Hi Tim, and a very warm happy new year to you. A few months ago you were kind enough to comment on the PR for the Aberfan disaster. After a slight delay to allow some of the images to become PD, the article is now at FAC. Any further comments would be most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly! I'll put it at the top of my to-do-list along with SchroCat's chastening article, immediately above. Seasonal greetings most warmly reciprocated, natch. Tim riley talk16:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim. I saw this and I wanted to respond personally. In a way I feel the same about you; you got it wrong here, and you got it wrong spectacularly here. Anybody can get it wrong once in a while, but as adults we should be able to reflect on mistakes and learn from them. I respect the good work you do as a copyeditor, but to allow an article to run as TFA calling a feminist icon by her first name throughout was shameful; it reflects badly on our project which I still love in spite of everything, and it should have been picked up earlier. I know you thought "sexist claptrap" a bit strong but I'm afraid I stand by it. This was an awful solecism and I invite you to acknowledge that as I look forward to helping you and the rest of the FAC community to do a better job in the future. I don't quite believe in this yet, but it is a thing to think about. Best regards, --John (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Email
Hello, Tim riley. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks. Its a celebration of the harvest season in our country. A very colourful and entertaining set of festivals, and also a very big part of Indian and Tamil culture. Anyone can celebrate it. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid10:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help?
Tim, if you visit my talk page you will see that someone has queried a quotation in the article Lieutenant Kijé, saying that it does not appear in the cited source. You may just recognise the quote as something you gave me, probably during email correspondence since at that time (August 2016) I recall you had temporarily severed your links with WP – at any rate, I can't find any reference to the matter in the Wikipedia pages. Unfortunately, my email correspondence of August 2016 was lost when I destroyed my laptop last summer. Could you possibly see if you can dig out from your own records any reference to this quote? I'd be most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alfietucker: How very pleasing to hear from you, Alfie! I have missed you sorely, and still do. I managed RVW on my own, but I'm blest if I'm tackling Richard Strauss without you. I hope all is right as right can be with you. Tim riley talk22:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I must have a look at your handiwork! Alas, I feel I can't commit to working on any full-scale article upgrades for now (too much writing to do IRL), though I hope maybe to be useful in small ways here and there - perhaps the odd peer review process? Meanwhile all power to your elbow, and hope to see more of you. Alfietucker (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I see you have your hands full, but if you get a chance, I would greatly appreciate and value your feedback at this PR. Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be there. I'm putting the last touches to the PR tweaks suggested by you and SchroCat for Sir Osbert and then I'll clock in at the Cloisters. Tim riley talk10:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I see you which ever way I turn...! Good Tim, would be willing and / or able to cast your gimlet eye over John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, and throw in what criticism you see feet? Any input you could give would be much apreciated. I understand you must be busy with young Osbert: I understand if you cannot. I hope you are very well! Cheers, >SerialNumber54129...speculates11:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: I most certainly didn't, and I am prodigiously in your debt for telling me. I spent ages only the other day laboriously transcribing something from an old Daily Express for an American colleague. This comes under the heading of tidings of great joy. Bless you! Tim riley talk20:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: as I live 20 minutes' stroll from the BL and pop in there most weeks I am entirely at your service for any ad hoc rummaging you may want doing. I do it now and again for several colleagues. Pray bear it in mind. Tim riley talk20:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, you know—if you possess such a devil's device!—you can also use your smart phone to take pictures of things... i.e. pages of things. I saw someone in their the other day literally photographing their way through a small tome. The reason so many people noticed of course was that the b*gger hadn't turned their tones off, and the click*click was driving the table potty. Yes, it's clearly in breach of copyright law, but the only paramenter seems to be the memory on one's phone and the size of the battery! Yo, Tim, thanks for everything. >SerialNumber54129...speculates20:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I knew, and have done so only last week, with very good results. But though one can photograph books one isn't allowed to photograph anything on screen, which is a bit of a pain. Tim riley talk21:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was the Daily Express on screen? If so, the same restrictions may apply. In the copy centre you can copy from paper to a USB or send the results to your email address. I use my London Library account or EBSCO - or public library card - for online access. Are there online sources which can be accessed from BL computers and not elsewhere? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I was in there yesterday researching St Edith, who was appointed abbess of Nunnaminster but turned it down, according to her hagiographer Goscelin. One source I checked says that in the view of Susan Ridyard in Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England at [1] pp. 41-42 Goscelin invented the whole thing. I would like a copy of the pages to check what she said but I was past the deadline for ordering further books that day. Many thanks if you can help. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. If you send me an email via the "Email this user" link on the left-hand side of my user page, I can reply, attaching the images of the two pages. Tim riley talk13:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am unfortunately aware that certain users originate from that county associated with Lancaster, which is located on the wrong side of the (currently rather snowy) Pennines. But calling someone a Lancastrian is a far greater insult than calling someone a Londoner, so I thought it more professional to describe said user by their place of residence. I know not everyone has the privilege of coming from God's Own County. (Hope you're well!) Sarastro (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making me laugh (a lot). On a cold, windy, snowy day like this a good laugh, even if I have to be grateful to a Yorkshireman for it, is a real blessing. If Winter comes, can Spring be far behind? Answers on a postcard please. Tim riley talk17:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, very much appreciated. I'm not convinced it's suitable for FA. It is, after all, a very minor public school! But I am casting around for another project so if all else fails. All the best and take care. KJP1 (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have put Messager up for PR with a view to a shot at FAC, and if anyone who is kind or misguided enough to watch this page would care to look in, it will be esteemed a favour. Tim riley talk20:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate you putting the Crit. reception section back. I'm going to expand it - hopefully later on, and will take a look at the formatting info. Beryl reid fan (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, if you format your additions in accordance with Wikipedia policies there will be no problem. They seem to be sensible and well sourced. Tim riley talk21:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Thank you. I'm not the most technically minded person, and always use User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill to fill out my references. I'm not really sure how to do it otherwise. Please bear with me. Beryl reid fan (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I wonder if I'd have liked to meet him? An interesting man, but perhaps not everyone's cup of tea. But a minor – perhaps not so very minor – genius nonetheless. And whom or what shall we be meeting as your next FAC? Tim riley talk16:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He was as influential as he was creative. The review describing "Homes Sweet Homes" as "one of the most influential books on architecture ever published – and certainly the funniest" has peeked my interest, am on a book buying spree atm following a modest windfall. I was hoping the uber-goth Black Hours, MS M.493 would be next, but have hit a brick wall re sources - anymore just do not exist. Oh well. Ceoil (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With pleasure - I did have a read through a while back but the distinctions between opérette, opéra comique and operetta, never mind opéra bouffe and opera buffa, made my head spin rather. But I shall see what little I can suggest. KJP1 (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim! Some years ago you were planning to split the 'Burlesque' article in two, separating out the section about american theatre shows. Is that still a plan? The current taxonomy is a bit of a mess, and the matching to other language versions (which sometimes have separate articles for the literary burlesque and burlesque as a show) is quite chaotic. So, if you still plan to split the article, that could be very helpful! AntonBryl (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, speaking as one who can barely tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies I think I must be allowed to delegate to you, my dear Johnbod the task of selecting and adding the new pictures. We must make full use of Wikipedia's art experts. Tim riley talk22:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Miss Dicksee doesn't mess about and gives you a good strong shot of sentiment. I've dug up the St Cecilia - sadly discoloured because of Reynolds unwise technical experiments, here with wax. I mistakenly misread things & thought you were the main author - I didn't realize there was a situation. Very sad - too many editors are being hit this way. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I have been led astray from the paths of righteousness by the curious tale of Phyllis and Aristotle (given what I've been doing at GAN). I've cobbled together an entertaining story but am more than aware of the gaps in my literary knowledge. You might be amused to take a look, a rainy bank holiday being an ideal opportunity, perhaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An example to us all, at his age, judging by the pictures. I too have inadvertently stumbled on goings-on in unexpected articles: researching for an article about Handel I ran across this: "... the 1734 revival of Il pastor fido, 'which was enlivened by some dances for a licentious French dancer called Mlle Sallé, and her satellites, a disreputable gang of females'...". Sounds like scope for an article on Mlle Sallé. Tim riley talk15:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to thank you for adding Love in Bath while busy dealing with Messager. I am a sort of selective Beecham fan - but this work I have a soft spot for. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very pleasing message to get. I'm working on the other Beecham-Handel ballet suites, but it's like trying to do a jigsaw with one's eyes shut. Beecham kept changing things round, adding, cutting, moving things from one suite to another, as of course did Handel before him. I spent a day at the British Library going through the published scores, which was enjoyable but confusing. I hope to have an article of sorts posted in a few days. Tim riley talk08:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Featured article candidate
A note to anyone who happens to read this and might be interested: André Messager, after a tremendous peer review, is now at FAC, where my co-nom – Ssilvers – and I will be glad to have your thoughts. Tim riley talk10:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tim,
Am planning to wrap the above up at PR and roll on to FAC. I wonder if you could do me a favour, should you be dropping by the BL at any point. Both of the texts below, Venning Cite 10, and Procter, Cite 44, are currently lacking page numbers. The Google snippets, from where I obtained them, are those irritating versions that don't give the numbers. To be frank, neither's vital, but I'd rather keep them if poss. I wonder if the BL has them? The Rylands, out here in the sticks, doesn't. Don't put yourself out, but if it were possible to get them, it would be much appreciated. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procter, Ben (2007). William Randolph Hearst: The Later Years, 1911-1951. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199830794.
Venning, Timothy (2017). Kingmakers: How Power in England Was Won and Lost on the Welsh Frontier. Stroud, UK: Amberley Publishing. ISBN 9781445659411.
p.s. Many congrat.s to you and Ss on Monsieur Messager. Why hasn't he got his bronze star yet?
I so agree about lack of page numbers for Kindle books and suchlike. Happy to look up the page numbers, but though the BL has the Procter book on site, and can whistle that up at 70 mins' notice, its catalogue seems to deny all knowledge of a print version of the Venning, though we know there is one. I shall enquire viva voce when I pop in, probably on Wednesday or Thursday. More anon.
Excellent, and many thanks. It occurs to me that the Venning, which only came out in 2017 and lies on the "popular" end of the history spectrum, may well be in Waterstones. I shall sidle along. Hope you're keeping well. KJP1 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos none of the above, I meant to say that I found "The Secret Lives of Somerset Maugham" by Selina Hastings in Oxfam recently. Went it through in a week. A superb read and what an utterly tragic end. I must read some of his stories, as you recommended. KJP1 (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very nice man, and not a very stylish writer of prose, but what a story-teller! I think one could make a case for his being England's greatest writer of short stories. If I had to recommend a handful to start with, I'd go for The Three Fat Women of Antibes, The Creative Impulse, The Treasure, Mr Know-All, and The Facts of Life. – Tim riley talk21:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Boulez GA nomination
Thank you very much for taking on the GA review of Boulez and for your encouraging initial view. I'm delighted it's you, as the Britten article was a reference for me when I started work on PB and I've often consulted it to see how to solve various problems. As luck wold have it I'm out of the country on holiday til next Sunday with access only to an iPad - but I'll start to chip away at some of the simpler tasks in the meantime. Thanks again and I look forward to your comments. Dmass (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmass: Flattery will get you everywhere. I hope you're holidaying somewhere warmer and drier than it is here. I'll take my review at a leisurely pace with the aim of completing my comments by this time next week or thereabouts. I often went to concerts conducted by Boulez, from the 1970s to the 2000s, but only once, I think, saw him conducting his own music: cummings ist der Dichter. I thought he was a very fine conductor. – Tim riley talk11:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens I bought a very nice bottle of pink champagne – non-vintage, but highly rated – today, to be drunk tomorrow at a matinée musicale where the works of André Messager will feature, inter alia. I'd save a glass for you, but (i) you are a most abstemious person and (ii) I am a greedy lush. Be that as it may, I've been lucky to have such a collaborator as you. Tim riley talk19:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript: on enlarging the image in your kind award I see the bottle is Ch Meyney, which I have had and much enjoyed. I once shared a magnum of the great 1961 vintage with two friends at the Tate Gallery restaurant. Happy days! Tim riley talk19:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim. Thanks for your very kind offer left on the talk page of The World (journal). My request isn't urgent at all so no rush. So according to the autobiography of James Francis Dwyer, "The World" had a front page article on him following the success of his debut novel The White Waterfall. I can only assume "The World" is this publication. The article was entitled "From Car Conductor to Popular Novelist" and apparently had a sub-heading "From ten dollars a week to ten thousand a year". That's the article I'm looking for. Those direct quotes are taken from the 1949 autobiography so they may be some slight variation in wording if Dwyer's memory wasn't 100% accurate. The White Waterfall was published in 1912.
This June 1912 issue of the New York Times [3] said it would be published "this month". I can find about 10 reviews of the book in American newspapers between June and December 1912. I'm not sure if the release date in the UK were different but I can't imagine it being too far off.
I have spent many a day searching through microfiche for Wikipedia. If I were searching for this front page article I'd probably start early 1912 to be safe and expect to find it before the end of 1913, as there's bound to be some delay between the date the book was released and when it became popular. Obviously I want to take up as little of your time as possible though, so I'd be happy with any kind of search made. Just let me know what dates were searched through if you didn't find it. On the bright side The World was a weekly publication so at least it won't be anywhere near as tedious as searching through a daily publication. Let me know if you think you'd be able to help, and no worries if this kind of search (I.e. without a specific date) is beyond what you're willing to commit to. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, never mind Tim, I found another source that refers to this elusive article and while Dwyer simply refereed to it as 'World' the publication he is referring to is actually New York World. Thanks anyway. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: I am not wholly without knowledge of cricket (although Sarastro1 might raise an eyebrow at that assertion) and have seen Worcs, though not, I think Somerset, play against my native county, but I'll be glad to look in anyway. Tim riley talk18:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?
Hi Tim riley,
I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.
Thank you for asking me, but at present I'm really rather fully occupied with creating and revising content, doing GAN assessments and contributing to peer reviews and FACs, and with regret had better decline your kind invitation. Tim riley talk18:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What a very nice message to get! Thank you, sir! I was exceptionally lucky in having two top-notch collaborators on this one: just as well, as to be honest I was swimming with one foot on the bottom, being no expert on, or even a particular fan of, Debussy. I just felt that the old article was so gruesomely bad that Something Must Be Done, and I think we've done it properly between us. Flying solo, I'm within my comfort zone chez Vaughan Williams, who will be on the front page in four days' time. Tim riley talk14:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid pictures (and full marks to Satie) but wouldn't we fall foul of the copyright prefects as the photographer lived till 1925? Meanwhile, I'm happy to have first go at post-front-page cleaning up, if that's OK with you and Dmass? Tim riley talk07:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll make a note for 7 years timeThe rules say 70 years after death as I read them In fact it's OK and already on commons - File:Debussy Stravinsky 1910.PNG ; very happy meanwhile to leave any cleaning up to you.--Smerus (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Early warning: I note that - beyond Rossini - Stravinsky needs to be added to the list of articles which need a makeover, along with Liszt (frightful), Brahms (I've made an attempt at the life but have stalled at the music so far), and so many others.......Smerus (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hell's bells! What, will the line stretch out to the crack of doom? Happy to work with you on Stravinsky and Brahms in due course, but you're on your own with Liszt, whose music I can't be having at any price. I might do a bit of preliminary work on the music part of the Brahms article, though what I know about Lieder can be fitted on one side of A4. Tim riley talk10:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim; you were good enough to review this at GAC, and it's now finally gone to FAC. If you have a few minutes, any comments would be appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tim. The coordinator at FAC asked for a source review for the Antiochus XII nomination. I asked for help on the talk page of FAC but no one seems interested. So I was wondering if you have the time and will to do it. I greatly appreciate it, and if you can not, then thank you in any case. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I try to give such things out sparingly, but you have worn me down with your unrelenting daily contributions of astonishing piles of high-quality content to this encyclopedia.
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I am continually astonished at your WP productivity, Tim riley! The daily contributions of astonishing piles of high-quality content that you have added for more than a decade and continue to add to the free encyclopedia (in addition to your willingness to answer the numerous requests heaped upon you for reviews, research and guidance) are little short of miraculous! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you, though I'm not entirely sure I want my astonishing piles to feature too prominently in these pages or anywhere else. I could with justice reply that your own contributions are many, various and distinguished, so there! Tim riley talk21:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tim riley sir, been a while. How are things going on with your good self? BTW, Kailash29792 has listed this article about a 1965 cult classic film in Tamil cinema for peer reviewing with the intention of preparing it for FAC and subsequently taking it to FA. As always, your constructive comments would be deeply appreciated. Also do have a look at his other FAC. Thank you. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid08:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for asking me, but this is so far outside my area of expertise that I think it would be better to leave it to someone who knows about the subject. Tim riley talk18:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tim,
Hit upon this at PR, and it's quite interesting. There's an issue around a source, as follows:
Serdiville, Rosie (2018). The Battle of Stockton: How a Small Town Saw Off Fascists in 1933. Durham: The Historical Association. 1009-1933
She's a published author, but neither the editor, nor Nikkimaria, nor I can find it on Worldcat or anywhere else. Any chance you could see if the BL can throw any light on it. Much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2018 publication date: could take a month or so before the BL gets its copy. Not in their catalogue yet. Bit odd that WorldCat knows not of it. Also odd that there's no ISBN, and that a search of the alleged publisher's site brings up nothing. I can't think of anything helpful to add on this question, alas. Tim riley talk18:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat And well done for finding it. I don't do Facebook, otherwise I'd contact them. Where did I read that great quote - "Without the content, Wikipedia's just Facebook for ugly people"! KJP1 (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having met a few people from WP, I don't think I can really comment, without alienating too many of my colleagues and friends! - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have missed my point. This new article includes text that presumably was written by other editors. If you happen to have written every single word, the situation is described at the link. if any other editor contributed to the text, then our requirements for attribution are not preserved, is anyone looking at the history of this new article won't know who contributed to it. It doesn't take great detective skills to guess that it might have come from Hector Berlioz, but attribution shouldn't require guesswork. The ideal step would have been to use the suggested wording in the edit summary when it was copied from the main article but it isn't too late — the desired wording can be added using a dummy edit.
Someone might argue that your edit summary does provide sufficient information but I think it's a close call, and would prefer that the new article include the desired wording as an edit summary. Can you do that?--S Philbrick(Talk)15:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I am most grateful, and will try to remember about this if a similar occasion arises. I hope to get Berlioz to peer review in a week or two: may I take the liberty of asking you to look in then? Tim riley talk20:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley, Sorry if I was a bit abrupt. Yesterday was an intensely busy day, and I had hoped that my cryptic note would be enough. Let me know when you the article is ready although don't expect too much is that isn't something I work on, but I would like to take a look at it (I know, I could look at it now but I'll wait till then.) S Philbrick(Talk)13:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Morning Mr Riley. So what's your vote—love or hate him, work interesting or dull? Yrs, it's a somewhat loaded question, but once again I have made the textbook error in emerging from the 15th C and out of the comfort zone. Happy Sunday! ——SerialNumber5412910:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thackeray was all right. A bit too pleased with himself, perhaps, and not, to my mind, all that good at inventing characters interesting or attractive enough to make one anxious to turn the page to see what happens to them next. But a shrewd observer of the human race and a good describer. Tim riley talk10:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation template (music)
I have floated a suggestion here and if anyone kind enough to watch my talk page has a view one way or the other I should be glad if he or she would kindly comment there. – Tim riley talk06:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Assessing
Good morning Mr Riley. Thank you again for your assessing of multiple articles, and especially for the gracious way in which you pointed out areas for improvement in Battle of Bergerac. By my count I still owe you an assessment. So if there is anything you would like looking at, point me towards it, or bank it and ping me once something you think will be in my comfort zone comes up. Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To anyone who watches this page (thank you) – after a spectacularly thorough peer review I have Berlioz up for FAC. If you care to look in and add your thoughts it will be esteemed a favour. Tim riley talk13:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to go back today to the peer review and pick up where I left off - only to find I'd left it too late. My apologies - busy work patch... Happy to chip into FAC instead. Dmass (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on finally bringing this one safely into port - especially with all the turbulence along the way... Happy Christmas! Dmass (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmass: Thank you very much! Heavy going certainly at FAC with the unforecast turbulence, but thanks to you and all constructive contributors Hector joins our Panthéon. Merry Christmas! Tim riley talk19:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Carrie Tubb
On 3 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carrie Tubb, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that on her hundredth birthday, British soprano Carrie Tubb was made a Fellow of the Royal College of Music? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carrie Tubb. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Carrie Tubb), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello, Tim riley. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 16:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Tim, thanks for your support of my FAC for Green Park tube station. That's my first new featured article in 6 years, almost to the day.--DavidCane (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard Ravel, please, no doubt it will be used in the near future but per disccussion on my talk I feel it is too much from the same topic in too short a time, given January nominaitons.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Tim riley. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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've updated the Saint-Saëns article again. Hopefully it now reads appropriately.
I don't understand why you (and Smerus) have undone my change to the article on Saint-Saëns. My change seems to be very minor and adds extra information and evidence on Saint-Saëns's prodigiousness as a child. Could you please explain the reasoning behind your decision to remove it? Thank you.
The sources you cite are not reliable. They both, if I remember from checking them the other day, are factually inaccurate. As the books and specialist online sources used in researching this article don't say S-S was composing at the age of three I don't think we should add what may be incorrect information. If a reliable source can be found that substantiates it, then fine, of course. Tim riley talk16:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: It's neither pushy nor painful – just a helpful memory-jog to a forgetful old codger, gratefully received. Support gladly added. Further evidence of forgetfulness: I forgot to mention when I was on the FAC page just now there are two tiny spelling points that either I missed or weren't there when I last looked in: there are two "cataloged" that should be "catalogued" in BrE, and one " millimeters" that should probably be millimetres. Not, I need hardly say, matters that alter my support, so I mention them here. Tim riley talk16:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
....introduced by me, I should probably mention. Have asked my dearest wife, Liz, to monitor more closely such things, and now, every time I unwittingly put in Americanisms picked up from TV or worse, will be blasted with this and will have to fear God (Key lyric: If you fk up, I'm telling Tim, and by the very widely respect NOFX no less). That's me told. Ceoil (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seasonal greetings for 2018, and best wishes for 2019 to all who continue to fight for good practice and higher standards in building this great encyclopedia. Brianboulton (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to copyedit the greeting my man; I notice a dangling modifier and punctation lapses, although no american spellings slipping in, thank god. 20:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Tim. Since you're currently one of the most active FAC reviewers, I was wondering if you'd be able to review my nomination, which has 5 supports, but also an oppose. This might seem like a strange request, but I was hoping you could provide an aggressive review—'aggressive' in the sense of you reading the opposing user's comments before reading the article, and then being an impartial commentator in whether those opposing points genuinely preclude the article from meeting the FA criteria. Czar and I had been discussing the article on its talk page for several weeks, so I genuinely believe there's an element of "can't see the forest for the trees" in several of his points for opposing. I know it's a terrible time of year to ask this sort of thing, but if you have an hour or so to spare over the next few days, I'd love to get your feedback. Thanks, and merry Xmas. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim. Re this, I wasn't aware he had any preferences when it came to non-French versions of the title. But I've never seen it expressed that way; it's always but always "The Childhood of Christ". Don't we risk alienating our readers by referring to "Christ's Childhood", something they've probably never heard of? Cheers. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]00:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seasonal greetings, dear Jack! One can go mad trying to find an agreed way of rendering Berlioz's titles in French, let alone English. Holoman and Bloom call the work L'Enfance du Christ, Macdonald and Rushton call it L'enfance du Christ, Cairns is with you in calling it The Childhood of Christ, Melnic calls it Christ's Childhood and Barzun calls it The Infant Christ. My edit summary tried to pack too much information in. Although Berlioz was happy with Christ's Childhood, he originally had it published in English as The Holy Family. More recently it was given in London as The Infant Christ and The Childhood of Christ. This isn't an isolated case. You can imagine from the above the permutations one is confronted with in French and English for Grande symphonie funèbre et triomphale, and Cairns makes an exception to his anglicisation policy (Fantastic Symphony, Beatrice and Benedick) for Les nuits d’été, which he gives in French. I agree that if people are used to a particular translation it is jarring to find another used – I recall how irritating it was when ENO insisted on putting on Le nozze di Figaro as Figaro's Wedding – but in the case of L'enfance I don't think there is a standard version to diverge from. Tim riley talk09:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
_Raw_sugar_jaggery_gud_Punjab_India.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
