Incoming is fine! Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that Delius feels absolutely crushed under the weight of the honour that Kate Bush brings upon him; frankly, without her, would he be anything more than a ringtone today... :) ——Serial Number 5412911:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review
To anyone kind enough to visit this page, I have the article on Robert Schumann up for peer review, and will be grateful for input from colleagues I respect. I don't normally stray deeply into German music and will value comments on whether I have the balance and the tone right. Poor Schumann! What a tragic life! Tim riley talk13:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed got access to Grove, which confirms that Aleksey Ivanovich Kandinsky was the grandson of Wassily. Grove seems to think he's still with us, though born in 1918. I'll email you some more details. Tim riley talk13:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always tickled by the vagaries of heredity. One of my heroes is Sir Ernest Gowers, of Plain Words, whose father was a leading neurologist, and whose son was a fine composer, grandson a mathematician of international repute, and great-granddaughter the editor of a marvellous update of Plain Words, which is on my shelf alongside the original. – Tim riley talk13:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FAC advice
@Tim riley I don't believe we've met, but I have long observed your work on English Wikipedia. Given your extensive experience with FAC and PR, I wanted to inform you that I have nominated Catherine, Princess of Wales at FAC. I have already addressed comments from two other users, and user Nikkimaria has completed the image review. Your suggestions at FAC would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to your response and the possibility of future collaborations. Regards.. MSincccc (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley You might be amused to know that I am almost three decades younger than the lady. What are your topics of interest? I have come across your work multiple times in the past two years since becoming a contributor to English Wikipedia. Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can see what I've been busying myself with these past eighteen years by looking at my user page and opening "Best efforts" and "Brand-new efforts". From what you say I calculate that I'm old enough to be your great-grandfather, though arithmetic was never my strong suit. Tim riley talk18:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not as old as my grandfather is. Anyway, getting to the point, I'd like to make a comment on the Robert Schumann's FAC when I'm free to do so. Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley I don't mean to trouble you, but I'd like to ask if you have an interest in British royalty topics. I'm currently working on improving the Princess of Wales's article and since you were an accessibility reviewer at its archived FAC, would it be alright to notify you when it is listed at peer review? If you prefer not to be notified, please let me know. Otherwise, feel free to review the article and its content. Have a lovely evening ahead, and I look forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley Thank you for your suggestions, which were greatly appreciated. Would you mind leaving a definitive closing note regarding your views on the nomination? I look forward to your response and anticipate our future collaborations. Kind regards.MSincccc (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is using articles from The Times, The Guardian, BBC News and The Daily Telegraph as news sources in a British royalty article fine for an FAC? I am asking you because you are a Britisher as your user page denotes. This is my last point here. Thanks for considering my request. Looking forward to your response. Have a great evening ahead. MSincccc (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments once again @Tim riley. Please do let me know if you have any further suggestions (if any) else let me know what more I can do to make the biography more comprehensive. Looking forward to your response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley One last comment in this thread, please. If you cannot proceed with further comments at Catherine's PR, would you mind giving me advice as to how I should proceed before re-listing it at FAC? Also please do let me know of whether you will be available at the article's FAC. My sincere apologies if the article was too long for you to thoroughly review but that's how her life has been until now. I would, nevertheless, continue with my efforts to make it a shorter and more concise read. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My advice would be to see what other peer reviewers have to say and act on such of their suggestions as you think suitable. Politely reject well-meant suggestions for tweaking your prose unless they correct a grammatical error or clarify meaning: we are not here to impose our stylistic preferences on other editors. I'll look in at FAC if you get there and ping me, although when a subject is one completely outside my areas of interest or expertise I tend to restrict myself to commenting on the prose (as here for instance) rather than supporting or opposing. Tim riley talk10:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the FAC for this one, your reference to the mud along the Champs-Elysées outside Ledoyen brought back good memories for John and me ... can't believe it's still there! (the mud, not Ledoyen). - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your work on Igor Stravinsky demonstrating yet again why you are the Wikipedian's Wikipedian. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undid addition of Trollope's novel Is He Popenjoy?
I don't understand why you removed my addition of Trollope's novel Is He Popenjoy. The book is referenced on Trollope's bibliography page Anthony Trollope bibliography. Admittedly, the novel is still red (the individual wikipedia page is unwritten) but that is liable to change at any time. PloniAlmoni (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've lost me, I'm afraid. Removed from what? I certainly don't need confirmation that the novel is one of Trollope's. It is one of the many I have read over the years, though not, I seem to remember thinking, one of his best. Tim riley talk11:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see! Thank you, Ss! Is He Popenjoy has certainly a plot strand about a claimant to a title, but, as I recall, he's an innocent little boy (put forward by one of the nastiest villains in all Trollope) and he dies before the end of the novel. Nothing at all like the Tichborne case. Tim riley talk17:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Tim riley! The article you nominated, Robert Schumann, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just put the belligerent bishop Hensley Henson up for FAC. He was a combative creature - nothing of Barchester Towers here, but full of interest, I think.
SDudley. How nice! Thank you. The clip is squashing the first table on both the screens I use. I'd be inclined to remove the colour picture of Evans and just use the clip. Tim riley talk17:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! If you think that is better. I don’t know as much about formatting on Wikipedia, so I’d defer. I also just don’t like to step on other people’s edits. @Tim rileySDudley (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Query
@Tim riley A new book on Catherine written by the author Robert Jobson is set to be launched on 6 August. If you were the one working on her FAC, how would you have cited relevant information from that book? Looking forward to your response soon. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having satisfied yourself that the book meets the standards of WP:RS, you put this in the list of sources at the end of the article: {{cite book | last=Jobson | first=Robert | authorlink Robert Johnson | title= | year= | location= | publisher= | isbn= }}. In the text you should give the page number of anything you cite. You can do this (as I do) by inserting <ref>Jobson, p. xyz</ref> in the text or by using the sfn template (more popular now among editors, I think) {{sfn|Jobson|2024|page=xyz}}.. The latter has the advantage that you don't need to remember to conglomerate references to a particular page (e.g. citation 7 in Gabriel Fauré): the sfn template will do it for you, as in citation 27 in It's That Man Again. The disadvantage of the sfn template is that it produces a sea of blue in the citations section. You pays your money and you takes your choice. @SchroCat (or anyone else who sees this), would you care to add anything? Feel free to contradict me. Tim riley talk16:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to add, really except that the key is to be consistent in your sourcing, so if the article uses the older style at the moment, you have to stick with it. I can’t think of a more boring topic to write a book on (or an article, come to that), but each to their own. – SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley and @SchroCat Thanks for your response. But how do I access the book and it's pages given that it's a new release? Do we get "just launched" books on Internet Archive and similar websites? Looking forward to your responses. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you go out and buy it. Uusually new books are not released to libraries until six months after publication. And if aiming for FA, do not confuse "it's" (contraction of it is) with "its" (neuter possessive pronoun). Tim riley talk18:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mandell Creighton
Hello there: How would you like to work on Mandell Creighton and take it to FAC?
I will be traveling come September. I love MC's story and for reasons all of which can be laid at my doorstep, I've dawdled. Still, there are a couple of things I'd like to do to earn brownie points and assuage my guilt:
James Covert's biography of Mandell and Louise is what is most often cited in the article. I'd like to reduce that load by distributing the citations among:
Crowder's ODNB article, and
Fallow's Mandell Creighton and the English Church, OUP, 1964. (Available on the Internet Archive).
I'd like to include some material from James Kirby's Historians and the Church of England, OUP, 2011(?)
You are, of course, welcome to work on the article alongside. Regardless, it will be all yours on WWII's 85th, and very likely well before. I hope you will take on the mantle. The article needs your erudition and writing skills. Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased and honoured to be asked. I'll send you suggestions on MC's talk page as you have done for me at Henson's. If your travels include a stop in London, please come to lunch at my flat. Tim riley talk12:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tim, September 1 is upon us. The article is yours to edit and improve. I'll keep checking its progress on the weekends. If you have any queries, please post on the article's talk page or my user talk page. Here's wishing you and the Right Reverend all the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised you haven't heard of him, although he is not particularly famous outside of the piano world! You should hear his Minute Waltz in 3rds—in typical Lisztian fashion, a terrifyingly difficult arrangement.
The story goes that Liszt had a pupil (not sure that we know the name) that was not so skilled. He would come into lessons every week with a progressively worse playing of the original minute waltz and seemingly refused to improve. Apparently Liszt had had enough, so he scheduled his lesson with Rosenthal right before this student, and had him play his arrangement in 3rds. According to Rosenthal, the other student promptly dropped piano! Aza24 (talk)03:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, dear Aza24. Will you think me prissy and snobbish (or just plain stupid) if I say that I am not attracted to composers like Liszt whose works consist of more notes than music? Tim riley talk16:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it is a sentiment I find deeply entrenched in the opinions of many colleagues (even quite a few pianists), I’d be remiss to judge you. Particularly when in such good company: I believe Clara Schumann herself fell asleep when Liszt first played his B Minor Sonata for her.
I have made a conscious effort these past few years to interrogate my negative reception of many big names. Liszt wasn’t an issue (I’d liked him since my youth) but Brahms, Mendelssohn and Bartok didn’t come easy—I came to appreciate them much more after many tries. Whether this says more about me or them, I’m not sure. Bruckner is the one nut I’m yet to crack. I’m not particularly fond of Xenakis, for instance, but I understand that Messiaen encouraged him not to study harmony, which I suppose is apparent in his work! Here I am with more composer anecdotes… Aza24 (talk)04:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 (May I call you just Aza?) Bruckner – I came to him via recordings in the 1960s (Philharmonia/Klemperer), and in particular the Seventh. I was in my teens and like many musical teenagers was under Wagner's spell (it has worn off a little, but not wholly, since) and the scherzo of the Seventh seemed to me in the vein of the Flying Dutchman overture, and, as I was and will remain to my last day under the spell of Beethoven, the adagio seemed to me the next best thing to the Marcia funebre from the Eroica, and it still does. I think the Seventh is the most accessible of the symphonies, with perhaps the Fourth and Ninth as runners up. I don't think I'll ever get a handle on the Fifth. Tim riley talk19:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just Aza is fine! I understand the difficulty in escaping Beethoven, not that there is any need to. Of course, the Seventh is irresistible, while both the glory of the Ninth & Drama of the Third have never failed me. I may be the only person I know who absolutely adores the 8th, perhaps above most of the others. I'll have to give Bruckner's Seventh another listen. Aza24 (talk)04:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciation
Mister Fireberg
Stravinsky once was recognized on a train and called "Mister Fireberg".
Congratulations, Tim riley! The article you nominated, Hensley Henson, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I am profoundly ignorant about ... well, everything really ... I do have a bit of an interest in Creighton. Specifically, at home I live a few metres away from one end of Creighton Avenue, and where I am right now, in our (ahem) Northern Estates, I am just round the corner from the Creighton Memorial Hall. Not a coincidence. I shall try to keep a friendly eye on this. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim, I saw an unexplained edit by an IP user adding Klemperer's Sephardic descent, which to me seemed unnecessary and also hard to believe that the IP user checked the source before adding that. That is why i reverted it. I apologise for not checking the source first. Cheers — Gor1995𝄞13:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Et tu, Brute?. Oh, all right. If ever there's an article to bring out the loonies well-meaning half-wits conspiracy theorists, this is it. Tim riley talk14:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have Ove Jørgensen up for FAC at the moment -- it's already had a few very kind people drop in to review, but I think we're at a lull at the moment, so your thoughts and advice would be most gratefully received. UndercoverClassicistUser talk:UndercoverClassicist
Tim riley I would just like to know your opinion on one thing. Based on my edit contributions, GA promotions, and overall my work here so far, do you feel that I am too young to write FA-class articles? Do let me know of your opinion. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are too young. We all get more experienced, and one hopes, wiser, with age, but nothing venture, nothing win at any age. Tim riley talk18:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bidni has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Kimikel (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Giselle has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have put the article on Mandell Creighton up for peer review. The article has been on the tapis on and off for years, and at the suggestion of its main author, Fowler&fowler, I have extensively revised it with FAC in mind. Creighton is an interesting subject - both a fine and innovative historian and a distinguished, though too short-lived, Bishop of London. I hope to welcome interested colleagues at the PR. Tim riley talk14:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edits to Lord Driberg page
Morning. You have removed sourced information about the subject, on the basis that it isn't mentioned in either of two sources. I'm not really sure that's how Wikipedia works, is it? Surely if there is a valid source and it is encyclopaedic information then whether the subject has discussed it in his memoirs or not is irrelevant. OGBC1992 (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that if a fact is too trivial to appear in two full-length biographies, then it's likely to be too trivial to a summary article in an encyclopaedia. Looking at the Driberg article, I think this addition falls into the trivia category. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat homes in on the key point. As editors it is our job to boil down the available material from reliable sources into an encyclopaedia-sized article, concentrating on the essentials. The names of a subject's godchildren cannot reasonably be said to be an essential (particularly as Wheen and Driberg in a total of 723 pages make no mention of the matter.) If you think it is important that TD was Ms Sylvestre's godfather you may like to add it to her article. (Incidentally, verb sap, your heading is wrong: he was never Lord Driberg.) Tim riley talk16:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Tim riley! The article you nominated, Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on the Peer Review page for this article, I discovered immediately after adding my comments that the main author, Mémoiredumaquis, had died. I said then that I'd see if I could add anything of value to bring the article up to GA standard. I've had a go, but don't, in all honesty, think I've achieved that and would welcome any additions or alterations from editors including KJP1 and Ssilvers, who commented on the PR page, and from any other editor kind enough to look in. Tim riley talk13:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but you did bring it up to real B-class level, which is a big improvement, IMO. I went through it and asked a few questions (using both templates and hidden comments), and requested a couple of citations, which may already be there somewhere but should probably be repeated where requested. I also added some wikilinks, but please review to make sure that I did not misunderstand. For people who are not French, or not Christians, there are a lot of mentions of place names, Catholic lingo and dioceses that need linking. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve done a grand job of re-ordering, and making the best use possible of the limited sourcing. He’s surprisingly under-researched, or perhaps not too surprising as I suspect it was a stone many would have preferred left unturned. The extent of French/Vichy collaboration with the Nazis is a tricky subject. Rather like consideration of Francoist supporters in Spain, of whom there were many, not least in the Catholic Church hierarchy, it’s all rather an embarrassment. I’ll see whether I can add anything from the meagre book sources. KJP1 (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening Tim. I am looking to make this the TFA for 24 November. Is that ok with you? If so, do you fancy having a crack at a draft blurb? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ta much. 925 - 1,025 characters inc spaces are the hard limits. I'd do it myself, but a week down with covid has left my interaction with reality even more coincidental than usual. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about this?
The Importance of Being Earnest is a drawing-room play by Oscar Wilde, premiered on 14 February 1895 in London. The farcical comedy depicts the affairs of two young men about town who lead double lives to evade unwanted social obligations, both assuming the name Ernest to woo two young women. Other characters are the formidable Lady Bracknell, the fussy governess Miss Prism and the benign and scholarly Canon Chasuble. The play, celebrated for its wit and repartee, parodies contemporary dramatic norms and satirises late Victorian manners. Contemporary reviews praised its humour, although some critics faulted its lack of social messages. The successful opening night marked the climax of Wilde's career but was followed within weeks by his downfall: his feud with his lover's father, Marquess of Queensberry, led to a series of legal trials from March to May 1895 that resulted in Wilde's conviction and imprisonment for homosexual acts. The play closed in May after 86 performances. Wilde wrote no more comic or dramatic works. The play has been revived frequently and adapted for radio, television, film, operas and musicals. (Full article...)
The Importance of Being Earnest is a drawing-room play by Oscar Wilde, premiered on 14 February 1895 in London. The farcical comedy depicts two young men about town who lead double lives to evade unwanted social obligations, both assuming the name Ernest to woo two young women. The play, celebrated for its wit and repartee, parodies dramatic norms and satirises late Victorian manners. Contemporary reviews praised its humour, though some critics faulted its lack of social messages. The successful opening night marked the climax of Wilde's career but was followed quickly by his downfall: his feud with his lover's father, Marquess of Queensberry, led to a series of legal trials from March to May 1895 that resulted in Wilde's conviction and imprisonment for homosexual acts. The play closed in May after 86 performances; Wilde wrote no more comic or dramatic works. The play has been revived frequently and adapted for radio, television, film, operas and musicals. (Full article...)
The Importance of Being Earnest is a drawing room comedy by Oscar Wilde, premiered on 14 February 1895 in London. It depicts the affairs of two young men about town who lead double lives to evade unwanted social obligations, both assuming the name Ernest to woo two young women. Other characters are the formidable Lady Bracknell, the fussy governess Miss Prism and the benign and scholarly Canon Chasuble. The play, celebrated for its wit and repartee, parodies contemporary dramatic norms and comically satirises late Victorian manners. The triumphant opening night was followed within weeks by Wilde's downfall and imprisonment for homosexual acts and the closure of the production, but from the early 20th century onwards the play has been revived frequently and adapted for radio, television, film, operas and musicals. 948 words including spaces.
The Importance of Being Earnest is a drawing-room play by Oscar Wilde, premiered on 14 February 1895 in London. The farcical comedy depicts two young men about town who lead double lives to evade unwanted social obligations, both assuming the name Ernest to woo two young women. Other characters are the formidable Lady Bracknell and the fussy governess Miss Prism. The play parodies dramatic norms and satirises late Victorian manners. Contemporary reviews praised its humour, though some faulted its lack of social messages. The successful opening night marked the climax of Wilde's career. His feud with his lover's father, Marquess of Queensberry, led to a series of legal trials from March to May 1895 that resulted in Wilde's conviction and imprisonment for homosexual acts. The play closed in May after 86 performances; Wilde wrote no more comic or dramatic works. The play has been revived frequently and adapted for radio, television, film, operas and musicals. (Full article...)
It is your article gents. By all means let us not be po faced. So Tim's version, but could we perhaps sneak in one more factoid? "The triumphant opening night was followed within weeks by Wilde's downfall and imprisonment for homosexual acts and the closure of the production, and Wilde wrote no more comic or dramatic works. From the early 20th century onwards the play has been revived frequently ..."? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations to you and your brilliant colleague on your work! SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see – thank you. Yet another initiative by Wikipedia activists to make life more difficult for contributors and readers alike, but we're used to that. Tim riley talk23:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joyce Grenfell
Hello Tim
You didn't like my addition to the Joyce Grenfell article. I cited some of the information about the wedding published in The Times in 1929. I need hardly remind you that it was a newspaper of record and one of the most respected of the period. Their piece published the wedding date (accurately); the names of all 293 guests attending the reception, some of whom I mentioned; and where it took place. If any of that had been inaccurate don't you think somebody would have written to The Times?
You described my contribution as "social tittle tattle". The Cambridge dictionary defines that as "talk about other people's lives that is usually unkind, disapproving, or not true". I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning on how that applies to my edit.
I would welcome you agreement that my addition is indeed authentic, and permit me to reinstate it.
Best wishes, John Jgdc47B (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jgdc47B, I do not doubt that the information is accurate, but it is trivial and unencyclopaedic. It is not a question of accuracy but one of notability. As JG's biographer Janie Hamilton does not find it appropriate to mention – in her 400+ page book – Mitford, Seaman et al at the wedding how could we justify taking the space to do so in a concise encyclopaedia article? The ODNB doesn't and nor, in my view, should we.
Please note that discussions like this belong on the article talk page where all interested editors can see them rather on a user's talk page, seen by few. Tim riley talk11:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Champagne
(moved from preceding section to avoid muddling two separate topics)
SchroCat, thanks for looking in. While you're here, may I ask for your thoughts on the question posed here? One could argue it either way and I don't want to impose my view if others disagree with it. (All editors' view welcome, natch.) And I imagine you've got some Wine Society champagne in your racks, in which case you may like to run an eye over this article I've just put up. All suggestions for improvement welcome. Tim riley talk12:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. The only quibble (and it is mere pedantry on my part): you are not consistent with whether you use a serial comma or not. - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware it's covered in the text. But it's still useful to have it in the lead. You seem utterly determined to revert everything that you don't agree with. I'm not sure who you think appointed you guardian of these articles, but I must say that's rather how you're acting. fellowship not needed, but could go in the same section if wanted, though we don't usually list non-honorary degrees and similar. We do, however, always include postnoms for fellowships. As you appear to be in the UK, you surely must be aware how important postnominals are in the UK. You have now deleted them from the articles entirely. Congratulations on deleting useful information! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely concur with Necrothesp that it's a pity the MoS has suddenly banned post-nominals from leads, but as neither the ODNB nor Grove has them in their leads I suppose Wikipedia is, for once, following established encylopaedic form. I shall be very sorry not to see "Sir Thomas Beecham, Bart, CH" in that conductor's lead, as all the EPs and LPs I had in my youth had the post noms firmly in place, but we must pay obeisance to the Manual of Style, alas. Tim riley talk17:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think it's a ridiculous and knuckle-headed idea. Looking at the thread, it's down mostly colonial lines, with those who don't understand it on one side, and those who are used to it on the other. One particularly crass comment said they "devote undue weight to royal and aristocratic privilege", which is completely ignorant nonsense. Churchill had a long list of the damned things, and was neither royal nor aristocratic - most people who have them are, similarly, nothing of the sort, but what are people to do in the face of such ignorance. It's a shame I didn't know about the RFC or I'd have happily joined in and educated several who didn't know what they were talking about. - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there are a (small but vocal) number of editors who would like to remove all titles, honorifics, postnominals and anything else that is seen as "non-egalitarian" from Wikipedia. Accuracy and usefulness be damned. The fact that this is an encyclopaedia and not a soapbox escapes them. This is why I am trying to add infoboxes to any article where postnominals have been removed from the first line. I'm sorry if this comes across in the wrong way, but I am becoming ever more exasperated by these people. And I have a horrible feeling that eventually they will get their own way and if we want to find out that Barbirolli and Bliss were even knighted we'll have to wade through the entire article (because even adding "Sir" to the first line will eventually be seen as devoting "undue weight to royal and aristocratic privilege"). Some editors seem to believe that if Americans don't do it then it shouldn't be included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the three parties to this exchange are of one mind on the matter, which is pleasing. It is a comfort of sorts that neither Grove nor the ODNB puts postnominal letters in its biographical articles, but I agree it is tiresome of the anti-honours cabal to override the wishes of main editors and reviewers of our articles. It pains me to say it, but we may have to start adding i-boxes to composer/musician FAs, useless as they are there. The one I inherited at Robert Schumann is a waste of space but does no actual harm. Tim riley talk11:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Elgar Heath.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Elgar Heath.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia in 2024! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2025! ♦ Dr. Blofeld08:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More Greetings
I have no seasonal cats or other animals of the manger to offer, but here is a promising-looking topper for hot chocolate. Best wishes to you for a peaceful, fulfilling year ahead! -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it."
(Text on page 17 illustrated in the frontispiece in Juliana Horatia Ewing's Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers, illustrated by Mary Wheelhouse, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.)
@Tim riley Wishing you a Happy New Year! Apologies for the early greeting—consider it a head start to a fantastic year ahead. I hope we can collaborate more in the coming year, and thank you for all the advice you’ve shared with me over the past year. MSincccc (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
British Library has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.JPG)
