User talk:Almost-instinct/Archive 2

Category structure
A page should not be in both a category and a sub-category, so please rethink the category structure for Philip Larkin wiki pages. Snowman (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

L@60
I'm just starting to go through it and will add a sentence or two summarising each contribution. I'm not going to mess with the L as librarian section in the main article until I've dealt with Bloomfield and Dunn.

Incidentally (seeing the above message!), I had a problem with the cats: the PL one was a no-brainer, but AFAICS the essays cat seems mainly (entirely?) to be used for collections of essays by one person. What L@60 is is more like a Festschrift, but there doesn't seem to be a category for those.

Oh - I had a look at Jill (novel). What on earth are the Other Works and Further Reading sections doing there?!? --GuillaumeTell 15:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnson note
I wanted to draw your attention to the note and apology here: too many insider jokes about past FACs and Malleus's block history. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blackdown Hills
Hi, Were you intended to do much more editing of this article? I'm happy with what you've done so far; but I'm currently doing a GA review on it. Basically are you intending to major changes, if so I'll put the review on hold; I'm not too worried about minor clean ups.?Pyrotec (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to thank you for improving my prose on this article and I certainly don't think "rejigging of clauses within each sentence" caused any problems. A great example of the working of Darwikinism. Thanks again.&mdash; Rod talk 15:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops (hyphens)
No problem, I've made almost identical mistakes myself. I'd be surprised if no-one has. Happy editing, --JD554 (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tennis project and featured content
Right now the Tennis wikiproject has no actual tennis featured content. Sure it has two FAs, both about video games, but for a project of such significance it's really poor. I'm trying to initiate a discussion as to why this is the case and what can be done about it and I was really hoping you could contribute to the discussion here. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

James Robert Baker
Re your question on talk, the main editor of that article is recently deceased; the WP:TFA/R request was in his memory. If you're able to improve that other page yourself, have at it. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Improve it?! I had never even heard of it until ten minutes ago!  almost - instinct 23:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what it is either ... anyway, just wanted you to know the background. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the background is very sweet :-) I liked this I just found by googling  almost - instinct 23:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't decide if this diff is pointy or lawyering ... maybe I should just be glad that there are people out there making sure WP isn't fatally undermined by people asking innocent questions. Time to go and do something else for while  almost - instinct 07:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshire Dales (could do with improving, too)
Sorry, this isn't my neck of the woods. Well, actually, it is almost my neck of the woods physically (Airedale is probably my nearest dale, and if you think the Coverdale article is bad...), but my main interests outside opera (and, to an extent, literature) are cities, buildings, architecture, townscape, local history and suchlike. I've visited and/or driven through all the main dales, but I don't do much rambling (except metaphorically) and, when not passing through, am usually visiting restaurants, pubs, ruins, stately homes, churches rather than admiring the scenery (though I do a bit of that when appropriate). You could try the Yorkshire Project's talk page. Another possibility might be User:PamD, who IS into walking and is always pleased to help.

Off the above topic but on to one that is of mutual interest: have you come upon Richard Palmer's "Such Deliberate Disguises"? I've ordered it.

PS: I see that you're located in London. I'll be down for Elektra at the ROH on Friday - fancy a pint somewhere? Also, I have a spare ticket for the opera if you're interested. Best.--GuillaumeTell 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't get back to you about a Yorkshire Dales source - will try and have a think / look at the bookshelves and see if I can find something useful. PamD (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas. Chubb enna  itor  17:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Larkin
I was under the impression that the two volumes were a collection edited by Thwaite, which was revised in 2003 with additions done after Larkin's death. If this is true, then ''Collected Poems. Philip Larkin. Ed. Thwaite'' deserves one article, as it is a single. If this is not true, then I am an ass. But as for the action, it would be ungodly easy to undo, and I thought that being bold on the issue would be better than waiting around to do something that seemed rather simple (combining two stubs on the same book, as different editions of the same book, even with additions in the latter, don't usually get different articles). Mrathel (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well, but I have to disagree with you. I still think that the new article works better for your purpose of showing the contraversy about the first edition. I would suggest that if you want to fill in the single article now, you could make a better argument for their seperation. If you want to take other opinions and put it to a vote, that will work too. But I would not worry abut people thinking wikipedia doesn't know what it is talking about just because two books with the same title by the same author share an article. In the case of Faulkner's Flags in the Dust and Sartoris, there is no question due to the different titles, but since the titles of the books are the same, I feel that anyone searching for either edition would not object to seeing information about the other in the article. Mrathel (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have brought the matter up for discussion on the Poetry Project Talk page to see what others think of the article(s). I would love for you to give your thoughts, to explain the differences that elude me due to my lack of the first copy, and explain why 2 articles is better than one article with a subsection on the contraversy surrounding the first. I appreciate your patience with me :) Mrathel (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sweetheart, be nice. Its articles we are talking about after all. I wanted you to be part of the discussion, and I appreciated your input. I have not read the 1988 version, and I totally admit that. But I fear your heart is beginning to cloud your mind on the issue. Do you really think that the two editions warrent differnt articles on their own, even after you take the contraversy out of the 1988 version (which would inherently link it to the 2003)? I will undo the merger tomorrow if you are losing sleep at night, but I just thought I would hear what others think before doing so.Mrathel (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the spelling here doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Macphysto (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Leeds
No problem with repeating yourself, its what I feel like I've been doing for the past couple of weeks!

I think I agree with you on the main point, that when the man on the street says Leeds, you don't really know what he means. Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion that there really isn't a lot to go on in terms of defining Leeds in any other way than the metropolitan borough. I remember ages ago in school we were told how the population of Leeds was about 750,000 whereas Manchester was only about 400,000. This was because when they'd sent the boundaries for Leeds it included a few places that you might not think of as Leeds, whereas Manchester excluded places you would think of as part of the city. The problem with the article at the moment is that it doesn't reflect would be thought of as Leeds, nor does it have any current administrative boundaries that could be used to define it. I think the merge proposal being put forward would try to show some of the complications regarding this. If you've got any better ideas on how to get on with it, I'm sure we would like to know.

The reason I'm getting a bit frustrated with the situation at the moment is that some people wont accept a merge, but they neither do they seem to realise that the current article is flawed and confusing! Quantpole (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Almost-instinct. Despite making those comments with tongue firmly in cheek, I'll take your points on board and apologise if any offence was caused. Thisrain (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Annus Mirabilis (Larkin)
Dear Sir, I recently came across the article for Annus Mirabilis (poem) which was an article that combined information on Dryden's and Larkin's texts. Since two poems that share the same name should not consequently share the same article (as we discussed at length with the Collected Poems article), I have removed the Larkin text (as it was just the poem and a copyright violation at that) and made the article about Dryden's poem. Since I know you have an affinity for Larkin, I just wanted to let you know that an article on Annus Mirabilis (Larkin) or something of the sort would be a good idea if enough sources are available on the matter. Mrathel (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Achievements
(a) thank you!
 * (a) the word "achievement" is not spelled correctly on your user page
 * (b) the current phrasing implies that improving the Larkin page is your only achievement. This would not seem to be fair! Macphysto (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(b) achievement is this instance means something along the lines of "only time a-i actually saw intentions through to enactment"  almost - instinct 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Philip Larkin GA
Thanks - I think! I'll do my best, but this is my first attempt at GA review, so I'll probably be a bit slow. I notice above, you mention a couple of Larkin-related books you are looking for. Would The Poet's Plight be Philip Larkin and the plight of poetry by the same author? If you are still looking for this and the other two titles you mention, I have access to a university library card for a library which appears to have these three currently on the shelf. I'm not sure how inconvenient it would be to you to access these "remotely" as it were. -- Kateshort forbob  19:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob- I'm hoping to borrow some of the other books mentioned anyway: the article has piqued my interest! I see what you mean about the Samuel Johnson FA; it does look rather long and complicated. With luck, this GA will be a lot simpler... -- Kateshort forbob  09:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a note to let you know that I have completed the Good Article review of Philip Larkin and have left some comments on the talk page. -- Kateshort forbob  18:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Piffle, pig, pigeon. Macphysto (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and my apologies for not having replied to your previous message(s). As usual, it's a mixture of computer problems and trying to do too many things at once. My #1 priority at present is writing up a performance of The Magic Flute in Saint Petersburg but I should finish that tomorrow. Meanwhile, I've had a cursory glance at the GA review comments. What I should do first is just read the article through and see if I have anything to say - and I'll try and do that tomorrow as well. Best. --GuillaumeTell 21:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't work for Opera mag. The write-up is just for an internet group I'm involved in, and eventually for my own website, which I haven't been keeping up to date (it's quite easy to find).  Hull - I never lived there, but used to go quite frequently from Leeds to visit a friend from Oxford who was there from about 1972-4.  The only other people I met then were in the Law Dept where he lectured.  Over the years, until about 2000, I've known various people who worked in the University Library in various capacities.  I'm still in touch with one of them - we were colleagues in Durham back in 1969-70 and meet for lunch from time to time. Larkin - may get on to it tomorrow;  meanwhile, I've looked through what's been going on and did a bit of tidying. --GuillaumeTell 01:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This be the verse
Dear Almost-instinct, you are quite right I should mind my manners. I do apologise. I can only say, I'm afraid my internet connexion was (is) playing up so I had little time to revise what I wanted to put. I am glad, I hope, we are generally in agreement anyway about what needs to be done with the article, and I am very sorry that I expressed so badly my refutation of one of your arguments. I've left more talk at the article talk page, Talk:This Be The Verse

Best wishes, Si. SimonTrew (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sleep
You need to go to bed earlier, dude. Macphysto (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're almost certainly right!  almost - instinct 11:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Leeds
There is currently a discussion regarding splitting of the Leeds article. As you were involved in the previous merge discussion you might be interested in this. Quantpole (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I work all day, and get half-drunk at night
(One of those is more true than the other.) I've had a glance at the peer review - quite a lot to take in. I haven't yet looked at the current state of the article, but will see what I can do with the bits where you mentioned my name.

As for the puerile joke, I'm afraid that I didn't (and don't) get it. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 19:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a great Viz aficionado (and I thought that jazz originally meant excrement). BTW, I have both L@60 and Such Deliberate Disguises to hand and could perhaps see if there's any more library stuff that I could add.  On the former, is Awadewit suggesting that maybe the para should be expanded?  Or the L@60 article?  On the latter, I find the author (who is a school-teacher) rather annoying - he makes much of his own aperçus and repeats himself a lot, but there may be a few nuggets there.


 * I'm finding the Peer Review rather difficult to deal with - could it maybe be refactored so that all the comments for each para are together? Or just the comments that haven't dealt with?  And editing it is rather a pain because the page is so long and has no sub-headings. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 11:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Rambles in Germany and Italy
I was wondering if you would be willing to do a peer review of the above article for me? It is about a travel narrative written by Mary Shelley. I would be ever so grateful! Awadewit (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just back from a short trip and I need to do a lot of work attending to the backlog of comments on the PL PR, but once I'm done there I shall, say in a couple of days time or something  almost - instinct 09:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

marton cum grafton
Hi

I fail to understand what gives you the right to edit others posts without discussion when you clearly have no understanding of the subject: I genuinely want to know what the rules are on Wikipedia as I would love to contribute more but I wont if there is an army of people out there, like you who APPARANTLY will chop my work about without reference to me.

I understand that you might disagree, or feel I have broke Wiki rules in some way, but I was under the impression that we were supposed to discuss these things?

regards

tony (barkiehunt@aol.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amhunt84 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments in trying to cool down the problems over this article. It seems to be an article which should not invite much controversy. Keith D (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In retrospect I've been feeling that I myself got a touch testy, so to look at it like that was very kind of you! :-)  almost - instinct 18:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

From a "newbie" i found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Amhunt84 (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see reply here  almost - instinct 10:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt text
Just finished (well, more or less) my exhausting/exhaustive alt text assignment for Leeds, so I should have a bit of time to do something useful on the Larkin front. I've just had a look at the Larkin alt text that you did ([]) and notice that a) the pic in the infobox has no alt text (Suggestion: "A sinister-looking bespectacled character in a suit lurks among library shelves polishing his persona") and b) it says on the above page at the top that you aren't supposed to duplicate the caption, because this will have been read out by the blind (or whatever) person's helper or will be visible on someone's mobile (or whatever) that doesn't show the image but does show the caption. Some of yours include the whole caption, some include part, some don't include much if any. Whether this will be noticed at FAR I have no idea, but you might want to think about it. I am a slow worker, and spent ages on the Leeds ones which you may find over-elaborate, but you might have a look at them and at WP:ALT if you aren't very clear what I'm going on about. And no, I am not volunteering to alter the alt Larkins! Best. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 22:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I might have been in a very flippant mood when I did those. From the comments from Awadewit about the academic credentials of the literary criticm I'm getting the impression that this isn't going to get through FAC anyway. I'm getting rather disheartened to tell the truth :-/  almost - instinct 23:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't get disheartened! It sometimes takes months and several rewrites to really perfect an article. For example, I wrote Joseph Priestley, was proud as punch of it, took it to peer review, and so many reviewers complained about its length and ponderousness that I had to do a complete rewrite (with the help of some wonderful copyeditors, of course). It was very hard to make myself do that, but in the end the article was the better for it. I really do think Philip Larkin is quite good, but I'm sure you want it to be stellar, right? :) Awadewit (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Larkin
It's the kind of article that could make it to FAC, but as it stands, the writing could use some improvement. I think it may be the result of being written by multiple editors. What it really needs is templates out of the text, and a streamlining of the writing, so that there's a flowing narrative. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "I didn't realize this article was going through peer review until after I'd posted this to the talk page" The words Peer Review appear 25 times on the talk page, and in the message I left you  almost - instinct 09:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just wondering whether you've come across this? The author was a contemporary of mine at Oxford for a couple of years (Ricks tutored both of us) and we kept in touch for a time after he went back to the US.  I'd never met anyone like him before - loud, rude, Jewish, very entertaining company.  The Larkin piece starts on p.3 but the whole thing is a good read. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 10:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been catching up on what's been going on. "Death" seems a bit bald for a heading, don't you think?  And I can't understand why people can't distinguish A librarian from THE Librarian, but there you go.  Anyway, I'm away - two operas and a funeral - from tomorrow until late Sunday, so won't be checking back in here until Monday p.m., and won't really be able to contribute much until Tuesday.  Nice to see that things have calmed down somewhat. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 01:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Michaels-Moore
Yes, it should be enough. I also have a "Who's Who in British Opera" which isn't very recent but is recent enough to give a birthdate, etc. - I can add that stuff if you start the article. He's one of the people who've sung with Opera North that I thought some time ago could do with an article (see here) but never got round to. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 22:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, you could have 'd everything that you typed in - that's what I do - and clicked "Show preview" to see whether it came up red or blue, and then unlinked the red ones (or tried recapitalising or un-capitalising) and checked the blue ones for ringers and dab.  M-M appearing in Attila? How did he do that?


 * Anyway, I've mostly been out (healthy exercise, travelling, eating, drinking, buying books, attending a meeting and socialising, listening to singers) today, so am rather out of the loop, but will try to pick up the threads of PL and other things tomorrow. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 01:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

NPA
Please stop posting personal attacks about me in various places. Focus on the content. Others on that page have acknowledged the article needs a rewrite. It is currently not well written, and it deserves to be. You've said you're not that interested in doing it, which is fair enough, but please don't stop others from trying. And especially don't do it by spreading personal insults. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have struck out and reworded two items that might possibly have contravened WP:NPA. Please tell me of any others you consider need similar treatment. I have examined all the contributions I have made this morning
 * "You've said you're not that interested in doing it" is a base misrepresentation of what I said. I decline to imagine that you don't know that.
 * I am able to differentiate between (a) improving what there (b) skewing what there to suit POVs. Given your experience I presume you can too  almost - instinct 13:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing that. I have noticed quite a few similar comments, including that I "sicken" you, so I'd appreciate it if you would retrace your steps and remove them.


 * As for POV, I have no "agenda," which is something you or one of the others keeps claiming. I love Larkin. My interest is to see a really well-written, three-dimensional article about the real man and poet, the good and the bad, warts and all. I'd like to see something nuanced and intelligent, something that flows well, so that it's readable, where the editors seem to have an easy grasp of the subject. To achieve that would mean a lot of work. The reverts, the insults, the side-of-the-mouth remarks are all distractions from that, a complete waste of everyone's time, and I'm asking you to stop, and to focus only on content.


 * I think you should also decide what you want. You've said you have no particular interest in getting it to FA. That's fine. But that doesn't mean others shouldn't be allowed to try. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) In the interests of moving on or whatever, and as an a sign of my desire to improve the PL page, I have collected the outstanding issues from the lengthy Peer Review at the foot of the PL talk page.
 * 2) I still think that User:Macphysto's comments about the lead are worth close examination. You'll see from more than one comment I made on the talkpage that I'm of the opinion that the controversy itself deserves its own article, where it can be discussed fulsomely. The essentials of that debate should be run through in the Posthumous Reputation section and only the existence of the debate (not examples of it) should be included in the lead.
 * 3) I will avoid this particular topic (the lead, the controversy) entirely from now. If you are sincere about your aims for the PL article, please do your best to reintegrate User:Allriskinrev when his block is up. He has so much to offer the page, things that those of us who have been working on the page for a long while have been hoping and waiting for. Yours,  almost - instinct 13:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't you want a quote in the lead giving an example of the kind of thing people were saying? I can't think of a single good reason for not including one. All anyone keeps talking about is "agendas," but without specifying what they might be.


 * As for Allriskinrev, I'm sorry, but I think it was provocative of you to give him a barnstar. I don't want to see a newbie bitten and all that, but that kind of behaviour (announcing in advance that he will blind revert), plus the snarky remarks, is the opposite of the kind of editing we want to see. I'm also curious as to how you know he has so much to offer, given that he's made only 36 edits to the article, several of them reverts. Do you know him in real life, or know of his work elsewhere? If it's the latter, I'd appreciate being referred to it myself so I can see what you mean. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He has the sources and he's prepared to do the work. If you look through the talk page you'll see that often when I've asked "has anyone got this?" he's immediately piped up. Look at my previously expressed gratitude on his talk page. (ps some of his contributions he placed on the talk page and I then added to the article)
 * I have made no comment about his behaviour. I have no problem with people doing time for offences.
 * I think offenders need to be reintegrated after punishment. The barnstar is a way of encouraging him to return. I presume that the length of the ban will have the desired effect and allow him to realise that that behaviour isn't going to work for him or WP; he doesn't need a lecture nor unfriendliness from me for that to happen.
 * I don't think of him as a bitten newbie.
 * I have absolutely no idea who he is, nor his work elsewhere, though clearly he is something to do with the Philip Larkin Society (I don't know much about that group, other than that it is a registered charity, Maeve Brennan has been its vice-chairman and Jean Hartley also involved) [footnote: I once asked advice on how to get some raw primary source biographical material on PL to someone who might be interested in doing something with it]  almost - instinct 15:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the above, and for the link to the new article. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks
I know that debates of the kind going on at Philip Larkin can be very frustrating, but it is best to refrain from voicing your opinion about particular editors on the site. It is best to stick to discussing their views of the article. This helps keep the debate focused on improving the article and keeps the tone professional. I find it helpful to yell at my computer when I am frustrated in these situations. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lesson learnt. As you will see I have struck out those comments I made which seemed potentially to come under WP:NPA. Please, Awadewit, advise me if you see any other comments that in your opinion should receive the same treatment. Btw for weeks I've been wondering abut your username, whence it cometh etc. I've been guessing that the stress comes on the third syllable - right?  almost - instinct 15:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It cometh from my name - see my userpage. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Presuming Americanised pronunciation of Germanic surnames.... a wader wit ? So stress on the 2nd syllable? I had been imagining something like a Mancunian mangling of "how are you due it?" –  'ow y'due it? ;-)  almost - instinct 16:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (yep) Long A, WAH-duh-wit. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Always good to learn how wrong one can be :-)  almost - instinct 16:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Abecedare (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to the Anthony Michaels-Moore article
Thanks for your various tweakings to my edits, especially the layout of the columns. I've learned something new here re: col width. Thanks; it looks a lot better this way.Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My pleasure - I had to go and learn about it myself! I find that the rubric on some template pages is rather better written than on others... I presume that you too have heard Mr M-M in the flesh in Santa Fe. When I heard him at ENO and then saw he had no page on WP I was very surprised! Do you think that the work he's done with Santa Fe deserves a sentence of it's own? I get the impression its been a fruitful relationship, but I couldn't find a good source, eg at the SFO website or something. Maybe I should look in the local press ...?  almost - instinct 15:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I've heard/seen his Scarpia (ROH 2000), Simon B. (Santa Fe (2004), Falstaff (Santa Fe 2007?), Germont pere and the long-suffering husband in The Letter (Santa Fe 2009), and have had the pleasure of meeting him in Santa Fe.


 * I'll dig into the Santa Fe New Mexican and see what we can find to support some of these appearances. Viva-Verdi (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for copyedit help
User:Awadewit has suggested a short list of editors to help copyedit Seattle Sounders FC in preparation for an FA review (it has failed one already). You were among the editors she suggested. Please, if you have time available, would you mind contributing some of your copyedit skills to this article. Thank you! --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 17:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This time of year is nuts for me, but if I have some time I might, as I owe Awadewit a favour  almost - instinct 21:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. No worries.  If you get time, the help is appreciated.  Awadewit has already done a pretty stellar job though.  --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks a lot for the copyedit. I think we've replied to all of your comments now.  When you get a moment (I know you're busy) please come back and have a look at the changes.  Thank you! --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You provided excellent followup comments. I believe we've taken car of all of them, please come back and take a look when you have some time.  Your copyediting suggestions made a huge difference in the article.  Thanks again for all of your help.  --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sally
That's very helpful, thank you. I'll use it. :) Cheers, SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 15:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is excellent stuff, thank you! SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 10:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking it would be nice to get a photograph of Larkin's poem for Sally in The Spectator. I could write to The Spectator, but I'm wondering whether you know of any shortcuts -- whether it would exist in a Larkin archive somewhere. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that link. I'll write and ask them about the manuscript. I see they also have a letter from Sally. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
I'm not sure if this is the right way to use the talk pages, I have to admit that I'm still trying to get to grips with the inside of Wikipedia, but thank you for the advice. I will try to dig out some references to validate the claims, I just didn't quite get round to it yesterday. I have to admit that it is quite tricky finding sources which directly address the themes of a poem, or collection of poems - and of course for every essay you find saying one thing there is another saying the opposite.

I was aiming to give a very brief overview of the collection and most sources would go deeper than such simple claims, leaving my simplification as an interpretation of their work! Would it be sufficient to cite sources which perhaps do not directly say what I have said but support it as a developed interpretation? as in citing essays as reference texts overall. Because, to be hones if you read one or two essays about Larkin they would soon throw up these simple themes.

As you say, I was kind of hope that somebody would come along an add some more. I think it is a great collection of poetry and much more deserving then a mere content list.

Anyway, thanks for the welcome! I look forward to adding my bit to Wikipedia.

huxley (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

David Parry (conductor) article
Saw your plea for support, so leapt in on this (albeit) sunny Santa Fe morning (after a bomb scare at the Convention Centre shut down dowtown at 8am and derailed one of my vol. projects today). Anyway, dug out a bunch of refs (had forgotten how "Gramophone" is all online now) and added them. How's the weather in London? Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that one. I knew that DP was worthy, but beyond that was clueless. I think WP is better served by edits by people who know what they're talking about! ;-) London is, as always, doing its best to persuade one of the charms of everywhere else  almost - instinct 11:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Stone/Tynan
Well, I've seen Stone in various operas in Leeds and most recently in a reasonably prominent role in The Gambler at the ROH. Tynan was Giulietta in Opera North's Capuleti e Montecchi last season (somewhat overshadowed by Sarah Connolly's Romeo, but there you go). And they both sing at ENO, which also counts for something. Wikipedia has a lot of fairly useless articles such as Natela Nicoli and Krisztina Szabó that haven't been deleted, so there should be no problems with these two. I've got various programmes with biographies of one or the other, so may be able to add to whatever you can discover.

There are lots more articles on British singers that need creating: Joan Rodgers, Christopher Maltman, Alice Coote (sings at the Met), John Graham-Hall, Donald Maxwell, Andrew Shore (Alberich at Bayreuth) .....  I've been slaving away on Wexford Festival productions and want to get that finished before I start on anything else. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 16:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Janet Baker in Maria Stuarda
Sorry not to have replied earlier. My problem with the opera is that when I first saw it at the Edinburgh Festival back in 1969, Queen Elizabeth (QE) was Shirley Verrett (m-s) (terrific) and Mary (MS) was Leyla Gencer (sop) (urgh). Then when I next saw it (1973-4), it was the ENO production, with Pauline Tinsley (sop) as QE and Janet Baker (later Sarah Walker) (both m-s) as MS. Most recently, Anna Caterina Antonacci (sop) as QE and Barbara Frittoli (sop) as MS. Maria Stuarda has both roles as sop, but Italian Wikipedia has QE as m-s and MS as sop. FWIW, Grove and Viking say both roles are sopranos.

So, unless a production with two mezzos can be found (and I bet it can!), it looks like Anything Goes. William Ashbrook's article in Opera Grove sheds a bit of light: the role of MS was written for Giuseppina Ronzi de Begnis (who sang Donna Anna and Norma but also Rosina), but the King of Naples banned the opera when it was in rehearsal and it became Buondelmonte with one or other of the queens (probably QE) turned into the tenor title-role and GRdB singing the role of Bianca, whoever she was. Malibran (who sang Norma but also Leonore and Cenerentola and had a range of g-e ''' ) then decided that she wanted to sing MS, which she did until it was banned again. It was performed for a time subsequently in "sanitised" form and was eventually revived in 1958, presumably still sanitised. Then the original autograph turned up in the 1980s, a critical edition was developed, and it was used for a production in Bergamo in 1989. What emerged at that point was that Donizetti had re-used a couple of numbers in La favorite, and that in post-favorite performances, starting with one in Naples (1865) they had been replaced by different numbers from Donizetti's "lesser operas".

To sum up:
 * there does not seem to have been any version specially written for Malibran
 * Neither Malibran nor GRdB seem to have been mezzos as we understand the term. This was before the fach system had been invented
 * The Baker version is presumably the one from 1865, since it predates the discovery of the autograph.

I have a feeling that none of the above really answers your question (but until fairly recently it was quite common for transpositions to be used anywhere and everywhere). Best. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 22:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)