User talk:Tim riley

Sir
Your cooking/food articles absolutely could not be lovelier. Thank you for bringing this beauty to Wikipedia. jengod (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What a delightful message to get! Thank you so much, jengod. I love cooking and I love eating, and it is always a pleasure to write little articles about minor culinary topics.  Tim riley  talk   16:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Randall Davidson
Hi! You recently reverted my edit at Randall Davidson which mentioned the Housing and Town Planning Act 1909. Would you mind explaining why you thought it was disproportionate? At WP:Proportion, it says that undue weight should not be given to minor aspects, but this was a short sentence in a section regarding Randall's role in domestic political affairs during the time - I would have thought this would not amount to undue weight. Additionally it might be worth noting that the act was contested in the House of Lords, though I didn't make that clear in my edit. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Gazamp (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Among the other matters on which Davidson spoke in the Lords at about the time of the Housing and Town Planning Act were colonial marriages, election meetings in school rooms, House of Lords reform, inspection of laundries, prevention of corruption, liquor traffic in Nigeria, merchant vessels and first aid, outrages on Jews in Russia, Sunday trading, small holdings and allotments, street traffic in London and women in county and borough councils. In an article of a few thousand words we cannot give every single detail of a person's life: it is our job to concentrate on what is notable so far as the subject is concerned. The Housing and Town Planning Act is not mentioned in the Times obituary (1930), the Dictionary of National Biography (1937) or the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2011), and does not even merit so much as a passing mention in Bishop Bell's two-volume biography of Davidson (1935).


 * Discussions of this sort should be on an article talk page, where any interested editor can spot them, rather than on a user's talk page, visited by few.  Tim riley  talk   08:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for explaining! Gazamp (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And thank you, Gazamp, for your gracious response.  Tim riley  talk   19:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Trying to avoid an edit war
Hello Tim Riley, I see you reverted my edit on W. Somerset Maugham. I would like to share my reasoning so that this does not result in an edit war. I changed the wording because the phrase "achieved national celebrity" could be confusing to many readers. I disagree with your reasoning for the revert for the following reasons: As an editor that reads casually, I am concerned with the experience of casual readers. I think that this wording is problematic because it may make many readers, especially those born more recently, do a double-take since it uses a fairly frequently used word in an uncommon way and thus may confuse people. I would like to understand your perspective on this issue as I do not want an edit war, and I hope we can resolve this while keeping Wikipedia accessible to the general public. Best regards, TypoEater (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "is prioritized in the OED" - The first meaning for a word listed in the dictionary is not always the most common one.
 * "is more appropriate for the time period" - It makes no sense to base wording of an article on the time period its topic is about. The meaning of "celebrity" referring to a person is more appropriate for the time period we are in right now.
 * This sort of discussion belongs on an article talk page where it can be seen by any interested editor, rather than on a user talk page where it will be seen by few. If you like to raise your proposal on the article talk page we can see what the consensus is.  Tim riley  talk   17:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments on FA nomination of Knowledge
Hello, I wanted to let you know that I nominated the article Knowledge for featured article status, see Featured article candidates/Knowledge/archive1. There has been little to no response so far and I was wondering whether you might be interested in taking a look. If you have the time, I would appreciate your comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Phlsph7 − Dear me! I'm not good at abstract concepts, but will make a point of looking in and offering any comments that seem to me to be sensible and useful.  Tim riley  talk   20:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

A Berliozian copyvio concern
Dear Tim (and your friendly s/talkers :-),

Really good to see you around!

Fwiw, I'm seeking some editorial guidance (and opinions) on issues regarding a copyvio concern at Symphonie fantastique, where there has been massive block citation of Berlioz's programme notes in English translation. Rapid googling suggests that the English-language text may have been lifted wholesale from the Hector Berlioz website, where (at the foot of the page) it appears to be covered as: ''© Michel Austin for the English translation. All rights of reproduction reserved.'' So, presumably, the translation needs to be removed (or possibly substituted by a permissable [public domain?] translation).

Personally, I have to wonder whether reproducing the entire text is suitable anyway, although removing it will require major restructuring of the section at least. What think you? Any editorial thoughts or suggestions? Or even active fixes? (Btw, I think the Hector Berlioz FA page is a wonderful achievement. I'm not at all possessive about this particular page, which I'd just like to see improved.)

Best wishes as ever from a misty old wp-friend, now going on 64. 86.180.70.111 (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at this tomorrow and report back.  Tim riley  talk   18:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And is my elderly memory failing me when I remember the excellent "Mistymorn"? Happy days!  Tim riley  talk   18:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)   Tim riley  talk   18:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (Shhh young man, the ip is not for outing ;-) 86.180.70.111 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to quoting Berlioz's programme note in full – he's reasonably terse – and Microsoft and Google both offer decent attempts at an English translation.

Microsoft
 * The author supposes that a young musician, afflicted with that moral disease which a famous writer calls the vagueness of passions, sees for the first time a woman who unites all the charms of the ideal being of which his imagination dreamed, and becomes madly in love with her. By a singular oddity, the cherished image never presents itself to the artist's mind except in connection with a musical thought, in which he finds a certain passionate, but noble and timid character like that which he attributes to the beloved object.

Google:
 * The author supposes that a young musician, affected by this moral illness that a famous writer calls the vagueness of passions, sees for the first time a woman who combines all the charms of the ideal being that his imagination dreamed of, and in becomes hopelessly in love. By a singular oddity, the cherished image never presents itself to the artist's mind unless linked to a musical thought, in which he finds a certain passionate, but noble and timid character like that which he attributes to the loved object.

A bit of tweaking is needed ("vague des passions") and later in the text: "fixed idea" needs untranslating and leaving as idée fixe (did you know that Asterix's dog, Dogmatix, is Idéfix in the original French?) and both Microsoft and Google are understandably stumped by ranz des vaches: I particularly like Microsoft's: "he hears two shepherds talking to a cow in the distance".

If you concur I'll replace the pilfered translation with a tweaked Googlesoft one.  Tim riley  talk   09:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you care to look in at my sandbox you can see work in progress on a potential rewrite, properly sourced and cited.  Tim riley  talk   15:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Wow! Fantastic! 86.132.54.124 (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks so much for that Tim, including the ideal fixes and doggy tidbix (DIK? - no! "... like a bunch of lovesick cattle - weight? ). Yes, of course I fully concur (and am lazily relieved that the layout won't need shrinking - I'm rather attached to the manuscript images appearing alongside the relevant content, though I imagine that editorial opinions on that might vary...).


 * Oof... my excuse for coming to your esteemed talk page, rather than the article talk page was, of course, the particular copyvio aspect. I suppose that in addition to following standard copyvio process, we should really post my OP question (minus the personal effusions :) and your considered response on the article talk page (I'm happy to do that, of course :).


 * I suppose a residual concern could regard machine translation of idiomatic French phrases such as maladie morale ("moral disease"), where I assume the sense of morale broadly corresponds to the 5th entry here ("spiritual disease malady / ailment ", perhaps[?]). Of course, I'd be happy to collaborate on such tweaks, even though my translation skills are notoriously atrocious, haha. 86.132.54.124 (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I've finished translating Berlioz's comments via Google and Microsoft. If you care to look in at my sandpit and tweak I shall be pleased. I am now working on a new section for the article covering critical opinion from the 1830s onwards. Suggestions welcome.  Tim riley  talk   17:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Really glad... Strong support! (And I like "emotional affliction" :-) 86.177.202.242 (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding: Splendid Tim! (...one minor suggestion). So happy for the page... I believe it's worth it. (marginal note: please don't feel in any way style-cramped by my " attachment "  to manuscript images alongside the text :) Cheers! 86.177.202.242 (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Prolonged applause and a standing ovation! 86.177.202.213 (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeat in the fourth movement
The manuscript score is online and it is clear that Berlioz put a da capo and repeat marking in the Marche au supplice. But I mean, really! "Oh, we're nearly there, chaps, but let's go back to the clink and start the procession all over again!" I'm reluctant to draw attention to this silliness. The repeat isn't mentioned in the article and I'm inclined to leave it like that.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Top DYK stuff... lol (...until it reminded me of this real-world craziness). 86.177.202.139 (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

A Hooke hook?
Thank you for doing the GAR on Robert Hooke. I appreciate it.

I have been so immersed in it for the past couple of weeks that I can no longer see the wood for the trees. Did you happen to notice any suitable DYK hooks in passing?

I found a good one, but we can't use it :-^ In researching the aphorism attributed to Clairaut, "'Il ne faut pas croire que cette idée ... de Hook diminue la gloire de M. Newton ['One must not think that this idea ... of Hooke diminishes Newton's glory'], Clairaut wrote; 'L'exemple de Hook & celui de Kepler [serve] à faire voir quelle distance il y a entre une vérité entrevue & une vérité démontrée ['The example of Hooke and of Kepler' [serves] 'to show what a distance there is between a truth that is glimpsed and a truth that is demonstrated']" I found that the original claim and the many subsequent citations of it would fail verification if it were in a Wikipedia article!

The original source is

The aphorism is attributed to Clairaut in Ball (1893), but the introduction (Avertissement) in Volume1 merely says that the Exposition is drawn in the main from the works of Clairaut or from the notebooks that he had previously given in the form of lessons to Madame la Marquise de Chastellet.''' Academic standards have gone down the toilet. Something oughter be done! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yours is the rigorous approach that cheers me greatly. For an easily understood and wholly verifiable hook you might perhaps say that in addition to his scientific discoveries he designed the Monument in London and worked with Wren on the rebuilding after the Great Fire.  Tim riley  talk   09:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol
Hello Tim riley! Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
 * We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
 * If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery FAC
Hello Tim riley, My latest FAC article is attracting little attention and is now possibly going to be archived without having received a support. Any chance of you taking a look at the article for me, with a view to helping to keep the nomination afloat? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done,  Tim riley  talk   19:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation
Hi Tim riley :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Done, with pleasure.  Tim riley  talk   19:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

FAC - invitation


I've put Jacques Offenbach up for FAC and will be very glad to get comments from colleagues who wish to contribute.  Tim riley  talk   19:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Sir Arthur
Thanks for that! I have replied at my Talk page. If I had only realized that you were the author of the missing comma, I would have been much more reverential in my approach! Um Gottes Willen! I am ashamed.

I am too embarrassed to ask this at the Bliss Talk page (hmmm sounds dodgy) but is there a reason why some of the names of pieces are italicized and others not? Examples: Four Songs for Voice, Violin and Piano; but Music for Strings. I am sure there is some reason for this but, preferably without making the older children laugh at me and throw things, could you please explain how it works?

Thanks so much. Yours, in profound ignorance and with deepest apologies therefore, DBaK (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As a dyed-in-the-wool Savoyard I jumped to the wrong conclusion about "Sir Arthur" in your heading, but yes I am the perpetrator of most of Bliss's article. As I understand the MoS, music titles that are generic such as Mass, Gloria, String Quartet and so on are in Romic but titles that are names are italicised. This is rather a grey area it seems to me. I probably wouldn't italicise "Serenade for Strings" as there are several such, but "Music for Strings" doesn't seem to me a generic title, though I don't press the point. If anyone chancing to read these remarks thinks fit to expand on or contradict them I shall be pleased to see their comments.
 * You were quite right to insert the comma I neglected to add. I try to spot such omissions when I'm writing, but having been guilty of such lapses since the 1960s I doubt if I'm going to reform adequately now. Very pleased you're planning to look in at the Offenbach FAC. You'll be among friends: Gog the Mild is already weighing in, and so will SchroCat if he knows what's good for him. I hope Dudley and Cassianto might look in, too.  Tim riley  talk   12:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah yes sorry, wrong knight! I was off down a complete rabbithole because I started with Roy Harris then found to my complete astonishment that Bliss had once taught him.
 * Thank you very much about the titles. As an area it sounds just perfectly suitable for me to run away screaming. Watch me!
 * Thanks also re the comma, and the good news regarding friends looking at Offenbach.
 * All good wishes, DBaK (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Piles of stones
Wotcha Tim, that's a fine photo on your Userpage - you could have stepped straight out of Death on the Nile! If you have "World enough, and Time", I'd very much appreciate an extra pair of eyes at the FAC for Grade I listed buildings in England completed in the 20th century. It's currently enjoying one Support, and green lights from the Accessibility and Image reviews, but comments have rather dried up. You were kind enough to comment yourself at PR, and you'll see the ordering has been re-cast as two other editors were as mystified as you by my original structure! I see Herr Offenbach is hardly in need of my support, and he's already had Image and Source reviews, but if there's anything else I can help with, let me know. All going well here but the constant presence of builders is rather distracting. Fortunately, the large number of public holidays and religious festivals enjoyed in this part of the world provides some respite. KJP1 (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll look in today, with pleasure.  Tim riley  talk   08:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Death on the Nile? Salome Otterbourne strikes again... - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't hurt if you looked in too, my lad!  Tim riley  talk   08:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Already done! - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Arnold Bennett
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 27 June 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/June 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

George E. Mylonas
Perhaps foolishly, I've gone and put another article up for FAC -- it is still very early in the day, but your thoughts on the review would be much appreciated. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I shall be delighted.  Tim riley  talk   07:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is a contentious topic
You have recently made edits related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. This is a standard message to inform you that the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Galsworthy
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Galsworthy 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Galsworthy
The article John Galsworthy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Galsworthy for comments about the article, and Talk:John Galsworthy/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Frederick delius
Hey man just questioning as to why you removed my Kate bush thing, is it not part of delius legacy that he was honoured by Kate bush? capstar (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pop songs plagiarising classical music are not usually germane to articles on the latter.  Tim riley  talk   10:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * it doesnt quite matter your opinion of how much you enjoy pop music, her song has carried part of his legacy onto the modern world, try not to let your bias cloud the facts capstar (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My opinion is neither here nor there. It may be relevant to Ms Bush's article that she plagiarised Delius, but it is not relevant to his. But if you wish to persist, please discuss on the article talk page where your opinions can be seen by any interested editor rather than here where they will not.  Tim riley  talk   11:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think, with the greatest respect, that you have this backwards. Kate Bush refers to Delius and so it should be linked from her article to his: you are reading about Bush and you can click through to see the connection – it is outgoing from her, or rather, correctly, from Never for Ever. But Delius is mentioned or used by lots of people and it is not appropriate to add them all to his article, where it just looks like trivia ... it's just, in the nicest possible way, the wrong way round. Incoming is fine! Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope that Delius feels absolutely crushed under the weight of the honour that Kate Bush brings upon him; frankly, without her, would he be anything more than a ringtone today... :)  ——Serial Number 54129  11:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Peer review
To anyone kind enough to visit this page, I have the article on Robert Schumann up for peer review, and will be grateful for input from colleagues I respect. I don't normally stray deeply into German music and will value comments on whether I have the balance and the tone right. Poor Schumann! What a tragic life!  Tim riley  talk   13:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Aleksey Ivanovich Kandinsky
Hello Tim. I wonder could you spare a few moments for my random query? I am guessing that you may have access to this source. I wonder is there any claim there that Aleksey Ivanovich Kandinsky was the grandson of the artist Wassily Kandinsky? The article for the latter says he had only one child, a son who died in infancy. Many thanks for any help. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have indeed got access to Grove, which confirms that Aleksey Ivanovich Kandinsky was the grandson of Wassily. Grove seems to think he's still with us, though born in 1918. I'll email you some more details.  Tim riley  talk   13:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Tim, that's very good of you. They can't both be right! How very intriguing. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Email sent: pray check your in-box (and spam folder, too).  Tim riley  talk   13:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Not only a grandson, it seems, but also a great-grandson?! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm always tickled by the vagaries of heredity. One of my heroes is Sir Ernest Gowers, of Plain Words, whose father was a leading neurologist, and whose son was a fine composer, grandson a mathematician of international repute, and great-granddaughter the editor of a marvellous update of Plain Words, which is on my shelf alongside the original. –  Tim riley  talk   13:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

FAC advice
@Tim riley I don't believe we've met, but I have long observed your work on English Wikipedia. Given your extensive experience with FAC and PR, I wanted to inform you that I have nominated Catherine, Princess of Wales at FAC. I have already addressed comments from two other users, and user Nikkimaria has completed the image review. Your suggestions at FAC would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to your response and the possibility of future collaborations. Regards.. MSincccc (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. (I am amused to see that I am, to the day, thirty years the lady's senior.)  Tim riley  talk   17:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tim riley You might be amused to know that I am almost three decades younger than the lady. What are your topics of interest? I have come across your work multiple times in the past two years since becoming a contributor to English Wikipedia. Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can see what I've been busying myself with these past eighteen years by looking at my user page and opening "Best efforts" and "Brand-new efforts". From what you say I calculate that I'm old enough to be your great-grandfather, though arithmetic was never my strong suit.  Tim riley  talk   18:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're not as old as my grandfather is. Anyway, getting to the point, I'd like to make a comment on the Robert Schumann's FAC when I'm free to do so. Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tim riley I don't mean to trouble you, but I'd like to ask if you have an interest in British royalty topics. I'm currently working on improving the Princess of Wales's article and since you were an accessibility reviewer at its archived FAC, would it be alright to notify you when it is listed at peer review? If you prefer not to be notified, please let me know. Otherwise, feel free to review the article and its content. Have a lovely evening ahead, and I look forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tim riley Thank you for your suggestions, which were greatly appreciated. Would you mind leaving a definitive closing note regarding your views on the nomination? I look forward to your response and anticipate our future collaborations. Kind regards.MSincccc (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not much interested in the doings of current British royalty, but I'll peer review your article if asked.  Tim riley  talk   17:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is using articles from The Times, The Guardian, BBC News and The Daily Telegraph as news sources in a British royalty article fine for an FAC? I am asking you because you are a Britisher as your user page denotes. This is my last point here. Thanks for considering my request. Looking forward to your response. Have a great evening ahead. MSincccc (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All four are fine as reliable sources.  Tim riley  talk   19:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tim riley You are invited to join the peer review discussion at Peer review/Catherine, Princess of Wales/archive1. MSincccc (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No hurries at present @Tim riley but please do take a look and leave your feedback if possible. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments once again @Tim riley. Please do let me know if you have any further suggestions (if any) else let me know what more I can do to make the biography more comprehensive. Looking forward to your response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tim riley One last comment in this thread, please. If you cannot proceed with further comments at Catherine's PR, would you mind giving me advice as to how I should proceed before re-listing it at FAC? Also please do let me know of whether you will be available at the article's FAC. My sincere apologies if the article was too long for you to thoroughly review but that's how her life has been until now. I would, nevertheless, continue with my efforts to make it a shorter and more concise read. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My advice would be to see what other peer reviewers have to say and act on such of their suggestions as you think suitable. Politely reject well-meant suggestions for tweaking your prose unless they correct a grammatical error or clarify meaning: we are not here to impose our stylistic preferences on other editors. I'll look in at FAC if you get there and ping me, although when a subject is one completely outside my areas of interest or expertise I tend to restrict myself to commenting on the prose (as here for instance) rather than supporting or opposing.  Tim riley  talk   10:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Jacques Offenbach
The paint hasn't even dried on this one, but is it time to run it through TFA, perhaps on July 15? - Dank (push to talk) 05:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yours to command.  Tim riley  talk   09:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the FAC for this one, your reference to the mud along the Champs-Elysées outside Ledoyen brought back good memories for John and me ... can't believe it's still there! (the mud, not Ledoyen). - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Tiger
Hello. Would you be able to review tiger for FAC? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. A pleasure to read and review that excellent article.  Tim riley  talk   11:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * I say! I'll need to visit my hatter in Covent Garden for a bigger size. Thank you, Gog – greatly appreciated!  Tim riley  talk   11:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Undid addition of Trollope's novel Is He Popenjoy?
I don't understand why you removed my addition of Trollope's novel Is He Popenjoy. The book is referenced on Trollope's bibliography page Anthony Trollope bibliography. Admittedly, the novel is still red (the individual wikipedia page is unwritten) but that is liable to change at any time. PloniAlmoni (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You've lost me, I'm afraid. Removed from what? I certainly don't need confirmation that the novel is one of Trollope's. It is one of the many I have read over the years, though not, I seem to remember thinking, one of his best.   Tim riley  talk   11:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is about OP's addition to Tichborne case. Is He Popenjoy? is not blue-linked, so it does not belong in any See also section. See WP:See also. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see! Thank you, Ss! Is He Popenjoy has certainly a plot strand about a claimant to a title, but, as I recall, he's an innocent little boy (put forward by one of the nastiest villains in all Trollope) and he dies before the end of the novel. Nothing at all like the Tichborne case.  Tim riley  talk   17:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Peer review – to anyone who chances to see this
SchroCat and I have put Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh up for peer review, with a possible shot at FAC in mind. After our successful efforts at FAC with other BBC radio comedies – ITMA and Round the Horne – we'd like to make it a hat trick, and will welcome comments from kind colleagues.  Tim riley  talk   13:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Your note
Thanks for your kind note and your well considered edits. --Macrakis (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Robert Schumann

 * Congratulations, Tim! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Featured article candidate
I have just put the belligerent bishop Hensley Henson up for FAC. He was a combative creature - nothing of Barchester Towers here, but full of interest, I think.

Comments will be most welcome from colleagues kind enough to look in.  Tim riley  talk   13:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Edith Evans – stage and film roles video
Thanks for making the Edith Evans – stage and film roles page back in 2013! I actually went ahead and uploaded a 1928 short featuring her and added it to the page. Please let me know what you think. :) Best, SDudley (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * SDudley. How nice! Thank you. The clip is squashing the first table on both the screens I use. I'd be inclined to remove the colour picture of Evans and just use the clip.  Tim riley  talk   17:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure! If you think that is better. I don’t know as much about formatting on Wikipedia, so I’d defer. I also just don’t like to step on other people’s edits. @Tim riley SDudley (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)