Oh, bloody Hell! As BB is temporarily hors de combat I'll look at the blurb, and keep an eye on the main text after it's been TFA, and tidy up if need be. Tim riley talk22:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - you're retired? I hope you are well. Just a note to let you know that after a lot of work (hardly any of it mine, at least in recent months; I'm sort of 'retired' as well), the Paris article is looking pretty good again, so I submitted it for GA review. Just to let you know that all your kind attention and patience was not in vain. You take care, sir ; ) THEPROMENADER✎✓21:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For your work on Kenneth Clark. There is few others of his era more responsible for popularising high art and making it accessible, though nowadays everybody is at it, a pure sign of the success of his legacy. In reaching out he never compromised or patronised the wider elements of his audience. Ceoil (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still beavering away on it in my sandbox, but hope to move my efforts into the main space at some point. Truth to tell, I had forgotten what damned hard work it is to research and write a Wikipedia article, and I'm taking it slowly. If I do post my revision into the main space I shall certainly ask you and several others present at this month's uproarious gathering at King's Cross to peer review the article. In 1969, when I was 17, we sat down en famille every week for 13 weeks and watched Civilisation enthralled. I hadn't seen it again till last month, and I feared some disappointment. Would Clark seem too patrician and stiff? Would the camerawork pass muster five decades on? Would it all be too discursive and slow? No, yes, and no, respectively. The pace is certainly slow – daringly, rivetingly so. Clark trusts the viewer's intelligence, and spends two or three minutes on a single topic on which a modern presenter would not dare to spend more than thirty seconds for fear of exceeding the audience’s attention span. It made me feel I must take a break from retirement and try to get KC's article up to the standard it deserves. Once I have finished the Clark article I might well have a go at the one on Civilisation before sinking happily back into retirement. Tim riley talk22:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was barely a glint in my father's eye in 1969, and of course we didn't have BBC until around 1988 anyway. I first saw it in 2002, aged 29 or something, via a rather expensive box-set bought excitedly in Amsterdam, because we didnt have proper shops in Cork, along with The Ascent of Man (there is a rather fantastic Parky interview with Bronowski on youtube) Watched in one massive weekend splurge, and Bronowski the week after. I knew Clark from the "Looking at Pictures" series, which are so straightforward and clear, they told me, its ok to think about classical art without being a pretentious twit (see also David Sylvester for a similar approach to 1930s-50 painting and sculpture). Clark is a bit stiff, but in a charming way - he doesn't quite understand the camera. "exceeding the audience’s attention span" - I'm sure you'll agree that this is why the series works and you remember it from your childhood; its not a rapid slide show, it takes the audience seriously and doesn't just titillate, and when he focuses, the object or subject gets substantial and penetrating attention. You probably know better than me now, having researched fully, but the overused terms "groundbreaking" and "seminal" are apt here; nothing like this had ever been done before, and the documentary format was then in in its infancy. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Astronomica FAN
Hello! I hope everything is well. Several months ago, you provided some helpful suggestions to improve the article Astronomica that I was working on. Well, since then, I've put in a lot of work into it and am currently nominating it at FAC. I was wondering if you would be willing to look over the article as it is and maybe leave some comments on the FA nomination page? I would really appreciate it. Thanks!--Gen. Quon(Talk)15:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim riley. If you're at all interested, I re-submitted the Astronomica for FAN here. I realize and completely respect that you're retired, but I figured sending you a note is worth a shot. :) Thanks.--Gen. Quon(Talk)15:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A Barnstar for You
The MegaWikipedians' Award of Excellence
As I'm more in a position to be able to judge editors having contributed more than three articles, ahem, I award you the Megapedian's Barnstar of Excellence. Great to see you back and producing top notch content. ♦ Dr. Blofeld16:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I wouldn't place much emphasis on the term "Megapedian", it's deliberately stupid, the point is that you are one of the best editors here. Was a joy to work with you on Keswick and I missed you.♦ Dr. Blofeld16:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind, and greatly appreciated, but I'm only making a brief reappearance for the purpose of upgrading Kenneth Clark's article as a small homage having been wowed by the reissued Civilisation on BBC I-player. I may possibly have a go at the Civilisation article before sinking back into retirement. Best wishes, Tim riley talk18:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back!
Welcome back to Wikipedia!
I am so very pleased and happy to see you, one of our dearest friends and fellow editors, this back at Wikipedia, and improving articles such as Kenneth Clark for possible GAs and FAs too! We all did miss you, Sir! — Ssven2Looking at you, kid07:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I shall probably be looking in later this year. I have pre-FAC overhauls of two articles tentatively planned, each being done jointly with one of the fellow editors who were round the lunch table with you and me at the Parcel Yard a few weeks ago. Nothing signed, sealed and delivered yet, and I oughtn't to name the articles at this stage. But one of them is on a well known artist, stage designer and caricaturist, which may perhaps appeal to you. Meanwhile I must blow the dust off this charm and wit you speak of. More anon. Tim riley talk13:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are semi-retired from wikipedia these days, so feel free to ignore this, but you have now given me extremely useful GA reviews twice, on Sappho and Tithonus poem, and so I thought I'd ask just in case. I am looking to put Brothers Poem (another Sappho article!) up for featured status in the relatively near future, and wondered whether you'd be able to give it a look over? I've opened a peer review request here if you are interested.
This is to advise you that the peer review in which you recently participated has now been closed. Many thanks for your help. The article has been nominated at FAC.
(PS: I am working on a suitable anagram for Timothy Riley (assuming that your real first name isn't something poncey like Timberlake). Brianboulton (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Their Limy toy? - Rhyme, oily tit! - SchroCat (talk)
The best I could do for "Timothy Riley" was a rather schoolboyish "Hey, Mr Oily Tit", but your plays on my name are funnier. This game could get addictive... Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you win that one, Brian. The best I can do for "Timothy Riley" is "Timely? Oh I Try..." As far as I know, he's always at the Parcel Yard in a timely fashion; that is until it's his round... CassiantoTalk17:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed all three of you with my final word on this subject, which I simply dare not reproduce here for fear of a fatal handbagging by a harem member. Tim riley talk17:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: Thank you for those kind words, CC. I am genuinely unsure whether it is appropriate for me to go ahead with a GAN review. The article looks impressive at first glance, and it would be a pity if its chances of promotion were scuppered because I found myself talking into a void on the review page. Tim riley talk15:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a void, I think. I found the editor willing but surprised by how much needed to be done, and how technical it would be in places. It may be that your article is in a more complete state, I don't know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tim riley. You have new messages at Talk:Nicholas Exton/GA1. Message added 16:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
If anyone watches this talk page nowadays, may I mention that SchroCat and I have overhauled the article on Elizabeth David and have it up for FAC, where comments are invited from anyone thus inclined. – Tim riley talk11:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
McEvoy
Reading the Cooper book, it seems the portrait was done as a gift for the mother and so perhaps wasn't as likely to be published at that time? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is pure speculation on my part, but I reckon Stella Gwynne – ED's very socially aware mother – would have been happy to have the painting in the glossies and even the local paper, but I may be quite wrong. Thank you, dear Nikkimaria, for taking so much trouble over this: it is above and beyond the call of duty and I am truly most grateful. Tim riley talk18:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Unfortunately my thoughts are if we can't show an earlier publication - and I haven't found one thus far - we likely can't use the image absent another reason why it might be in the public domain in the US (and possibly even in the UK.). A fair-use claim likely wouldn't be justifiable. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, quite, on the last point. One could hardly maintain that it's essential to know what ED looked liked aged nine. I daresay we can fill the gap with a picture of the house she grew up in. As to the UK copyright, how very odd that the chart doesn't refer to paintings! Be that as it may, thank you very much for your patient efforts. Tim riley talk19:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, but not always. The US status is more of an issue, though - if it were free in the US but not the UK we could upload locally, but if it were free in the UK but not the US we could not upload either to Commons or locally unless under a FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The usual sources only turn up the same distant views for Wootton. The Historic England site here [1] has quite a nice user contribution at the bottom but I've no clue as to whether it could be used. KJP1 (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's the right house, despite being on Hysteric England's site. It doesn't look anything like the pictures in the ED biographies. But even if it is, I don't think it could squeak in as public domain. Thank you for searching, though, dear KJP1. Tim riley talk19:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right. Wootton is a more common place name than I supposed and the possibilities for confusion over Wootton House are considerable. That said, the photo looks very Detmar Blow to me. I’ll keep looking, although your current selection will meet your need for FAC. KJP1 (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Priestley
Hi, just been editing a Hungrian actress article. [2] this source in Hungarian mentions that she played Marion in a Priestley play, it translates on google as Lonely Road, but I would guess it was probably "Desert Highway". Any chance you or a stalker or Aymatth2 could figure out what play it is which has the Marion character and create a new article on it perhaps?♦ Dr. Blofeld12:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only Marion I know of in a Priestley play is Marion de Saint Vaury in The Linden Tree (1947), which I haven't seen or read, but we have got an article on. I'll add the dramatis personae and original cast to it. Marion is in her late thirties, I gather, a snobby Englishwoman married to a French aristocrat. Tim riley talk13:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be that then. Thanks, hope you're well.♦ Dr. Blofeld
To anyone who still watches this page: Ssilvers and I have put Sullivan's article up for peer review, with a view to taking it to FAC. All quibbles, questions, suggestions and obiter dicta will be warmly welcomed. Tim riley talk22:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Tim riley. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
I didn't want to take such a trivial thing to the PR page when I'm in no doubt about my inability to contribute usefully and seriously there. At the same time, I didn't want to fiddle with the article itself while it's in the middle of PR, a process in which I am new and still moderately confused.
So, it's just this:
At the end of the second paragraph in the lead, you have: He supplemented his income by working as a church organist and music teacher, and by writing hymns, parlour ballads and other light pieces. This reads very slightly oddly to me because I am not sure what income he is supplementing - has he by then become a professional composer and so it is his serious compositional income needs supplementing? Or is he still a student or has a paper round or is juggling in Covent Garden? Now, later on the article it all becomes perfectly clear. This is because you say, around the end of "Mendelssohn scholar" and the start of "Rising composer", that he is working as a composer and that he's earning extra with his organ (as it were) or in teaching an ting. Is it possible, or necessary, do you think, to get something along those lines into the lead so that it is clear that, whilst the income we're talking about isn't enough, it is real, and is his - if you like - main income from his intended career as a composer?
How to do this without being horrible wordy? I have no idea. I did have an idea but unfortunately I have destroyed it with my own scrutiny. I suspect, however, that something brief and elegant might present itself to you. Unless, of course, you don't agree anyway, in which case I shall sulk for up to three minutes but then get over it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, DBaK, and it is most kind of you to raise the point here. (I am perfectly sure your charming modesty about adding to the views on the peer review is misplaced, if I may be impertinent enough to say so.) How would this sentence be instead of the existing text: He supplemented the income from his concert works by writing hymns, parlour ballads and other light pieces, and working as a church organist and music teacher.? If that looks OK I'll float it in the PR page. – Tim riley talk17:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfect put thus, and thank you for your tolerance. I hope you realize that it is all your fault that I am now listening to Ivanhoe on my Wretched Young Persons' Portable Phonographical Engine? I am trying very hard to Listen Without Prejudice™ and rather enjoying it so far. Chandos 2010, yes, since you ask (I get the impression that the record shops' shelves are hardly groaning under the weight of choice here). Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS Good Lord, someone's just sung "Ashby de la Zouche". I think that's an operatic first in my limited experience.
Excellent. I'll run the amendment past my co-nom and the peer reviewers. (Please keep this to yourself, but I have had that Chandos set of Ivanhoe since it came out, and have never managed to listen to it all through to the end. I've only found one good tune in the piece, and that sounds straight out of G&S - "Ho Jolly Jenkin". If anyone sees this admission I shall denounce it as a forgery and Fake News.) Tim riley talk18:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are we missing any major new recordings in the Recordings section of the article? I added the Bonynge, although if you don't think it's important enough, please delete. On the other hand, do we mention any recordings that are comparatively less important and should be deleted? -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check tomorrow when at Riley Towers, but at first glance it looks fine to me. Now, my dear Ss, perpend: we undertook to add a section on influences. Pray have a look at my sandpit and see what you think of my draft. Tim riley talk18:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, the PR for the above, to which you kindly contributed, is now closed and the FAC opened. If you have the time and inclination, in amongst the other requests filling your dance card, (see above!), your comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone spots this and is interested in Sullivan – with or without Gilbert – Ssilvers and I have now nominated the page as a Featured Article Candidate. We shall be very glad of thoughts and suggestions on the review page. Tim riley talk11:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seasonal greetings for 2017, and best wishes for 2018. Heartfelt thanks to you for your contributions, which have done much to enhance the encyclopedia and make me feel it's worthwhile to keep contributing. So here's to another year's productive editing, with old feuds put aside and peace, goodwill and friendship for all! Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, dear BB. I identify with E Scrooge Mark 1, before those meddlesome ghosts put their oar in, but seasonal greetings cordially reciprocated nonetheless. Tim riley talk22:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas to all!
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
Ha! Enjoy the Musar – always enjoyable stuff it is too, and I may well have some tomorrow, even if it means sharing it with the in laws. Have a great Christmas and see you on the other side. – SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is too trivial to raise at the Sullivan FAC and I'm unsure about the etiquette anyway, plus I may well be wrong.
In the Knighthood and later years section you have this:
The World called it "one of the greatest creations we have had for many years. Original, bold, inspired, grand in conception, in execution, in treatment, it is a composition which will make an "epoch" and which will carry the name of its composer higher on the wings of fame and glory. ... The effect of the public performance was unprecedented."
I am wondering about the double quote marks around "epoch" which are enclosed within an existing, or ongoing, set of double quote marks for that whole quotation from The World. Should the pair around "epoch" not perhaps be single?
Apologies if I have misremembered something, missed the point, or failed to see a relevant discussion or an FAQ. (I did read MOS:DOUBLE and I used to typeset academic books for a picky publisher ... but neither of these things makes me right!) I do hope this helps but I quite understand if it does not! With best wishes to you both, and congratulations on a great article, DBaK (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you, dear DBaK! Your comments, and those of other kind colleagues, helped us get the page to FA. I hope it will not seem impertinent when I say I hope you will be less reticent in future about wading in at PR and FAC. Not reticent at all, preferably. Nominators need the keen eyes and shrewd comments like yours! And don't hesitate to ping me if you want comments on any future PR or FAC you are putting up. Happy New Year to you and yours! Tim riley talk13:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
