User talk:Tim riley/Archive42

2020

Archbishops

The convention with infoboxes is that living people are given their current styles and dead people are given the styles they had at the ends of their lives. Archbishops who died in office are therefore called The Most Reverend & Right Honourable [PLAIN NAME] whereas those who retired are called The Right Reverend & Right Honourable The Lord [TITLE]. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but in that case we cannot call RD, CL and GF "Archbishops of Canterbury" while also calling them Lords and Rt Rev. We must not mislead our readers. Tim riley talk 17:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is another reason why infoboxes are so often misleading. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. We must do what we can to make sure we never mislead readers. The inaccurate info-boxes are now accurate, at any rate. Tim riley talk 08:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a small world!

202 Who would hav202e thought, when I randomly picked up another Grade II* listed memorial in London which didn't have an article, that Dr Davidson would put in an appearance. He's suddenly getting everywhere. KJP1 (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. And she gets a mention too! I'd forgotten the Gounod connection. KJP1 (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KJ – Well, well! I'm not anxious to renew acquaintance with the frightful Mrs Weldon, but nice to see Dr D popping up. If you aren't careful I'll press-gang you into co-nomming the old boy at FAC: you've supplied enough material! What a pleasing article the BMA war memorial is, let me say. I pass the BMA building frequently and had no idea about the fine memorial beyond the entrance arch. Didn't know Lutyens designed the building either: I wouldn't have guessed – what a chameleon he could sometimes be. Tim riley talk 14:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BMA House, front
BMA House, rear

Nice article, KJP1, thanks, one more off the list. All 20 of the Grade I listed war memorials in England have articles, and only a few London-based Grade II* listed war memorials in England are red linked (I think, Harrow, Kingston, and Twickenham, although I suspect many of the others could be upgraded, and the Grade II* list is little out of date - the Historic England advanced search now gives 136 results, but I can only find a couple added in the last year or so, such as the Memorial to the Home of Aviation).

Lutyens didn't do the whole BMA building, just the eastern (rear) half on Burton Street/Burton Place, not the western (front) bit on Tavistock Square/Upper Woburn Place, so that may explain why you didn't know. The rear is more recognisably Lutyens, I think. That reminds me, I should get back to the Lutyens navigation template I suggested a while ago. Bit of a monster that, so perhaps not a good idea. Anyway, happy editing. Theramin (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Tim, thanks so much for your very helpful reply. Have tried to respond but emails to you keep bouncing back as undeliverable ... Dmass (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to send you bags of gold and diamonds, but they have been returned to me as undeliverable. Happy birthday! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmass, Ssilvers – thank you, gentlemen. Hope the Paris restaurant notes are of use to one of you and thanks to the other for birthday greetings (68 aargh!). I shall send you my alternative email address, useful when TalkTalk turns into CrapCrap yet again. Tim riley talk 17:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CG

Of course you are presently in thrall to the Archbishop, but if you at some stage wend your way back to Charles Gounod, do look at the fascinating chapter on him in Gerald Norris, Stanford, the Cambridge Jubilee and Tchaikovsky, (David & Charles, 1980), a very engaging book which seems to be about virtually everything except the topics in its title. I only came across it because I am researching the music commissioned for the 1862 International Exhibition of London (a topic which could itself provide a recondite WP article). Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Thanks for this. I've put CG on the back burner pending a spot more research, and your suggestion, above, will be added to my reading list. Tim riley talk 20:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Shaw and Epstein

This [1], I suspect, is the original and the Bury one a later cast. I rather like the story of Epstein's dismay at Shaw's having stripped to the waist for the sitting! Very Putin. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curious how some men with deeply unimpressive physiques (not that I'm in any position to scoff) are keen to display them, when society at large would probably rather they didn't. But I do like the picture. Well done for finding space for it! BB and I had to repel boarders from time to time, but this fits in nicely. I think the Shaw article is the collaboration with BB of which I'm proudest. I think he was too. He did the politics and I did the literary stuff. We were very severe with each other to keep the word count within our self-imposed limit. Tim riley talk 19:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sullivan scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Arthur Sullivan has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 12 February 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 12, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hardwicke Rawnsley

I have put Canon Rawnsley's article up for peer review, and will be glad of suggestions for improvement. He was one of the three co-founders of the National Trust and thus a Good Thing. I hope anyone seeing this will be inclined to drop in. Tim riley talk 19:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs! Even if you do one article on something which was a stub Tim that would be great. You and Brian both participated in the Wales one I did, pick an article maybe which you think Brian would have most liked to have seen improved which is still a stub! No worries if you're busy though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly see what I can find that I can usefully work on. Tim riley talk 08:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buckingham Street, the Strand

Following a meeting, I wandered over to Buckingham Street, to reacquaint myself with Billy Burges's home/office at No. 15. The house, long gone, has an incredible history. Home to BB, Charles Dickens, William Smith and, on long tradition but very scant evidence, Peter the Great. On the, very short, thoroughfare, Pepys lived opposite, at No.14.; David Hume and Jean-Jacques Rousseau at No.10; various Grooms of the Wardrobe slummed it at No.11; Arthur Rackham sketched away at No.7; Oliver Cromwell's daughter resided at No.12; and Harley founded his library, having succeeded Pepys at No.14. Later, Sir Humphry Davy experimented in the basement, while William Etty painted in the attic; and Coleridge lodged at No.20! If there's not an FA out of that, I'm a Dutchman. KJP1 (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see any of the buildings behind what one images in a plethora of blue plaques? - SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like my plethora of blue overlinking! It's strangely devoid of blue plaques. BB's not got one, and Smith's is green. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John Johnson, he of St. Mary's, South Tidworth and Ally Pally fame, lived and died at No.14. CassiantoTalk 18:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It really is amazing, in such a short street. I wonder if there's another in London, of similar length, that has so many blue links, if not blue plaques? KJP1 (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I bet Downing Street may have a few. I was down Buckingham Street a few months ago, on my way to Embankment Station, and I've just had another look at the road now, on Street View. It is such an inconspicuous street with such a huge history. Who did the, what looks like a Georgian gatehouse at the bottom? CassiantoTalk 18:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the York Water Gate. With an amazing history of its own, but can't really be classed as part of Buckingham Street. Attributed to Inigo Jones, like much else he didn't do. KJP1 (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. It's not a particularly attractive street, is it. Made all the more worse by the 60's modernist monstrosity opposite No.14. CassiantoTalk 19:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's not. And Burdett House is no beauty. But it did make £25M for Aberdeen Asset Management when they sold it in 2015. KJP1 (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Downing Street's a fair cop. And the right length. But far more prestigious than humble little Buckingham Street. KJP1 (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what, pray, is this excursus doing on my talk page? My Charing Cross haunts in my nonage were the Craven Club in Craven Street, Gordon's in Villiers Street, and Heaven, between the two. I never saw Pepys or Rousseau at any of them. Tim riley talk 18:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We just wandered by for a chat! KJP1 (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon's is one of my fave places, but all changed recently with the spillover outside. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were supposed to be in the Algarve. Be off, the lot of you, before I start charging you rent. Tim riley talk 18:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
End of the week. But this is just like Monopoly! I'm putting a sauna hotel on Charing Cross. KJP1 (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is still a Chariots: I passed it (as in didn't go in) the other day, near Vauxhall station. Tim riley talk 19:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Cobden

Thanks for help and advice. Apologies for any inconvenience Kaybeesquared (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poet laureates and general literary types

Sup Tim. Are you interested in this demographic, Wiki-wise (or anywise, for that matter). Also, if you know of anyone here (incl. TPSs) who is, let me know.

The new photo is touching. ——SN54129 13:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to run that past me again in more detail, please, as I don't understand a word of the first sentence. If you mean the pic of BB and self on my talk page, yes, I smile sadly whenever I look at it. Tim riley talk 13:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at least there were happy times.
I mean, if you or any of your page watchers write, or are interested in writing about literary figures of the present and past—biographies etc—let me know. As I am having a clear out of potentially useful source material for those who write on such subjects. Happy friday! ——SN54129 13:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian's last hurrah

To anyone who watches this page, pray observe that Yomangani has taken Brian Boulton's draft article on the Australasian Antarctic Expedition, finalised it, and put it up for FAC. A cause for a mass turnout of reviewers on the FAC page, one feels, plus a cartload of barnstars to Yomangani for honouring our beloved colleague's memory. Tim riley talk 20:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that above comment (which I've only just noticed). I come here on another matter though: I would strongly consider removing at least the second email from Brian - it is obvious who he is talking about and he never meant that (or the other mail come to that) for general publication. Yomanganitalk 11:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have, not without reservations, done as you suggest. It is undeniably true that BB wasn't writing for publication, but he felt strongly about FAC bullying and I think it right to make his views known. Tim riley talk 12:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, for the record, the faux outrage was only because the message wasn't one that found favour. At some point the penny will drop that needlessly aggressive reviewers pushing points outside the scope of the article, FA criteria or the MoS simply to satisfy their own whims will cause editors to walk away. It's fine to bemoan the state of FAC, but one shouldn't be surprised when the Pandora's Box is opened and people will explain just why they are leaving FAC. To ignore such comments from people like Brian is ignorant and blinkered in the extreme. - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

An exchange transcribed from another editor's page (instantly archived):

TR: Hello. We haven't, as far as I recall, encountered each other on WP hitherto, but I should like to put your mind at rest about my quoting emails from my friend (on WP and IRL) Brian Boulton. Will you please explain to me why he is uniquely exempt from having his private correspondence quoted when countless WP FAs - including BB's - quote the private correspondence of their subjects and others. I realise standards were lower in your day at FAC, but surely even then "releasing a dead person's private [...]mail is the lowest low" would be to disqualify many of the biographical articles that quote dead people's letters. Would you care to explain your protestations of outrage? Best wishes
Other Editor: I am not going to discuss private email on Wikipedia, and certainly not from a dead person, released without his permission. I should not have used the phrase "speaking ill of the dead", when I meant showing Brian in a bad light, and that is all I have to say on this latest instance of bullying. Please do not continue to pursue this matter.
Me: Understood, and please be asssured I bear you no ill will for your hurtful remarks. Tim riley talk 18:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Szell and The Cleveland Orchestra

Dear Mr. Riley,

My name is Sam, I am a research fellow in The Cleveland Orchestra Archives. One of my projects is fact-checking and filling out the Wikipedia biographies for our music directors. I notice that you have been undoing many of my edits, specifically in regards to George Szell, after I expanded the section about his tenure as Music Director here in Cleveland, a period that elevated the Orchestra to previously-unimagined heights. It appears that you are using “uncited material” as a reason, but I am working from the biographies by Donald Rosenberg and Michael Charry (both of which were extensively research here in our archives) as well as primary source material. What is the best way to cite primary source materials so that it does not appear to be unsubstantiated, without having to footnote every sentence? Or is it best to cite Rosenberg and Charry for each addition? I look forward to your response.

Respectfully yours,

Sam Samuel T. Nemeth (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC) STNTCO4[reply]

STNTCO4 - Dear Sam, Tim Riley is currently on a break from Wikipedia so I'm taking the liberty of replying. He may, of course, also do so. I've looked at the George Szell article and the issue is that you are adding material without providing citations for it. The use of citations from reliable sources which enable readers to verify what they are reading is the life blood of Wikipedia. It's not enough that you know that X is said by Rosenberg or Charry, you need to provide a citation that enables to reader to be sure of this too. To take an example, which Tim removed; the final paragraph of Early career currently ends with the statement that he conducted Die heilige Ente in 1923. This is supported by a citation. You added a paragraph stating that he made his US debut in St. Louis and was the conductor for the Scottish Orchestra. But this isn't supported by a cite so I, as the reader, have no way of verifying it. Let's say that Rosenberg says it is so. You then need to conclude the paragraph with a cite from Rosenberg that supports it, by stating the book, the publication year, the publisher and the page. You can do the same for primary sources, although a little more care is needed, and it is harder if they are unpublished. Wikipedia citation styles can be a bit tricky for newcomers and I'd be pleased to advise further if required.
One other thing, which can sometimes be difficult for editors writing about subjects with which they have a personal/professional connection. We aim to write in a neutral style. So it's wise to avoid expressions of opinion, unless these are taken from reliable sources and cited. Phrases like "elevated the orchestra to previously-unimagined heights" won't do, unless music critic X said so. Looking at the article Adella Prentiss Hughes, which you've greatly added to, I see that the whole article is supported by a single inline citation. That's nowhere near enough. I also see what looks very like opinion, e.g. "she was steadfastly committed to her original mission of education and inspiring people around the world through the power and passion of music". Who says so? I'm afraid if it's you, that won't do.
And lastly, a good way to learn the ropes is to read some Featured Articles in your area of interest. You're fortunate that music has a good number of these. This will give you a sense of what good looks like on Wikipedia. I hope that the above is helpful. Do drop by my talkpage, or here, if any further advice is needed. All best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Great news that you are back Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dudley. My G&S project on which I was working (as very much the junior partner) is rather in limbo, like so much else at the moment, so I'm temporarily back on WP, if only as displacement activity. As one old codger to another, I hope you are taking the best possible care of yourself. Best, Tim talk 15:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G&S project? According to Google, that is a Dutch flooring contractor! Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a revision of a respected scholarly tome to do with Gilbert and Sullivan. I must say no more. Tim riley talk 16:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, delighted to see you back. And hope you and yours are keeping well in these troubling times. If you need a distraction, this is up for FLC. Not quite as exciting as its companion piece you were kind enough to review sometime back, but may raise a flicker of interest! KJP1 (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good news indeed. If either of you get bored and feel like expanding an article or two for Wikipedia:The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon in the next week we'd appreciate it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Blofeld - I’ve done you Runston Chapel and overwritten the redirect for Penhow Castle. Don’t they count! KJP1 (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LvB

Dear Tim - hope you are keeping well! To combat (or in some ways contribute to) the tedium of lockdown I am seeking to redo the article on Ludwig van Beethoven so that it (might) at some stage go to PR, and then possibly be elevated to FA in time for his 250th. It was full of errors and assorted rubbish. Fortunately I have a lot of appopriate sources and authorities at home. So far I have redone the biography and am taking presently a deep breath before embarking on the music. If you have a moment to look at what I have done so far and can make any comments (or indeed edits) that would be great - though I appreciate that you are presently involved with even starrier laureates of Western culture such as G&S. All best, --Smerus (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smerus, delighted to look in. I admire you for taking it on: the more major the figure the harder it is to do him or her justice. (Together with two other colleagues I have firmly rebuffed the overtures of a fourth to work on bringing Churchill up to FA!) It has long been a matter of regret to me that the three composers generally regarded as the pinnacle of classical music have nothing better than a B class article to their names, and I am exceedingly pleased to see you turning your attention to Beethoven. Shall I comment on the article talk page or on yours? Or by email if preferred? Best wishes, Tim riley talk 21:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, Tim - shall we say on my talk page at present? Best. --Smerus (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Events, dear boy

Tim, just a note to say I'm delighted to see you around, I know things got heated a few months back, best to keep an even keel during stressful and frustrating times. Someday I'll follow my own advice, but to say I thought you handled it admirably, as is your habit. Ceoil (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you, Ceoil! I try not to be too provoked by people with more mouth than sense, and in truth my temporary (and continuing) absence from contributing as much as usual is due not so much to frustration with pompous bigheads as to the demands of a non-WP undertaking, where my learned senior partner is entitled to expect some input from me. (Still, I managed to put together 12 pages over the weekend.) Meanwhile I am lightly pottering here. I must look in again at Beethoven, on which I have promised to add such comments as I can. The type of people recently honouring us with their wisdom at FAC incline me to follow BB's lead and give FAC and all its works a miss, but I shall always be pleased to comment informally on any article on which you think I can be of help. With best wishes, Tim riley talk 15:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was certainly a golden age for FAC that has passed, though thankfully I've never really had a review where I locked heads with someone I strongly disagreed with. Maybe I've been fortunate from the likes for you, Johnbod, BB, etc, where everything was constructive, and there was no "gotta" stuff. Although I do see that some excellent reviewers/nominators have come up in the last few years, so all is not lost. ps have a soft spot for G&S also, passed down from my mother. 12 pages sounds like a lot for 1 weekend! Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Gibbons

Hi! I noticed that you are a super experienced music writer with some really impressive articles. (Ravel and Berlioz come to mind) I was wondering if you could take a look at what I have so far for Orlando Gibbons? (I've only done the lead and the "Life and Career" section so far, so the sections after that are pretty messy right now) I'm beginning to draft an expanded music section that breaks down the different forms he wrote with, but was wondering if you could let me know if my life and career section is on the right track? I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and hope to push Orlando Gibbons (and eventually other composer articles) to featured at some point in the future, so I just want to see what an experienced FA writer thinks of what I have so far.

Thanks and if you don't have time or have other things to do, I completely understand. Aza24 (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, it will be a privilege and pleasure to review what you have written. Would you prefer me to put my comments on the article talk page, your talk page, or in an email? And should I make minor tweaks (if any) as I read through or would it suit you better if I just reported back on anything I suggest changing? – Tim riley talk 08:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well firstly, thank you so much for being up to this! I think comments on my talk page would be fine, and yes, feel free to make any minor edits on the page directly. Let me know if you have any suggestions on how I could format the music section when I begin it. (like subheading wise, Secular Works and Sacred Works for the choral pieces or splitting all of the genres up separately?) Aza24 (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and if I might just add, some of the specifics in the lead about Gibbons' life, years and dates wise, may differ slightly from those in the life and career section, since I haven't got a chance yet to go back and revise the lead with what the new/updated info I had researched for the life and career section. (I wrote the lead first, probably a mistake!) Aza24 (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Arlen

Hi Tim. Was astonished and pleased to find your page on Stephen Arlen. I married one of his step-grand daughters! The page looks good and you also did Iris his second wife who I knew a bit, as well as Narice. What made you write the page? YellowFratello (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello YF! What a very nice message to get: thank you for your kind words. Over the years I've put together a few articles about opera administrators, pretty much to fill gaps in Wikipedia's coverage. People like Arlen, David Webster, Moran Caplat, John Tooley et al – the backroom boys – tend to get overlooked, but where would opera in Britain be without them? (I can't claim any credit for Iris Kells's article, which I haven't worked on.) Tim riley talk 16:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And of Course John Tooley RIP. Arlen is well remembered even now. We meet people who loved him and I once met someone who thought he was some sort of communist for paying proper wages to the chorus! Imagine that! YellowFratello (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Mahler

Could you explain the removal of the obituaries from the Mahler article? What is peculiar and why is modification of a FA article forbidden. What can I do to add this obituaries? Grimes2 (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying a featured article is by no means forbidden, but it is wise to tread cautiously, and generally a good idea to propose any major changes on the article talk page. Unless they are used as sources for the main text it would, I think, be better to add links to obituaries in the "External links" section, but others may disagree and if you raise the matter on the talk page they may like to express a view. Tim riley talk 06:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Latso Pianist

Hi Tim, great profile pic on your page! :) I was wondering if you could help me with improving this article to see if we can get rid of the ban (article has a multiple issues) which was placed few days ago. Please feel free to make an edits, I see you have a long experience with wiki. Thank you and have a nice day!Sausa (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sausa. At first glance I can't see all that much wrong with the article, but I'll look in again tomorrow (it's dinner time here), read it thoroughly and give you my thoughts. Tim riley talk 20:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've been a bit busy, but should be able to look in at leisure over the weekend. More a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 07:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sausa11, I've left some comments and suggestions on the article talk page. I hope they are of use. Tim riley talk 18:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim, thanks so much for ALL your good advices. I will work on it when I am free. All best, Sausa (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Davidson

I'm going to put it on as TFA on 22 June, hope you don't mind. You know the drill. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right ho! Tim riley talk 07:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australasian Antarctic Expedition

Thank you for your part in bringing Australasian Antarctic Expedition to the Main page today, in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot claim any part in it, but my gratitude to Yomangani for this service to our beloved friend is heartfelt. Tim riley talk 20:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honan Chapel

Tim, I would dearly appreciate your input and feedback here. I totally understand if you are preoccupied, asking anyway. Its been cooking for a few years; Gerda has finally pushed me this evening towards taking forward. Best either way. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure. I shall enjoy playing truant from what I am working on away from Wikipedia. I'll look in over the weekend. Tim riley talk 07:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are a gentleman. Ceoil (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting error on Widmerpool page

I finally figured out where I went wrong on the Kenneth Widmerpool page. Here is what the passage I wanted to insert looks like, with the formatting corrected. Do you have any objection to the content itself or can I go ahead and put it back in? Thanks and sorry for the hassle. Novellasyes (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Bergonzi, in The New York Review of Books in 1964, said "the presiding genius of The Music of Time is undoubtedly Kenneth Widmerpool" and "For Powell, Widmerpool embodies in an unusually pure form the power of the will: he is obtuse, pompous, socially inept, and at the same time possessed of an almost demonic energy and an unstoppable urge to succeed." [ref Bergonzi, Bernard (October 8, 1964). "At Anthony Powell's". The New York Review of Books.]
Novellasyes, Looks fine to me, but I should emphasis that I am merely keeping an eye on the page in the lamented absence of its main author, that great Wikipedian the late Brianboulton. I am no expert on Powell's novels, and better-informed editors than I may have a view. That said, I'd be inclined to add your text and await developments. You can always reconsider if anyone cuts up rough. Alternatively, as this is a Featured Article, you might want to add a note on the article talk page suggesting your draft wording and inviting comment. Best of luck, either way, Tim riley talk 19:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh, I didn't even realize it was a featured article. I will ask on the article's talk page about whether it is an okay thing to add to the article. Thanks for your help! Novellasyes (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horsley Towers

You’re going to love this when I’m done! Definitely one to visit when lockdown’s done.KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I might have guessed! There ought to be a law. Tim riley talk 13:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this and thought of you

ISIHACI'm Sorry...
This User Hasn't a Clue



How true, in pretty much any way one cares to look at it. Tim riley talk 12:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Osbert Lancaster scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Osbert Lancaster article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 27, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 27, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravel Concerto in G

Thank you! A very pleasant surprise. I thanked you on the concerto page, too. Zaslav (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randall

Good to see his grace gracing the front page! Many congrat.s KJP1 (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1, Thank you. Apropos of "his grace", I suppose Geoffrey Fisher must have been the last Archbishop of Canterbury who would have felt comfortable being addressed as "Your Grace". I was at a lecture in the early 1970s given by Michael Ramsey who quite clearly preferred to be addressed as "Dr Ramsey" – very modern. I never quite forgave the saintly Ramsey for forsaking gaiters. Tim riley talk 10:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I was oop North in my uni days, Michael Ramsey had retired to said city and I often saw him toddling up the Bailey. His eyebrows were a thing of wonder! KJP1 (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article length & Laura Harrier

FAC Laura Harrier is currently in a standstill. One editor supported the promotion to FA status but the current editor believes the article is too short to be a Featured Article. Could anyone assist with this article or quickly look over it for a review, or if not interested in reviewing it, let me know if it is indeed too short please? Factfanatic1 (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I am not involved with the FAC process these days. Tim riley talk 13:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thank you. Factfanatic1 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hello. I promoted the article Manilal Dwivedi (19th-century Indian writer) to GA. I want to promote it to FA. For that I have nominated the article for Peer review. Since I am totally new for FA and PR, could you help me in Peer review? User:Gog the Mild suggested me your name. If you can't help, feel free to say NO. Apologies if my writing language is rough. I am not good in English, and sometime don't know how to request politely. Thanks and regards. --Gazal world (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to do with PR and FAC these days, but I'll look in. Tim riley talk 07:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now done. Tim riley talk 07:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folly or Toole's?

I am flying a small kite here. If anyone seeing this note is inclined to visit the page and help me fly the kite, or alternatively throw stones at it, comments will be most welcome. Tim riley talk 20:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Massenet

How interested are you in Massenet? Because there's several operas by him missing some key details, and I know where to find the information, but my French is poor. You may have noticed about.... 10 of his operas have a featured picture (offhand, Don Quichotte, Sapho, Le Cid, Cendrillon, Thérese, Werther, Le Mage, Don César de Bazan, La Navarraise, and (all but guaranteed, although it hasn't passed yet) Ariane - and I intend to carry on to do as many as possible (which should be pretty much all of them except the one-acts, the unperformed and lost, and two of the posthumous ones that premièred in Monte-Carlo). I think the only composers to rival his coverage are Verdi and Sullivan. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 21:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan at all. Insipid stuff on the whole, though I found Don Quixote at the ENO rather touching, years ago. I only took him to FAC because a non-Wikipedian opera-buff friend of mine challenged me to overhaul what was then a quite poor article. I enjoyed writing M. Massenet up, though. You know how it is with biographical articles - sometimes you end up liking your subject less than when you started and sometimes you get unexpectedly fond of them. Massenet, though a frightful old fraud, was nonetheless one of the latter, and I enjoyed his company, so to speak. But as for writing his operas up, I'm not your man. (And if we're getting competitive, I'd back the awfulness of my French against yours and all comers'. A look of pain flits across Parisian faces when I open my mouth there.) But I'm pleased to have been asked: thank you, Adam. Tim riley talk 21:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Though if you want to go to User:Adam Cuerden and click on the "more" next to the words "More operas. A lot more", you might find something more your taste in there that I'll probably do as my next one. ("Probably" because it's a MOSTLY curated list, but I know there's one or two in there that I'm waiting on the library to rescan). And hey, you may not like his music, but you have to admit: his posters are gorgeous. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 22:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I need to be more careful. I missed a colon and put a 69 megabyte, 80+ megapixel JPEG onto your talk page, full size. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 22:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I was in college, my uncle and his girlfriend, Lady Grace Dudley, took me to see Werther at the Met. Bonynge was conducting, and they did not like him at all ("oh, he's DRIVING the orchestra!!"). At the end of one of the acts, she leant over the railing of the Grand Tier to shake her fist and yell "Booooooooooo Dahling!" Afterwards, we went to a fancy restaurant, and she insisted that since I was American, I order a hamburger. It was a large, but not particularly good, burger. That's all I know about Massenet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, are you serious, Ssilvers? Because that's a hell of a tale. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 01:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, dead serious. She was quite a character. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She sounds delightful. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 02:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She was very generous and kind, actually, but very opinionated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Grigson scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Jane Grigson has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 23 August 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 23, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard D'Oyly Carte and Michael Ralph Thomas Gunn

I saw you removed a detail I added to the article on Richard D'Oyly Carte. See Michael Ralph Thomas Gunn#Collaboration with Richard D'Oyly Carte. Gunn played a fairly significant role in Carte's early career. I think there should be some mention of him somewhere in the Carte article. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Our colleague Ssilvers is already on the case. (I'd do it myself, but am away from home and bookshelves). Tim riley talk 12:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Like Tim, I doubt that the Litsios book will be accepted as a WP:Reliable source, and I suggest that you cite alternate sources in your new articles about the Gunn-Carte relationship, such as Stedman, Ainger and Joseph. I removed two erroneous statements from your Michael Gunn article (Gunn was NOT one of the backers of the Comedy Opera Company) and added a comment to the edit screen questioning another. Also, please be careful with terminology: musical pieces in 1870s and 1880s Britain were operettas, Victorian burlesques, burlettas, extravaganzas, etc, but were not what we would understand to be "musicals". See Edwardian musical comedy and musical theatre for more information about that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I knew nothing at all about this area until a few days ago. Gunn seemed to need an article and some mention in the Carte article. I came to it from Ambrose Henry Webb, who married Gunn's daughter, and was a Chief Justice of Tanganyika, as was Augustino Ramadhani, mentioned in the article International Council of Jurists, which was deleted on a PROD, recreated by me and then discussed in Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Sample study and subsequent extended discussions. All comments welcome. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good luck. If you have any questions about comic opera, musical theatre or similar, feel free to ask Tim (I watch his page, so I'll see the question too). Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Linking to List of compositions by Edward Elgar and others...

Apologies on boldly linking when it does not seem to be standard for composer articles. The reason I'm here rather than the Elgar talk page is because I've been thinking for a while now that quite a few composer articles may benefit from a link such as the proposed one for Elgar, and was wondering your thoughts on the matter. Some examples include the Elgar one, "his 39 operas" in Rossini linked to List of operas by Gioachino Rossini or "Mendelssohn's compositions" in Mendelssohn linked to List of compositions by Felix Mendelssohn. The reason this has come to mind is that after bringing List of operas by Claudio Monteverdi to FL, hopefully Weber next and then expanding out into bigger ones like all of the works of Monteverdi and Beethoven I've noticed that lists like these often seem disconnected from their main article, only receiving a single mention under the music section. Another reason the link may be beneficial is that articles without an infobox do lack such a link in the that an article like Beethoven would have in its infobox, so to make up for that a link in the lead would make sense. (was hesitant to bring up infoboxes at all but I hope you see I'm simply making an observation and not a statement in support or opposition of infoboxes!) Anyways, let me know your thoughts, I would bring it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music but thought I'd stop here first. Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A most courteous message – thank you. At first glance I'm not vehemently opposed to the idea, but nor am I persuaded it would be helpful to our readers. To my way of thinking a blue link, taking the reader away from the current page, should be there only if it aids understanding – elucidating a hard word or giving details of a person, place or event etc. I think the findings and advice here are to the point. In short, I wonder how many readers, if any, would click on such a link as you suggest. Others may disagree with me, and it might be an idea to raise the question on the Classical music project talk page (though be warned – I bet you'll get the Every Article Must Have An Info-Box absolutists piling in). Tim riley talk 09:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback about Tichborne case

" I don't know what "steampunk" means, but I fear the worst." is the best line I have heard today! Boomcoach (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Arrau

Hi Tim, hope you're well. Rather disappointing this article isn't it! † Encyclopædius 16:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen better, but I have seen a lot worse. Tim riley talk 10:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the hopes this comes off in the spirit it's written

I've found a couple files you uploaded in higher resolution, and got them on commons today - the Robinson Crusoé lead and the fly scene from Orphée aux enfers, and was able to document them enough for Commons. If you ever want me to check any uploads you have to see if they're available in larger format, or are suitable for Commons just let me know, aye? I'm quite happy to help. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 20:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently working on Rossini, by the way. Robert Bruce. It's a pastiche half-based on La donna del lago, but it's set around Sterling Castle. And I love Sterling. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 20:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Adam. You are most kind, as always. I avoid Commons like the plague, having suffered time after time at FAC when Commons pictures I naively assumed were freely usable turned out not to be. As a rule nowadays I upload a local version to avoid such embarrassment, and keep well away from Commons. Tim riley talk 20:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! If you ever want help navigating it, though - especially before a FAC - I'd be delighted. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 23:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, have some Rossini! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 23:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please remember when adding a picture to an article (e.g. the Rossini one) that alt text is always wanted for the benefit of users who use screen readers. Tim riley talk 05:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, of course. Sorry, it's been way too long since I did proper article editing. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 16:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good lad! Tim riley talk 16:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dame Peggy

An admirable editor has raised a good point here. I have added my two penn'orth, but to anyone kind enough to watch my talk page, your thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 21:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Just wanted to thank you for your edits and work on Winifred Lawson!

— Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you! Most kind. Tim riley talk 09:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone with a musical bent who reads this is inclined to look in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Navboxes etc and let me have thoughts on the matter, I shall be v. grateful. Tim riley talk 09:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G. B. Shaw/ baronets

Hi Tim, sorry this piece of information didn't meet with your approval- only reason I put any effort into the matter was because both the articles of Sir Robert Shaw, 1st Baronet and the Shaw Baronets make mention of the link with G. B. S. (no, I didn't add those mentions, in case you're wondering), and without corroboration in HIS article (where a reader might go on to check), I thought the situation seemed quite sloppy. Appreciate views differ and, looking at the article history, you've clearly staked a claim, so fair enough!78.144.76.44 (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a kind and courteous message – thank you, but when I said "please raise on talk page" I meant the article talk page, not mine, so that you could set out why you think the information is needed in the article. Others may agree with you rather than with me. I'll willingly go with a consensus on this as on any other point. Just for background: when jointly overhauling the article with "Featured Article" standard in mind four years or so ago, the late (and painfully missed) Brianboulton and I engaged in much friendly acrimony as we hacked at each other's contributions to keep the word count within reasonable bounds. We kept it within 12,000 words, but it required rigorous concentration on the absolutely core material. I really would be sad if an accumulation of little additions – each harmless enough in itself - were to inflate the article to excess, and in the past few years I have done to an astonishing number of others what I have just done to you – but I claim no more rights over the article than anyone else has, and, as I say, will go along with any consensus for additions. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 12:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Can you explain which one one of the rollback criteria apply to this edit? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No - slip of the fingers and too late to post an edit summary. My apologies. Tim riley talk 11:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of clarity, as the lawyers say, I have no views one way or the other about the addition to which you objected, and I had no intention of reverting it. But looking at it again, even though the editor who added it is banned, it seems accurate and harmless enough, for those (not me) who are interested in categories. Tim riley talk 11:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misclicks happen. For what it's worth, this editor was blocked for copyright violations, so be careful if you restore any edits made by him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never argue with an idiot

There's one small problem with Mark Twain's wise advice. With the way Wikipedia works, if you don't argue, the idiot gets his way and the encyclopedia deteriorates as a result. The most persistent/obsessive beings end up winning. Irritating at times isn't it?† Encyclopædius 13:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but I wonder what prompted this – entirely welcome – addition to my talk page? I grow ever more senile, but I can't recall encountering you before on WP, unless you are someone else redivivus. Tim riley talk 14:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The good Doctor changed his name. :-) † Encyclopædius 16:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered if it might be something of that sort. I see your contributions as the Doctor have all been magically reattributed in edit histories. As an old fogey of many years' standing, and latterly sitting down, I heartily approve of your diphthong diagraph but am hazy about the purpose of the obelisk. Tim riley talk 16:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spiced beef, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Dead.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Grigson scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Jane Grigson has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 16 November 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 16, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring for FAC

Dear Tim riley, I intend to submit my first Featured article nomination in the near future and am looking for a mentor in the process. The article I want to nominate is Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji. It was copy edited quite recently by WP:GOCE, but I'm not a native speaker of English (the article is written in British English) and I don't want to cause more harm than good in trying to comply with reviewers' comments. While general guidance along the way will be most appreciated, I'm looking mainly for someone who will spot errors in grammar, syntax, etc. that I may perpetuate inadvertently. The quality of your prose is some of the highest I have seen in classical music articles and I was wondering if you would like to join me in this nomination. Thank you for your time and consideration. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! What a pleasing message. I steer clear of FAC these days, having had enough of the hassle and the attitude of certain editors there, and I ought to have (and now have) removed my name from the list of potential mentors. But I shall be very happy to scrutinise your draft before you go to FAC, and will let you have my comments in the next few days. Tim riley talk 13:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response (and the word of caution). I have not made that many changes to the article since the copyedit was completed, so if you want to examine only those, you can review them here. If you intend to review the whole article before the nomination, I will be very happy to have your feedback! I will admit I skipped the Peer review process after having a look around and noticing cases where an article received no feedback after more than a month, so I hope this helps make up for that at least somewhat. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Actually, since I am interested to have a mentor too, I am not sure you would be kind enough to take me in too as I can't wait to jump on the bandwagon of my first FAC too. I am intending to continue working on Piccadilly line but as for now I can't seem to find any potholes so I would love some advice. With a soul full of gratitude, thank you Tim! I still remember my first GAN with you haha. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 06:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim riley: Thank you very much for your comments. As you will have seen, I have responded to those on my talk page and raised a few topics of my own. I did some trimming in the areas you highlighted as overly detailed. Though the article remains sizeable, I have managed to get the prose under 10,000 words and it is now a few words shorter than the Arthur Sullivan article (at least according to XTools). Toccata quarta (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vincent: I see you now have a GAN reviewer. Once that review is completed by all means let me know if you want me to take a look at the article before you take it to FAC. From a quick glance just now I think it looks first rate, but I'll be happy to read it closely and comment if wanted. Tim riley talk 11:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tim riley, I hope all is well with you. I have just nominated the Sorabji article at FAC here and I would be grateful for any additional feedback on it that you may like to offer. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamene (A Phoenix Too Frequent)

If you believe that this character is significant for coverage in Wikipedia, why don't you create a separate article and disambiguate? 73.71.251.64 (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems sensible to me (and so far to two other people, I note) to keep them together. Try to put yourself in a reader's position: if one types "Dynamene" into the search engine all the relevant info pops up on one convenient page. Fry's character's name is clearly derived from the original, and it seems logical to keep them together. But if you wish to proceed as you suggest I should have no objection. What I object to is your wanton deletion of substantive, cited material added by someone else. Moving it is reasonable; destroying it is not. Tim riley talk 08:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philharmonia Orchestra first concert

Hi Tim, just getting in touch to request some advice, as you've been an editor on the Philharmonia Orchestra page in the past. Under 'First Concerts', the article claims the orchestra's first concert took place on 25 October 1945, citing Walter Legge's published memoir edited by Schwarzkopf. Legge does indeed give that date in the memoir, however I work for the orchestra and we have the original printed programme in our archive. The date of that first concert conducted by Beecham was actually 27 October 1945. How would you advise we go about changing this in a legitimate way without getting drawn into an edit war? Many thanks, Owen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.43.58 (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well caught! There's no difficulty about correcting the date, which I will do as soon as I have posted this reply. I have just checked in the archives of The Times: its review of the concert gives the correct date and mentions that the concert was the orchestra's debut, and I can cite that, rather than Legge's book. I'll ponder whether to add a footnote saying that Legge gives the wrong date. Thank you very much for setting the record straight. Tim riley talk 13:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

Bofus, I have no idea what you are on about, but I should be obliged if you will refrain from cluttering up my talk page with your contributions, superlative though they no doubt are for those who understand or care about them. Tim riley talk 20:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're for ... never mind.--Bofuses (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the holidays

Season's Greetings
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the holidays

Season's Greetings
Seasons greetings. Hope you and yours are safe and well during this rather bleak period, though I think we will get through it. Best Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Plaque for Stanley Holloway in East Preston

Thanks for the note about the reason for pulling the amendment to Holloway article re the new blue plaque in East Preston. As you know the purpose of the Wikipedia is to provide knowledge to whoever may be seeking this. I think of these people as our customers and I believe a test is: would these people like to know? We do get many people coming here to East Preston to visit his grave and I am sure they would like to stroll down to the beach to see where he lived (marked by the blue plaque). However, the house is on a private estate (The Willowhayne) with some rather posh houses and I expect there are those who would hate to see this! I will not pursue this any further as I am currently researching an article that has turned into a time consuming marathon, mind you we all have time on our hands at the moment. Happy New Year Sidpickle (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC) Ted[reply]

Thank you for this note. As I said on your talk page, I entirely believe what you say, but to comply with Wikipedia's standards all statements must be verified by a reliable source. Unsupported assertions, however true, will not do. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 15:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]