On Charles Ricketts you 'Undid revision 1000934474 by Kaybeesquared (talk)'
with the comment: Name of spouse irrelevant here, surely?
The spouse of William Llewellyn Hacon is notable in her own right and now has an entry - Edith Hacon - was part of the circle with Ricketts et al. This is the only mention of him that I could find in Wikipedia and would ask you to reconsider how I can link Edith Hacon into Charles Ricketts entry?
Alternatively: do you have more citable material on William L H so that we could create an appropriate article for him together?
I was going to let this undo pass, due to your clearly expert knowledge of the subject - but at the Wikipedia 20th birthday last week I was reminded that women's entries are often described in terms of or linked to their (male) spouses but not the reverse.
Can you assist with considering how best to ensure that at least Wm and Edith link to each other, equally?
I am a relatively new/inexperienced editor, so any helpful advice is welcomed.
Kaybeesquared, I’m afraid there isn’t much about Hacon in the various archives. Interesting what the Marsali Taylor book says about his being RC: he must have been a convert, as he was christened in a C of E church, and his first marriage was also Anglican. He was baptised at Holy Trinity, Paddington on 17 Jan 1861, son of William Mackenards Hacon and Mary Hacon. He was at Balliol, Oxford, from 1879 to 1883, graduating BA, and was called to the bar in 1885. His first wife, Marie Leslie née Champion (daughter of a major-general), whom he married in August 1886, died in April 1887, aged only 25. Hacon married Edith Broadbent in Westminster in January 1895. He died at Oversteps, Dornoch, on 23 July 1910, aged 49. There were no obits that I can find – Times, Manchester Guardian etc – and I fear it looks as though he isn’t notable enough to meet the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion in his own right. Tim riley talk17:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so very much for the rapid research, but ...that means he is only 'notable' as the spouse of Edith Hacon, and by his association with Wilde and the others in his London circle ...the situation a woman would be given in many other entries. So how can we link his mention on this article back to her or others in this group.
Ps another ref. chosen not to use said he fell in love with her portrait before he met her...
Even though she married again she did choose to be buried with him in Dornoch. Could we just add her to the section on Ricketts 'circle' earlier?
Well, unless she did anything noteworthy so far as Ricketts is concerned I don't think we can gratuitously mention her in his article. I saw that nice ref about the Rothenstein picture, but what the source doesn't say is that Rothenstein also did a full length portrait of Hacon. One reviewer commented that 'full length' was the right term: evidently Hacon was very tall. Tim riley talk18:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Tim riley. Sorry to persevere.... but still seeking... William Llewellyn Hacon's only appearance in Wiki is this page Charles Rickett and we want him to connect to Edith Hacon.
Victuallers - maybe if you get a chance please have a wee look at the above chat - Tim has found lots of info - but the husband 'not notable' - so how do we make a link to be more discoverable.
Kaybeesquared - I think I have a solution which I have been bold and done. I have created a redirect for William Llewellyn Hacon to his more notable spouse. This solution is (too?) frequently used for women (who later turn out to be notable!). This means that Tim's article contains a link but it should not distract a reader unless they are interested in the Hacons. HTH keep safe Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I second those thanks, and I too will remember that clever tip. I can think of a few articles I have worked on where it will be a helpful addition. Tim riley talk11:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim, it seems that Bärenreiter is currently working on a scholarly-critical complete edition of Saint-Saëns's and Fauré's works, to be published in dozens of volumes. This looks like a monumental undertaking, with a huge amount of previously unpublished works, and will probably take decades to complete. Perhaps worth a brief mention somewhere? All the best and thank you for the excellent articles, intforce (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Intforce, for telling me this (and for your kind words). I didn't know, and I agree it will be a good addition to the articles on both composers. I think probably we should wait till the editions are published before mentioning them, but what do you think? Tim riley talk21:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim, the editions are being continuously published; right now, 8 out of 39 volumes have been published for the Saint-Saëns edition, and 11 out of 28 for the Fauré edition. I guess this will a couple of decades to complete; it took 53 years for the New Bach Edition and they've been going at the New Schubert Edition since 1956 :) intforce (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! Well, should we add something like, "A critical scholarly complete edition of S-S/F's works is, at 2021, in progress from Bärenreiter"? Potential problem with WP:DATED but I think FAs will be well enough policed when I am no longer around. Tim riley talk22:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I have noticed that you have removed the signature that I included in Camille Saint-Saëns. Please do not remove them, as they will be part of a widespread norm in featured-or-not articles about composers. You may see featured composers such as Frédéric Chopin, Richard Wagner, etc. What is your objection against them? I do not think they are silly or unnecessary. It just fits and feels better when all composers have a common form, i.e no infobox, one picture and a signature. Cheers! Wretchskull (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Jojhutton. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) personon Talk:Ian Fleming, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. In addition to the incivilty and uncalled for attack on anther editor's motives.JOJHutton19:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are attacking me? As if I can't read? In addition to the WP:BLP violation, youa have now personally demeaned two seperate editors in the span of a few hours.--JOJHutton19:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more bits and pieces. Sorry to have to leave you to sort out the sources I provided. If you do get to Lyon, be sure to try the Black Pudding. While researching Brazier I came across this gem of a graphic description in The Guardian of how it is made there. I actually did this. In the late 80s I was music director for a French theatre company for a while. We lived in a loaned, sprawling delapidated farm complex actually not far from Brazier's birthplace in the Ain. We had pigs. One day we slaughtered one and I made the boudin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief Kudpung! I am an effete townie and have never killed anything bigger than a mouse. Boudin noir is OK, though it tends to give me indigestion, but I will go a long way for a good boudin blanc (without enquiring too closely what's in it). The best I can do by way of Michelin-starred retaliation for your Mère Brazier are Ledoyen and Taillevent in Paris, plus the two Roux restaurants in England as often as possible. RIP Michel and now Albert! Please let me know if ever in London and free for lunch at Le Gavroche (assuming it is still there after the Covid catastrophe). As a serial offender (38 years and counting) I can usually get a table. But I digress: I am more than happy to tidy up the referencing of La Mère B's article. Tim riley talk16:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Walton Viola Concerto query
Tim, I think I'm a little obsessed with Walton's Viola Concerto, I've never heard anything quite like it. Is there anything you could recommend, by Walton or otherwise, of the same general-character? It has this sublime Faure-Barber style which is less subtle than Debussy, but more poignant than Dukas, that's how I see it, at least! Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm! The critical consensus seems to be that the Viola Concerto is the finest of Walton's concertante works, but I have never loved it as I do the Violin and Cello concertos. The Violin Concerto is a virtuoso work, written for Heifetz, and is probably not what you're looking for, but the Cello Concerto is, like the Viola Concerto, a more contemplative piece. I love it, though far too many performances take the first movement too slowly for my taste, making it plod a little. (As with Elgar and Vaughan Williams there is a discernible tendency in the past half-century or so to play their works slower and slower, not to their advantage, me judice.) See if you can find Tortelier's recording of the Cello Concerto with the Bournemouth SO and Berglund. (The first movement is on YouTube, though I'm not altogether sure it is proper of me to link to it from here.) Not quite on my Desert Island Discs list, but definitely a runner-up. The slow movement of Walton's First Symphony might appeal to you, too, if I read your comments aright. Try Previn's with the LSO (20 minutes into the performance on YouTube). I'll be interested to learn what you think of my suggestions. Tim riley talk22:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DBak, you were kind enough to send me a "thank" about this, and perhaps you might be persuaded to add your thoughts on Walton pieces from which our colleague Aza24 might benefit. Tim riley talk23:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, it is striking how similar these pieces are to the viola concerto—I mean, of course, they're written by the same person, but these connections seem to be especially accurate! I suppose the main difference between the symphony and viola concerto is the prominent melodic line in latter vs a more abstract style in the symphony. The general character of the cello concerto I would agree is contemplative, though the viola concerto has a bit more vigor (even in the first movement), so I guess that's where a difference lies there. Regardless thank you for sharing these most welcomed pieces (and recordings!). DBak, I've much enjoyed that work as well, which I'd never heard of before. It is a nice change of pace to be listening to so much Walton; I've been stooped deep in the world of medieval music lately. Speaking of which, in return for the aforementioned pieces, I offer you both this amazing lament for Machaut by F. Andrieu and this (rather haunting) double ballade by Grimace... Aza24 (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24:(@DBaK:) – Thank you for those two recommendations. I'm not really an early music boy, though a concert in Norwich Cathedral by the William Byrd Choir a few years ago lingers in the memory – but it is salutary to be reminded that music didn't all start with Bach. When it ended is another matter. Tim riley talk22:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you would like Dunstaple—if you're not already familiar with him—who is probably the first significant English composer, and is more accessible due to his (rather revolutionary) use of triadic harmonies. But yes, it is certainly healthy to acknowledge music before Bach; Amitchell and I are going to work on Tallis's article, that is, whenever either of us get around to it! Aza24 (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maurice Ravel
@Tim riley: Greetings Tim. I am very well aware that you are one of the best Wikipedia editors out there, with tens of featured articles about composers and music-related articles. In the Maurice Ravel article, I centralized the caption as it looks a little better and does not damage the article at all. The same exists in articles such as that of Debussy, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, and so on. These reverts are very discouraging to editors, and many users leave Wikipedia due to just that. It seems rather elitist in a way, but I am sure you probably know that a featured article does not mean a perfect article. If there are any objections to my contribution, please tell me. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: I understand, so wouldn't it make sense to simply have all composers (with no infobox) centered, as to make having it to the left become 'daft'? Most Wikipedia articles contain Infoboxes which have a built-in centralized text on captions. This would make having centralized captions on these composers (again no infobox) rather appealing and familiar. Wretchskull (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A perfectly reasonable view, though I don't share it. The default setting for captions is ranged left, with, it seems to me. good reason. Tim riley talk20:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gustav Mahler - biased sdtatements concerning Zichy
Hello,
I am terribe sorry that you don´t see the contradiction in the article. Mahler has been negotiating with Pollini since summer 1890, the terms - according to Mahler's letter to Pollini - got fixed on the 7th November 1890 and the contract was signed on the 15th January 1891. Emperor Franz Joseph signed Zichy's appointment on 22. January 1891 and Zichy's first day in the office was the 1st February 1891. Mahler left six weeks later.
Peter Franklin's opinion (page 79 in his book) or that of Jonathan Carr (page 56 in his book) concerning Zichy's alleged attitude toward Mahler is irrelevant. Fact is: Mahler decided to leave before Zichy even knew that he would get the job.
We know Mahler was negotiating for the Hamburg post – we say so in the article - seeing the way the wind was blowing in Budapest. I have quoted the relevant source on the talk page, which is where I suggest you air your thoughts, so that other interested editors can see and evaluate them. Tim riley talk09:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mahler's discussion page is the right place for this thema, indeed. Thanks for the suggestion. I have already voiced my concerns on the discussion page of Mahler in the Hungarian Wikipedia showing all evidences based on contemporary newspapers and official documents. (Of course, it is in Hungarian, nevertheless, have a look at it, to get an impression.) I will do it - in a shortened version - for the English speaking world. It will take a bit time.--Farafince (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Todays TFA
@Tim riley: In TFA (Carmen), someone put a clarification needed tag in the instrumentation section. Could you, a musical knowledge virtuoso, fix this issue? I am not sure if the tag is 100% valid but I am certain you would know if an explanation or other solutions are necessary. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull::Thanks for that! Like a few other editors I keep an eye on the articles taken to FA by the late Brian Boulton, and will certainly look in tomorrow. It was BB who gave me the very wise advice many years ago not to try and fix every change while an article was on the front page, but to wait till the caravan has passed and clear up the next day - which I, or another of his admirers, will assuredly do. Tim riley talk19:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I say! The tag led to a learned discussion on the article talk page into which I hesitate to stick my oar. We'll get it sorted between all of us, and I'll give the article a concluding once-over to make sure it is undamaged from front page exposure. Tim riley talk19:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cosmo Lang
I see you have removed JanetThomas additions to Cosmo Lang and I am puzzled about the reason. I have just had an article published about Cof E bishops in the Great War,and I read the JanetThomas additions as emphasising Lang's persuasive skills as a preacher and his vehement and bellicose support for recruitment. The moral pressure he put on his clergy and others is also evident. The quotations from the monthly York Diocesan journal provide first-hand evidence. There are some errors in the additions which need tidying-up but,otherwise,they are valuable and should be allowed to stand. It is pointless for JanetThomas to reinstate her additions if you intend continually to undo them so perhaps you can clarify your position.
Ths73 Ths73 (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't encourage addition of inadequately cited stuff to Featured Articles (or indeed any articles). When citing books or other publications page numbers and full bibliographical details are required, following the existing citation format in the article. See WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:CITEVAR. These are not mere bureaucratic rules: they are there to make Wikipedia as reliable as possible for our readers. Tim riley talk18:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the additions add little to the information contained in the article, but that is just my opinion and if the editor adding them can gain a consensus that they are, in fact, worth adding I shall, of course, go along with it. I cannot claim any special authority over this (or any other) article, although I keep an eye on it and the other featured articles contributed by the late and sorely missed Brian Boulton. There is no rule that extensive additions to the agreed text of featured articles are forbidden, but it is wise to seek consensus for any such. In my experience interested editors are responsive and judicious on talk pages of FAs when a substantial change is proposed. Tim riley talk19:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the amendments add to an understanding of Lang’s role in the War,otherwise we would not have bothered to make them. They show evidence from primary sources. The issue for us is that it is a waste of our time making amendments if they are to be arbitrarily edited by people with limited or no knowledge of the subject. If we undo your deletion what happens next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:310A:1500:3464:86E3:5052:8D02 (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your courteous reference to me. If you re-read my remarks, above, you will see that I suggest you propose on the article talk page the addition of the extra wording. You mention primary sources: they are not favoured in Wikipedia, which is deliberately based on secondary sources: see WP:PSTS. Nb, please sign your additions, here and elsewhere, by adding four tildes ~~~~, thus. Tim riley talk20:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shylock
Some editors are very difficult people, seem to contradict most of Wikipedia's guidelines for collaborations, and seem to have little or no self-awareness - or even care about it. Somehow one must find the language that will reach such people and make them consider your arguments. So you can either go that way, or let them have their own way because life is too precious to waste. With the particular editor you're dealing with, I usually choose the latter, after having participated in some and read lengthy discussions. Life is short. See the initial quotation from Ser Amantio di Nicolao on my user page. - kosboot (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A kind message - thank you, Kosboot. I had not encountered that editor before, and I rather wish it could have stayed that way. I shall steer well clear in future. Tim riley talk18:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need your help. I tried to insert the reference to the Shapcott book (which is cited in footnote 99 following recent revision) in the References section of the Arnold Bennett entry, but couldn't seem to put in the correct position alphabetically; it appears at the very beginning and I don't know how to move it. What did I do wrong? Jrsd (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the book in a new Further Reading section, and removed the statement attributed to it in the main text, as it lacked adequate citation (no page number). Tim riley talk 14:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC) Later: I see a few other uncited or inadequately cited statements have crept in. I've cleaned them up, but they seem worthwhile and could be added again if fully cited in accordance with WP:CITEVAR. Tim riley talk14:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I'm not clear why you have deleted the para about Bennett's libretti for Goossens as the info it contains is also to be found in the Wikipedia entry for Goossens himself. As for the sentences about the unproduced film scenarios, I thought I had provided enough in the way of citation, but I can certainly add page numbers where applicable. Surely the lines about Hitchcock and 'Punch and Judy' can be restored - if necessary I could add a reference to Bennett's dealings with Hitchcock from Drabble's biography (p.329 if you have it to hand).
In the 'Sources' section can it somehow be made clear that as well as Swinnerton's one-volume Penguin selection from Bennett's journals there is an older three-volume set, edited by Newman Flower? I believe the original journals are in the New York Public Library
It looks to me as if all the deleted material can properly be put back in if adequately cited: the style here is <ref>Smith, p. 1</ref> in the reference, and the bibliographical details of Smith in the Sources list. The Sources list should contain only the actual books cited, e.g. in the case of the journals the Penguin Swinnerton edition. If you want to mention the 3-volume set it would, I'm sure, be reasonable to add it to the Further reading section. In the absence of an ISBN you can get an OCLC number from WorldCat, here. We don't use other Wikipedia articles as a source, but the Grove reference for the Goossens operas is impeccable, and the style here (I should explain that there is no one citation style for Wikipedia articles, and I am talking about the one in use for this one) is <ref>Banfield, Stephen. [https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O003511 "Goossens, Sir (Aynsley) Eugene"], ''Grove Music Online'', Oxford University Press, 1992. Retrieved 10 March 2021.</ref> I hope this is helpful. I suspect you know ten times more about AB than I do, and you may well be able to make what I like to think is a fairly good article into a definitely good one, and I'm happy to help if I can. Don't worry about mucking up the citations: as long as you add all the details I can knock them into shape. Tim riley talk17:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for clarifying things to an inexperienced Wikipedia contributor. I'll have a go at some more (hopefully improved) modifications shortly, and take advantage of your offer to 'knock into shape' whatever I add. It's not that I know everything about Bennett, but I'm drawing on the accumulated knowledge of Arnold Bennett Society members, some of whom have asked me to try to update the Wikipedia entry (which is mostly pretty good already). As the three-volume version of the journals is included in the 'List of works by Arnold Bennett' which I see you also had a hand in, perhaps that will suffice. Incidentally, though, the two volumes of AB's uncollected short stories and the published film scenarios should surely be added to the list of works - as a source for those, would the AB Society's website be authoritative enough? Jrsd (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Later] I wanted to insert a footnote in the middle of the first para of the 'Later Years' section, but didn't seem able to do so - it was to draw attention to the collection of AB's Evening Standard columns. Can you do this? What I wanted to write was: 'His columns for the Evening Standard are collected in [itals] Arnold Bennett: The Evening Standard Years – ‘Books and Persons’ 1926-1931 [end itals], edited with an introduction by Andrew Mylett (London, Chatto & Windus, 1974) ISBN 0 7011 1851 2'Jrsd (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All done now, I think, but let me know if I've missed something. I don't think the 3-vol Journals really belong in Further reading, but I won't quarrel if you disagree. The short stories and film scenario should certainly be in the Works article: the sources I used were earlier and an update would be good. If you add the books you think should be added I'll make the referencing OK. Tim riley talk12:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all that. I've added the missing page number(s). Was interested to read your additions re critical reception of the Goossens operas, which I didn't know about (also I was ignorant of the libel case that arose from the publication of AB's journals, which might merit further investigation for the society). Will go into the 'list of works' in due course, but not today. Hope you got all you wanted at Sainsbury's Jrsd (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! I'll leave you a note on your own talk page about the two libel actions, which you can follow up for your journal or not as you choose. I'll have a rummage in the archives and see what details I can find. Tim riley talk20:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to the website. I have now added a couple of volumes (+ contents) to the Short Stories section of the list of works by Bennett. Also a couple of film scenarios to the Stage and Screen section. Some tidying up will be needed - sorry. I'm also wondering about the 'Adaptatons by Others' section: could one add radio adaptations (there was a R4 serialisation a couple of years ago, for instance) and stage adaptations? I know the Victoria Theatre, Stoke, has done various Bennett adaptations over the years - they put on a version of Anna of the Five Towns in 2017 - and there may be others.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eugénie Brazier you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Eugénie Brazier you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eugénie Brazier for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Les Mères Allard
Hey, Tim! I don't know if this would interest you, but for what it's worth I invite you into User:Valereee/Les Mères Allard.
Good morning, @Valereee: and @Kudpung:. My warmest thanks to you for nudging me in the direction of GAN for Mère Brazier and for your input. I'll finish off there (a few remaining prose points from the review) and then have a look at Les Mères Allard. Tim riley talk08:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jaques (As You Like It), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Privy.
On 5 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eugénie Brazier, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Eugénie Brazier was the first chef to be awarded six Michelin stars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eugénie Brazier. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eugénie Brazier), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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. I thought you might be interested in this article, which just passed FAC. It's mostly about Greco-Roman religion and outside your usual areas of interest, but it ties two of those areas of interest together. If you've ever wondered how Isis and Osiris got in your Mozart, this article explains how. A. Parrot (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A. Parrot: Most interesting – thank you! As it happens, my best-beloved purports to believe me to be a 4,000-year-old Egyptian baboon, and so this is not so very far from my habitat. Tim riley talk11:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarnetteD: Thank you, but I must disclaim any credit for the article, of which I wrote not a word except the introduction. The main article on Salome had been tagged for clean-up, specifically for looking like a high-school essay, and I moved the lengthy parts that clearly were school or college assignments (large one-off contributions by editors not seen at WP before or since) to their own article, and then expanded the core features of the Salome article - history, plot, production history and critical response. The "themes and derivatives" sections, though they rather clogged up the main article, are properly cited, pretty much on topic, and free of POV and OR and seemed to deserve their own space. (You're right about the to-do list. I find, as I bet you do, that working on one article adds three more to your list – in the case of Salome, creating two articles on people mentioned in the text and overhauling a third (Lina Munte, Henry Fouquier and Micheál Mac Liammóir).
Well, that is what I get for looking at the edit history of the new article and assuming (that dreaded word-heehee) things. That allows me to say nice work on all the cleanup - which can be more difficult than writing a new article. BTW 13 April 1882 was the night that Oscar spoke to the miners at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville. I stayed at a hotel there in 2002 to celebrate and am thinking of doing the same next year. It is a treat to stand on the same stage where he delivered his lecture to the crowd. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk08:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you've added the CW info. Good job. I somehow missed Sturgis' Oscar: A Life until last September. I found it well done and very thorough. One of the items that I did not remember reading before was the fact that Wilde was moved to a different room at Hôtel d'Alsace roughly two weeks before his death. That is close to the time when his famous quote about being "in a duel to the death" with his wallpaper was said to Claire de Pratz. Since the death bed pic displays such a hideous decor that new info set me to wondering if the two rooms had the same wallpaper. They probably did but there is also a chance they didn't. I feel sure he would have a truly witty barb about a place that had two different yet equally ghastly wallpapers. Thanks again for you work. MarnetteD|Talk15:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RE: References in the English Wikipedia article
Hi Tim riley! The one who is really grateful is me. I have translated to Spanish a lot of articles where you were the main contributor for a lot of years. I use to translate articles from English wiki and add some additional information. In Debussy's case, I was not the main contributor, but I have reviewed this article, and after give format to all references I realized that there was some missing information about the bibliography. Thanks for all and kind regards Obelix83 (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Obelix83: What a pleasing message to receive – thank you! If I can ever help clarify anything when you are translating for Spanish Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to ping me. (And we'll fix any remaining citations chez Debussy as soon as the libraries reopen.) Tim riley talk22:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few mentions of by-pass variegated. Obviously, the despised DM is unusable, but the book will be in the BL, which appears to have reopened? KJP1 (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @KJP1:. Most helpful. I'll put something together. You make me wonder if perhaps I should do an article on Pillar to Post with subsections where appropriate, rather than have piecemeal articles on by-pass variegated etc. Any thoughts? Tim riley talk09:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marvellous! I do wonder whether a Pillar to Post article, grouping the main “styles”, would be the way forward eventually, but the BIG problem with such an approach would be that readers who may have heard, or read, of, say, “Stockbrokers’ Tudor”, will very likely have no idea of its derivation. I’ve just done a little article of my own, on this minor architectural masterpiece, Hayes Island Snack Bar, where many a pleasant afternoon in my younger days was spent over an espresso and a cigarette. Happy days. KJP1 (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I much enjoyed your Hayes Island offering. It's always pleasing when our requisite objectivity is informed by personal affection, and, as in this case, it often shows – most pleasingly. Tim riley talk19:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ralph Richardson
Oops. Thanks for the catch on my addition of WP:SDDATES, which changed actor to action while I was doing it. You could’ve fixed it too, I wouldn’t have been insulted, and would still say thanks. So... thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. I never tamper with Wikidata stuff, if that is what your addition was, at it is not something I know anything about. Tim riley talk23:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim and any talk-page watchers who might be around. I know we've not had a lot of interaction before but I've recently turned Robert Roberts (author) from a two-sentence stub with one reference to what I think is a comprehensive account of his life and work (nearly) suitable for FAC. As someone with a sharp eye for prose who has written many FAs on English writers (and has reviewed a couple of my FACs in the past), I wondered if you might be able to take a look at this one? If you (or anyone else) can spare any time to cast your eye over it, I'd be very grateful. Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I'm rather ashamed to say I've never heard of this writer, but it will be my pleasure to look in. If I have anything I think worth saying, I'll say it on the article talk page. As it happens, I'm between articles at the moment, so will look in straight away. Tim riley talk14:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
George Lansbury
Hi Tim, I noticed you reverted my addition to George Lansbury the other day. I've now put this fact back into the article elsewhere with an explanatory note. Although there is no direct source I can find online stating that Lansbury is the only Labour leader never to have led the party into a general election, it is a fact which can be easily be deduced by checking the list of Labour Party leaders and Labour's electoral performance at the Labour Party (UK) article. Lansbury is the only Labour leader not to appear in the party's general election results history. I feel this is a fairly important fact to note. Wikipedia articles do keep tabs on evolving facts and feats which are self-evident. Referencing the general election result for every election since the Labour Party's formation would be too clunky.--TrottieTrue (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked again, I now feel that this fact is more relevant to the lead section of the article, as it is a reason why Lansbury might be notable, so I've moved it there - I hope you don't mind. The footnote should clarify this. Lansbury isn't particularly remembered amongst Labour's past leaders (partly because of how long ago it was, and the era in which he was prominent), but him not contesting a general election does make him stand out amongst the party's leaders, making him unique (acting leaders don't really count, and nor does the incumbent, as his tenure is still ongoing). I added the fact because I think it's the kind of thing which those interested in British political history would find relevant. Facts and feats about such people on WP are not always attributable to a source - such things are in a state of constant change anyway, so even if an old book did state this Lansbury fact, it could still become dated if Keir Starmer stood down before the next election, and would therefore need updating. Hopefully a footnote will clarify it for readers.--TrottieTrue (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss on the article talk page, where other interested editors will see your proposals and decide whether there is a consensus for them. Tim riley talk12:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: I think the page is a delight – witty and wise. I fear it will be appreciated most by those who need its lesson least, but that is the fate of so much wise and witty advice, e.g. Fowler and Gowers. It's still worth trying to get the message across, nonetheless. I can't think where one could link to the page from, but will ponder. Meanwhile, my warm congratulations on a really rather special – and beautifully written – page. Tim riley talk19:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim, I just flitted past ES. Haven't looked at it any great detail, but 2 things -
1) Le Comte Ory, Il viaggio a Reims (the latter of which I think should be named). This sort of thing wasn't that unusual, there had been plenty of pastichii before in Rossini's career and there would be more later.
2) La Somnambule. In 1827 Scribe's libretto for this ballet was a landmark, the first time such a thing had been done at the Opéra. Until then the storyline and staging of a ballet had just been left to the chef de danse. It was a mark of the increasing professionalism of the Opéra and was to lead, in this way, to the fusion of opera and ballet in Grand Opera. See (cough) Conway (2021), p. 61. -
Conway, David (2021)."The 'Mandatory' Ballet of the Grand Opéra: Then and Now", in: Isolde Schmid-Reiter & Aviel Cahn, Music Theatre in Motion: Reflections on Dance in Opera, pp. 57-70. Regensburg: ConBrio Verlag, ISBN 978-3-940768-96-4
It will be a pleasure to quote Conway. I already have, in fact, and will go and look up this second ref to him. Apologies for ducking out of L'Egisto but I have a note from Matron asking for me to be excused from Cavalli. Tim riley talk19:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the quote which I have just noticed! Although I am being a bit facetious there, I think I am not inaccurate. You are missing a trick re L'Egisto, we've just been nominated for an Offie!--Smerus (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, this is a fine article. I think you could point out that at Scribe's death, 'L'Africaine' had the working title 'Vasco de Gama'. You could also enlarge maybe on the key significance in Scribe's work of the 'quiproquo'; the resulting twists were Scribe's real schtick. A bientôt ---Smerus (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, and now done. (Also gave me a pretext to mention Feydeau, youthful exposure to whose humane, dignified and realistic dramas has made me the man I am today) Tim riley talk15:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've also coincidentally just discovered that a section of Kierkegard's Either/Or (the essay "First Love") is a discussion of Scribe's brief play of that name. Possibly worth mentioning.--Smerus (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is good stuff - thank you so much. I've got a slot at the British Library next week and will follow these points up. Excellent! Tim riley talk08:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
British Library
A couple of months ago I promised a Wiki-colleague that I'd look some disputed fact up at the British Library as soon as I could get access after the Covid lockdown. I now have that access but have, I am embarrassed to say, forgotten what and to whom I promised. (Old, old, Master Shallow!) If anyone seeing this can jog my memory I shall be most grateful. Tim riley talk17:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have remembered, I'm relieved to say, and if anyone wants me to look anything else up while at the BL next week you have until tomorrow to let me know (the days of ordering books 70 minutes in advance are temporarily a thing of the past.) Happy to do a spot of devilling if wanted. Tim riley talk21:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check again, i added refs to the ones that need them. There is one error, that I haven't been able to remove, but isn't applicable. Would you agree this is vastly superior then cramming his extensive credits, on stage, film, television, and radio with his also extensive awards list? The One I Left (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you are undoing most the damage you did, but it seems pointless to have two articles on JG's statistics when you can have them all conveniently together in one place. If you disagree, why not seek a consensus to split the article? Better than just barging in and making a mess. Tim riley talk12:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Undoing the mess I did? Just adding a few refs? Anyway that page is beyond crammed its totally unreadable. It's shoved in the bottom, where there isn't any room to be able to look at a glance and see the totality of his awards body. I cleaned up the section frankly. The One I Left (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course entitled to your view. By all means see if you can get others to share it, in which case I will naturally go along with the consensus. Tim riley talk12:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know, Tim. I'll read the entry again (generally it is pretty satisfactory, in my opinion)but I'll circulate your request to other members of the Arnold Bennett Society for comment. BTW, what does FAC mean?
@Jrsd: Excellent. I look forward to any input from you or other Bennett experts. Apologies for the jargon: FAC = featured article candidate, i.e. an article put forward for review by all interested editors, with a view to becoming a "featured article" – Wikipedia's highest class – and at some point being featured on Wikipedia's front page. Tim riley talk12:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who knew…..
that Lola and Nikolaus Pevsner lived in the cottage that was previously home to Jane Grigson’s husband! I certainly didn’t. Hope you’re keeping well. Got to London last week, very rushed, but a meet is now definitely on the cards. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Planets you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions. The date should not be changed to 1878 as march was itself composed in 1877. I have tried rephrased the "Across the Danube" march in this edit. Thanks a lot again!! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article The Planets you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Planets for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RFA
I appreciate your judgement and trust. Your content creations are wonderful and a pleasure to read. My daughter calls me a theater nerd, but she has no idea... If I can be of service call on me. If the spotlight (on a new admin) reveals something I can't see myself please call it to my attention. BusterD (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your name as a reviewer at another FLC and thought "Perfect!" Most of my plant lists these days are kind of technical, but this one is filled with history-of-science stuff ... there's a chance you might enjoy reading it, or even reviewing it. I see you're plenty busy these days so feel free to say no. I'll mention to the FLC coords that the review was solicited; they won't mind. I'm pretty sure all of Sturm's requests have been actioned, and there are no outstanding issues from this list or my other lists that I know of. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: On no account would I decline an invitation from a colleague I much respect and who has done me many a kindness in the past! I'll be there over the weekend. Tim riley talk17:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, pinging you for List of plant family names with etymologies as well ... I don't know if your kind invitation extended to this one too (my last plant names list for years, probably) ... but it's a third as long, and the namesake rows have already been covered by the previous reviews, and (arguably) it's more fun. - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fauré
You reverted my addition of "Pelleas and Melisande" to Fauré's best-known works. Could you please explain your decision? I hear it often enough on classical radio to think it does belong there, but I could not state any other criteria for my or your decision. Thanks. Zaslav (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Singling out a representative sample of a composer's (or writer's or painter's) works for mention in a lead can be difficult, but the half-dozen included chez Fauré were approved at PR and FAC. If everybody adds his or her personal favourite, such lists become unwieldy and unhelpful. They are not intended to be exhaustive, but usefully illustrative. As it happens, the Pelléas music is a particular favourite of mine but I didn't and don't think it belongs in the lead. If you look at the catalogues you will see that there are only a handful of recordings of the complete Pelléas music and even the lovely little orchestral suite has only a fraction of the number of recordings of the Requiem or "Clair de lune". (And I'd guess fairly confidently that the best-known movement from the suite is the "Sicilienne" which of course is mentioned in the lead.) – Tim riley talk08:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: @Zaslav: – I think this exchange is worth preserving on the article talk page so that anyone interested can see why the Pelléas music isn't in the lead, and perhaps express a view in favour or against. Are you happy for me to copy the above to the Fauré talk page? Tim riley talk12:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to copy this.
Thanks for the explanation. To clarify, I didn't add the Pelleas suite from personal preference; from the frequency with which I hear it on the radio it appears to be quite popular. However, it's not important. Zaslav (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will Evans (comedian)
Sorry, misclick shortened my edit summary. You can't just remove sourced and integrated text on the basis that you think it was "OK before". Your edit clearly removed a lot of information. Please discuss on the talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghmyrtle: You do me an injustice. I haven't deleted anything you or anyone else wrote about Will Evans. You are mistaking me for the editor who merged two articles (without asking anyone, as far as I can see). I hope you will withdraw your accusation against me, above. Tim riley talk13:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I see what's happened. Between my earlier revert and my unrevert you restored material that the editor who did the merge had deleted and that correction was lost when I reverted to the one-para version. Really, this merge has caused a lot of unnecessary trouble for both you and me! Tim riley talk13:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I did realise that it was Inwind who had removed my original words (inadvertently or not, I don't know), but after reinstating them, with additional material, I was concerned that you then removed them again. Anyway, if we are all now reasonably content, I hope we can move on! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, absolutely. Perhaps we can take away from this small fiasco the moral that it is a bad idea to merge articles without discussing it first with the responsible editors. Best wishes, Tim riley talk13:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I started Will Evans (comedian) in September 2020 (here), I was completely unaware of the fact that you had started Will Evans (writer) (here), the previous month. Our sources were quite different (yours from a theatre background, mine from music hall sources), and I was oblivious to the fact that two articles then existed about the same person. What I did do, however, was add "my" article to the dab page here - had you done the same, we might not have become so confused. Not a criticism - simply an observation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I see you reverted my insertion of a sic in a quoted statement by an English newspaper that described him as "an Englishman". The reason for the addition was to maintain the perspective fact that Lang was a Scot. (I am not a Scot myself but I think it kindness to acknowledge where he was from where commentators have overlooked.) I recall reading this article a few years ago and seeing another passage where he was called "English" by an American commentator at a later stage in Lang's career and that adjective I recall was followed by a sic tag. So I was following what I considered to be a good precedent.Cloptonson (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lang was of course a Scot, but I think Fowler has it right:
Sic ...is inserted after a quoted word or phrase to confirm its accuracy as a quotation, or occasionally after the writer’s own word to emphasize it as giving his deliberate meaning; it amounts to Yes, he did say that, or Yes, I do mean that, in spite of your natural doubts. It should be used only when doubt is natural; but reviewers and controversialists are tempted to pretend that it is, because sic provides them with a neat and compendious form of sneer.
The article contained the [sic] when it went through PR and FAC in 2009, and no reviewers (including me) objected to it, and it was removed by an IP as recently as 2017. So if you insist on restoring it I am not in much of a position to object, but looking at it now I nonetheless think it is in the second rather than the first of Fowler's categories. Tim riley talk07:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: This theme stuck a distant but familiar chord. I remember an exchange at some PR/FAC or other with the main author of Lang's article, the sorely-missed Brian Boulton, in which he humorously confessed to a fondness for [sic]s, and I have even tracked down an example in another review of my encouraging him to use one, but I think it was in the first rather than the second of Fowler's categories. (In an article called L'Arianna it was necessary to write "Lamento d'Ariana" in a caption, and I suggested a [sic] there, where there really did seem scope for assuming there was a typo.) Tim riley talk07:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in, I do think sic is needed. It could be taken as a sneer - particularly as the source is a liberal British newspaper - but it is primarily warning the unwary reader not to be misled. This seems to be a third case not covered by Fowler. However it should be [sic] as Tim shows it, not (sic) as in the edit. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles, I hear what is said about the way it should be written (with square rather than rounded brackets). The spirit of my intervention was that of, to use your words, 'warning the unwary reader not to be misled' and it is to say, using Fowler's phrase, 'Yes, the newspaper did say that, in spite of a publicly known fact Lang was not English', and I certainly declare that it was not intended as a 'sneer'. BTW an amusing anecdote to illustrate Lang's Scottishness was that he married the Scots writer John Buchan to Susan Grosvenor while he was Bishop of Stepney, to the chagrin of Buchan's mother (a Presbyterian minister's wife) who viewed Lang as a religious renegade for having gone over to the Church of England and conducted the wedding in what she called a 'temple of Rimmon' - an Anglican church in London.Cloptonson (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two to one is a strong working majority, and I withdraw my objection to the [sic]. (Irrelevantly, I am reminded of the cutting from the Churchdown Parish Magazine read out on The News Quiz years ago, which I put straight into my commonplace book: Would the Congregation please note that the bowl at the back of the Church, labelled "For The Sick", is for monetary donations only.) – Tim riley talk16:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir, I note you recently edited this article, it turns out (whether perhaps, as the user ssilvers implies, unwittingly) in support of a change I had made (subsequently reverted by someone without, it seems, actually checking the changes made) in removing all the primary citations cited with no reference to reliable secondary/ published sources as required per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, which deprecates the simple reference to census record images, probate records and the like as sources for articles. Although I am not at all inclined to indulge in "edit warring" or the like, I really must say I do think the guideline ought to be followed here as staunchly as elsewhere, and that should recourse be necessary to some arbiter to make the decision, you might be able to point me in the correct direction. Although I fully appreciate you have many other commitments here, my own comments I have left on the article talk page, should any further outline of the reason for my previous edit be wanted. Best regards
Forgive me for the trivial distraction- user ssilvers has laid down the law on the talk page and one stands appropriately chastened etc etc. Best regards [unsigned]
Hi @Tim riley – I recently expanded and helped the article "Daisy (advertisement)" become a good article. It would be a great help if you could take a look at the article and provide me with suggestions at its peer review page. I'm not sure whether it would be appropriate to nominate it for FAC in the future, but I do want to try... The article is 13.5 thousand characters long, which may be less for a FA, but it provides enough coverage for an 60 second advertisement that aired just once. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to thank you again for your GA review of Frederick II of Prussia and taking the time on my page to discuss the various approaches to creating consistent citations. Based on your encouragement, I finally gave decided to dive into the deep blue sea. I very much appreciate the time you took to thoughtfully share the approaches to citation. (I chose to approximate the George Bernard Shaw approach rather than the equally as strong "Early Bronze Age Approach".) But at least Frederick has a navy, or at least that is how it appears as his biography sails on that sea of blue! Wikipedia is graced by your presence. Wtfiv (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your comment above and want to say "Thank You". It's been fun trying to build a decently sourced article that meets the consensus of passionate advocates. And your mentoring with the references helped. I came over here again to say I was pleasantly surprised to see you that you open to helping guide the Frederick article to Featured Article status. I didn't expect it, but look forward to it. I enjoyed working with you, your comments are all focused on strengthening the article. (and your encouragement didn't hurt either!) Wtfiv (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Melville Fuller
If you would permit me to impose upon your time, I'd very much appreciate it if you would pay a visit to Melville Fuller, which I currently have up for peer review here ahead of a possible FAC. I'm sure the quality of the writing still needs a bit of work, so one of your second-to-none prose reviews would surely be quite useful. Very truly yours, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only Gottschalk piece I knew was "Pasqinade", which I used to be able to play the early, easier bits of if no-one else was listening. Gottschalk, I see, called La Nuit des tropiques a "symphonie romantique" - only two movements, but there is precedent for that, after all! The slow movement is a bit blatant in its orchestration, but is charming, and the "Festa Criolla" after it is a real foot-tapper. The fourth comment below the image on your YouTube link seems very much to the point, and Le bœuf sur le toit has been a favourite of mine for many years. (I see its article is in need of a wash-and-brush-up: another one for the to-do list!) Thank you for introducing me to La Nuit des tropiques. I reciprocate with the slow movement of André Messager's early symphony (starting at 8'12" in the clip). The other movements are unremarkable, I think, but the slow movement is a charmer. (I hope it's all right our putting YouTube links in talk page messages). Tim riley talk09:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying about the slow movement. It seems very much like routine-textbook orchestration, but some of climaxes do give me slight chills! You seem to be in the majority consensus on regarding the second movement more highly—it really does have that Les Six sound, though I almost hear some Ravel as well. I've much enjoyed your Messager recommendation; I must admit I know little about Messager other than his importance in opera and his spectacular mustache. Aza24 (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In appreciation
The Reviewers Award
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, my dear Gog! I have looked up "actionable" in the OED: "Giving cause for legal action". So, as Nathan sings in Guys and Dolls, "call a lawyer and sue me"! (I'm under the influence of Broadway musicals this evening having just seen a matinée of Anything Goes at the Barbican so superb that words fail me to do it justice.) I owe you and the other co-ordinators one more promised review just now, viz Melville Fuller, where I shall look in tomorrow, I hope, once I'm back on planet Earth. Ever thine, Tim talk19:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You sound very cheerful Mr riley. I had always assumed that your lawyers approved all of your comments before you published them. If not, may I commend this to you. Enjoy your evening. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and a question
Thank you for your guidance regarding featured articles and sources; I'm still learning some of the finer points of this site's bureaucracy. That was most helpful in resolving this dispute; it just didn't make sense to me why someone would delete sources from an article.
A question, though. The unregistered user, 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9, left a response that I worry gets into the territory of a personal attack, particularly "try and take on board you're really not good enough to decide what should and shouldn't be in an article" (italics mine) and the edit description "Second rate nonentity." I'm concerned that this user might engage in similar personal attacks against other users. Is there a procedure for bringing such concerns to Wikipedia' attention? PlusSeine (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could start by not accusing people of OWNERSHIP when they are just following established practice and guidelines. Accusations of ownership are very definitely uncivil. - 18:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
There must be some procedure, I think, but I'm not the right person to ask, having been editing Wikipedia for 15 years without feeling the need for such recourse. I have had some vigorous dust-ups, and so have many other well known (or notorious) old hands here, but as to "personal attacks", I think there is a distinct difference between criticising someone's edits and criticising him or her as a person. My reading of the words you quote is that you (or any other one editor, particularly a new one) is in no position to overturn the FAC consensus of experienced editors, which is, I think, an uncontroversial comment. "Second rate nonentity", though an unflattering remark (though which of us would dare proclaim himself first rate or a celebrity?), however frustrating your edit warring was, is not what I would call a personal attack. I should reserve that term for someone calling me a liar, or a plagiarist, or accusing me of being a sock-puppet, but I'm interested to know where, as a newcomer, you get "This site doesn't take too kindly to that sort of behavior. Could get you in trouble". Has a more experienced editor, name unknown, mentioned this? He or she might have helpful views, if so. Tim riley talk18:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
I don't know whether it's because I'm English or because I was brought up in an environment of classical music. I don't know whether it's because I've been a musician one way or another all my life, or been lucky enough to attend concerts in some of the world's finest halls and theaters.
I don't know if it's because I was born and bred in Malvern which is steeped in his legacy, but the one piece of music in the world that never fails to bring tears of emotion to my eyes is the March No.1.
Thank you the BBC for broadcasting it every year, thank England for the Albert Hall, and thank you, Tim Riley, for the 581 edits that put the gold star on Wikipedia's Elgar. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How kind, and how very pleasing! Thank you so much. I suppose it's inevitable that one starts on one's favourites and moves on to others later, with the result, in my case anyway, that the Elgar article now strikes me as something of a prentice work compared with, say, RVW, which I worked on five years later when I had, I think, got my line and length right. I'm glad you approve of the Elgar article withal. The handkerchief up my sleeve in the concert-hall is for Elgar too: the point in the finale of the First Symphony when the main theme returns piano and cantibile at figure 130 in the Novello score. I may (or may not) have managed to get through the slow movement dry-eyed, but that bit does for me. Best wishes, Tim riley talk09:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What would BB have said?
To any fellow fans of our much missed Brian Boulton who see this page: I am as sure as I can be of anything that BB would have loved to review A Voyage Round the World, which is up for FAC. I've added my twopenn'orth, and how I wish I could have seen BB's comments, too! It was so much his sort of article. Do add your thoughts, ladies and gents, if you have time and inclination. Tim riley talk18:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got off on the wrong foot due to my inexperience as a new editor, but I want to learn.
Dear Tim,
I come in peace. I think that I got off on the wrong foot with you. I am a new editor and I am still learning about the process. Your advice about gaining consensus for additions, etc, to articles is sensible. I would like to have a constructive relationship with other editors, in order to avoid edit wars and hopefully to improve articles. My action in repeatedly undoing your undoing of my edits, without having a discussion about it, was due to my inexperience. I want to avoid that mistake in the future.
I can assure you that the additions that I attempted to make were made in good faith and that I provided appropriate citations for them. I did research from trustworthy sources before I made my edits. I have quite an interest and admiration for both of the subjects (Eamon de Valera and Maurice Ravel) whose Wikipedia pages I endeavoured to add to and I can assure that my edits were not intended to undermine the subjects in any way, shape or form. I felt that my additions would be helpful to the presentation of the article. My intention was to keep my edits brief, non-political and purely factual about one or two noteworthy events in De Valera's life. What I failed to do, and what I will now undertake to do, is to have a discussion on the Talk page of the Eamon de Valera article and to see if a consensus on my proposed changes can be reached.
Again, I hope to have a positive and constructive relationship with you, Tim, and I hope that we can keep in touch.
That's a gracious message – thank you. I – and any number of fellow editors – will be happy to help you with any aspects of editing about which you are unsure. Don't hesitate to ask. – Tim riley talk21:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current brouhaha
Hi Tim - that's a fair point. Just to explain why I'm hot and bothered - it's not something that I would usually get worked up about, but in this case, I consulted a close friend who is professor of early modern British history at York Uni about how we could improve the article before I started working on it. She was good enough to read through it and lend me a load of books, but her first comment was words to the effect of 'Why on Earth do you call it that? Nobody does.', and she complained that it gets boring explaining to new students each year that what they have read here is wrong. I said I'd try to do something to fix that... GirthSummit (blether)14:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, sorry, I wasn't trying to persuade you to form an opinion - just explaining why I'm more bothered than I would usually be. I didn't want you to get the impression that I'm always this argumentative. GirthSummit (blether)14:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with arguing when you feel strongly about something. I hope the discussions pan out satisfactorily. Best of luck, and good wishes, Tim riley talk14:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kelvedon Hall
How about an FA on the Lord of Kelvedon when I’m back? Just racing through Volume 2 of the Heffer-edited diaries, absolutely cracking stuff!, although the book is so bloody heavy. Chips warrants an FA. And if a former editor with an interest in Essex architecture is watching this page, I could do with a good image of Kelvedon Hall, although Google Earth suggests it is as inaccessible as Comarques. All the very best, and a trip to Ham is definitely on the cards. Adios. KJP1 (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good gracious me! Are you suggesting we write about a man of notoriously irregular sexual habits? (regularly irregular, I mean of course.) Splendid idea! I'll start looking out sources. Hope all is tickety-boo in Spain meanwhile. I know what you mean about heavy books, e.g. the contrast between two substantial volumes side by side on my Noël Coward shelf: the biography by Philip Hoare (Sinclair-Stevenson, 1995) and Coward's letters, edited by Barry Day (Methuen, 2007). True, the first has a twelve-year start on the second, but the Hoare is on porous, lightweight, cheap paper, yellowing by the year, and the Day is on posh stock and looks ageless. On the other hand, I can hold the Hoare in one hand and the Day has to sit on my desk to be read. Tim riley talk19:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Heffers even have ribbon bookmarks, almost unheard of these days. Although, I recently shelled out a fair few smackers on [8]The Complete Uncle. Did you read them in your youth? I loved them and have been hunting for the complete edition for a while. It was crowd-sourced in 2013, after the original volumes were long out-of-print, and is beautifully produced, with bookmark to boot. Get those sources out of the BL. Does Channon have a biography, other than the Carreno which, if I recall was little reviewed, and then not well. I think not? But masses of sources, many of which I’ll have. KJP1 (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with a bar to your previous reviewers award in recognition of the continuing thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Keep 'em coming. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, not too sure what page you were reading(jk.); but seriously, those tags were added because of the lack of page numbers so your edit summary doesn't make sense and that's why I'm writing to ask to amend the edit; deleting my book citing is not an issue; but deleting the [page needed] tags is unnecessary, if your going to delete it then please write in the page numbers instead of lying. (User talk:Cltjames)
Cltjames, please sign your messages with ~~~~. I reverted you for a similar reason [9], so I'll butt in here with some clarification while Tim isn't online. WP:CITESHORT will explain this best. Essentially, in the article where you added those clean up template, the sources are given in short footnotes after each line, which all provide page numbers when needed, i.e. ref 3 (Hughes, p. 10) which refers to the 3rd page of Hughes, Michael (2017). Archbishop Randall Davidson. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-4724-1866-1. This is a fundamental component of Wikipedia and academia as a whole, given that you've been here 10 years, I highly recommend you read through WP:CITESHORT. Aza24 (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And while you're at it, Cltjames kindly withdraw the accusation of lying, above. In addition to acquiring the basic skills of editing you need to acquire some civility. Thank you, Aza24 for your helpful remarks, above – very patient and forbearing; they would be clear even to the dimmest reader. – Tim riley talk07:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
