User talk:Tim riley/Archive25

2018 Year in Review

 * I see! Well thank you, I think. Yes, much obliged. Though I should add that I am the holder of The Queen's Award for Cowardice.  Tim riley  talk   19:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Surcouf (opéra comique)
Hello,

When it comes to completing (I suppose and not simply complete) an article I must admit you mean business! Thanks; LouisAlain (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * C'est très gentil à vous, merci, Louis! I'm gathering such material as I can. Alas, both the online scans of the relevant volume of Les Annales du Théâtre et de la Musique to which I have access have been so badly scanned that the pages concerned are blank! (Even when pages are properly scanned I find them hard going, but that's because my French is appalling.) But we press on! Best wishes,  Tim riley  talk   14:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Uncle Jacques
As this year is Offenbach's 200th, are you thinking of taking him to FA? If so I would be glad to assist if you need me. Not that that it seems, on a quick runthrough, to need any major overhaul.Smerus (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I neglected to reply to this! Sorry. An excellent idea, it seems to me. I worked on the article with, who may have a view on the suggestion.  Tim riley  talk   09:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see you expand Offenbach, but I doubt I will be able to offer much assistance, other than reading it a peer review. This was a Kleinzach project, as I recall, and any changes I made to it must have been obvious ones. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs substantial expanding, it all looks pretty solid to me. But there are more recent sources which should be worth taking a look at (e.g. Jacques Offenbach and the Making of Modern Culture, CUP 2017) to see if there are different perspectives and info.--Smerus (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * An excellent tip: thank you! I shall go and bother the British Library yet again.  Tim riley  talk   18:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Or in more recondite mode "Twice, the theatre of Jacques Offenbach exerted a marked influence on musical theatre in Egypt. The first occasion was a number of performances of his most popular "opéra-bouffes," in French and by French artists, around 1870. The ruler, Ismā'īl, tried to introduce European culture in Egypt and gave Offenbach's work a central role in that endeavour. With Ismā'īl's decline, that attempt was discontinued. The second appearance occurred in 1920/21. Then, two of the most popular musical comedies of the famous Egyptian composer Sayyid Darwīš had Offenbach's works as their sources. These works were translated into Egyptian Arabic, given an oriental setting and an Egyptian colour, e.g. by having the lyrics written by popular Egyptian poets. The main message of the original pieces--attacking the military and the authorities in general by ridiculing them--was changed by introducing a clear anti-Turkish thrust, thus castigating the aristocracy ruling Egypt at the time of the adaptation and, by implication, the British occupation. Whereas the text of the Egyptian pieces was quite closely inspired by the French originals, the music shows no signs of direct influence by Offenbach--it is vintage Sayyid Darwīš. The article also sheds some light on the musical theatre of the brothers Raḥbānī in Lebanon that has not been directly inspired by Offenbach but exhibits a spirit quite close to his and thus lends itself to a comparison." Offenbach in Arabien, Alexander Flores (2008) https://www.jstor.org/stable/20140807--Smerus (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm! I have access to JSTOR and will look at that, without prejudice as the lawyers say. But I mean!  Tim riley  talk   19:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Rossini
To anybody who is kind enough to watch this page: and I have been working on Rossini's article and now have it up for peer review, en route, we hope, to FAC. Any comments, queries or suggestions for improvement will be most welcome there.  Tim riley  talk   09:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Ping
Hi, hope you're well! I pinged you at the FAC for History of Tottenham but I'm not sure it's working. Just looking to see if you think it's any closer now. Sarastro (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

On Rossini
Are we good for images there, or do you want a Tell and Tancredi? Oh, and Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 23:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Adam, your valiant efforts have produced numerous admirable pictures that could well be added to the articles on the relevant operas, but the Rossini article is now abundantly filled with images – the right ones, I think, all things considered. Many thanks for your input.  Tim riley  talk   23:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'll get some William Tell stuff done for there, as it's way under illustrated. You'll probably be seeing a lot of Rossini (and related - Josephine Fodor, for instance) at WP:FPC in the short term. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 23:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Bonne chance!  Tim riley  talk   23:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Had to slip in the William Tell, I fear. But that's the last. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 05:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Tim, having nothing better to do at 5 in the morning, I think the William Tell deserves to go in and have given a general reshuffle to try to meet l/r alternation a bit better, avoid overlaps etc. In the process I have axed the pic of Verdi, who only has a bit part anyway in the story. See what you think.--Smerus (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm entirely happy with that.  Tim riley  talk   11:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See we've lost the weird one of him balancing singers. Probably for the best, it was always the weakest image in there. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 11:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

RVW
Just wanted to reply. I only added the links because on every single other page I've seen where compositions with their own page are named then a link to that page is given. It only seems consistent (as well as helpful) to do the same on the RVW page. User talk:Marosc9 2 February 2019, 14:35
 * The works were already linked earlier in the article, but looking at the page again I think your duplicate links in that particular section are helpful to the reader, and I have restored them, despite the MoS. Thank you for your thoughts on this. 10:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Must admit I hadn't seen the earlier links.  I'm usually more on the ball than that (I often remove duplicated links myself) but then other pieces by RVW have links in the "Life and career" section as well as the "Music" section...  Makes it a bit tricky to decide what's best.  Maybe it's just best to leave things as they are now.

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cello Concerto (Walton), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coda ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Cello_Concerto_%28Walton%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Cello_Concerto_%28Walton%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979/archive1
A while ago now, you helped me out with a Peer review of Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979, and I wonder if you'd fancy taking another look now that I've nominated it for FA? Many thanks, Harrias  talk 11:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Bergerac
Hi Tim

I know that I am imposing, and that you have not yet called in the favour I promised you, but back in October you generously assessed Battle of Bergerac for GA; it is now up for ACR - where it seems to be doing ok - and I wondered if you might feel like having another look at it?

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Princess Alice
Hi Tim, Many thanks for your comments on the Princess Alice PR: the matter has now moved on to FAC for further consideration. If you have time or inclination, I would be grateful to hear any further comments you may have. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that the article has been moved to concentrate on the sinking, there is nothing stopping the previous title (now a redirect) being converted to an article on the ship itself. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St James's Theatre
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article St James's Theatre 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St James's Theatre
The article St James's Theatre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:St James's Theatre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arthur Wing Pinero
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arthur Wing Pinero 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arthur Wing Pinero
The article Arthur Wing Pinero you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arthur Wing Pinero for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Your reviewing
Tim, I achieved my first GA only one year and three days ago. It took a further three months before I got my third. My first FA was only ten weeks ago. Your comments on my articles are doing wonders for my confidence. Especially as I am quite sure that you will not hesitate to flag up anything which you do not feel is up to standard. Being so new at this I have found the sort of feedback you have provided, both corrective and positive, just what I need. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * How very kind! One does what one can, and is v. appreciative of other editors' (e.g. you) reviewing of one's own stuff, so fair do's.   Tim riley  talk   20:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

FL review
Hi Tim. My nomination of List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Norfolk is languishing with two supports. I should be grateful for a review if you have time. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , certainly, and with great pleasure. I happen to be working on the Round the Horne article at the moment, and it is therefore a delight to find that the River Tud has tufa hummocks, which is pure Rambling Syd Rumpo.  Tim riley  talk   16:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Round the Horne
This is a warning to anyone rash enough to watch this page: and I have Round the Horne up for peer review. Anyone who is so kind as to look in at the PR will have only themselves to blame, but we nevertheless hope to see you there. –  Tim riley  talk   19:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

citation bot in Rossini
Tim, I don't at all like what citation bot has done in Rossini. It's removed the 'subscription' from the Grove Online entries, added a spurious volume 1 to each such entry, and confusing and unsightly doi links. Can we reverse this?--Smerus (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , done. I see Ravel (front page today) has been similarly marred and will fix when doing my post-TFA clean-up tomorrow.  Tim riley  talk   07:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim and . The bot came back to Gioachino and reverted Tim. I've now reverted the bot again and added to the page which should keep it from returning with further ministrations. Feel free to remove it if you want.Voceditenore (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I say! That's splendid. Thank you so much for the cure. I'll keep this code in my Wikipedia kit bag for use elsewhere. .  Tim riley  talk   11:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dead right! I'm going to add that to every decentish article I've written. Many thanks, ! ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Aha! Detected as a watcher of this page, ! May we expect the pleasure of your company at the Round the Horne peer review?  Tim riley  talk   19:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha, rumbled! Yes, I think I'm due an airing, Tim; it will be a pleasure. But tomorrow, please! A hot toddy awaits right now :)  ——  SerialNumber  54129  20:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this tip VdT!--Smerus (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Maurice Ravel
Hi. Two of the words you unlinked aren't really so common. As a reader I might have liked a ready link to concerto and song cycle. I'm often doing wiktionary links to words I might often see but then realize I don't really know what they mean. Examples: cohorts, unplaced, ambivalent, habituated, delimited, innocuous, gormless, ostensibly and so on. Me no English can speak good. Slight Smile 23:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I should explain that featured articles such as this have been through at least one and usually two rigorous reviews by a number of experienced editors, and a consensus arrived at about the text, presentation etc. I respect your own views, naturally, but please bear in mind that the text approved for FA has been vetted most carefully. Best wishes,  Tim riley  talk   01:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks. Slight Smile 01:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I made several corrections but you undid all of them. Why? Most of my revisions are correcting things clearly wrong or incomplete, like a composition couldn't have been written in 1926 if the premiere was on March 21, 1925. Other pages (list of compositions and other sources) confirm. Other things done for completness, like listing ALL the composers Ravel arranged. Etc. I could go on and justify every revision I made one by one, but you can check the validity of my changes yourself very easily... which you should have done before you just blanketed all my changes with one stroke. I will undo your undo if you don't come up with any good reason why not. saguaro-sun / chuckstreet (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I should perhaps explain how Wikipedia works, particularly at FA level (though the same principles apply throughout). All statements need to be verifiable and cited to a reliable source. If you take issue with any such statements in situ you need to cite sources in support of your contention. You make several assertions about dates etc but provide no evidence to back them up. If a date is self evidently a typo it can of course be changed, but otherwise sources are required. The best place to pursue this is the article talk page, where other interested editors can see the discussion rather than here, where it will not be seen by many.  Tim riley  talk   08:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Congrossinilations!
...Hey, it's about as good of a joke as Il Signeur Tambourossini. Seriously, though, you worked hard, did excellent work, and should feel very proud of yourselves. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 18:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That's most kind of you, Adam. And thank you again for your valuable input.  Tim riley  talk   15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

GBS on eugenics
I have moved a recent addition to this page across to the article talk page, so that other interested editors may see it and comment if they are so inclined.  Tim riley  talk   07:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

1345-46 in the Hundred Years' War
Good afternoon Tim

Thank you for your recent support. You seem to be taking an interest in my 1345-46 articles, so I thought that I would give you a sneak preview of what is planned. Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 is the last of the five Gascon articles to go to FAC. I am hoping to then submit the Battles of Sluys, Caen, and Blanchetache from the Crecy Campaign. The overarching article for this campaign, Chevauchée of Edward III (1346) is on the stocks and should be working its way through the process ere long. I will then turn to the Siege of Calais, which I envisage being quite long and technical - the siege lasted a year and was hotly contested - and to Crécy. With 122 watchers, and being what it is, I anticipate some fun and games around that. I can then relax with the grand over-arching Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347 and, I hope, complete a featured topic (see, they have a function) which sets Crécy clearly in context. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Gog, I don't know how things are nowadays, but in my schooldays (the 1950s and 60s) history was taught in seemingly arbitrarily chosen chunks – some periods studied in detail and others completely ignored – so that I still know more than I need to about Martin Luther, Frederick the Great, and the French and Agricultural Revolutions, but nothing at all about mediaeval England or France. Perhaps it is for that reason that I so enjoy your articles, and those of SerialNumber54129 among others. I shall keep a benevolent eye on the work-in-progress you outline above. I steam with envy at your superb illustrations: I am collaborating with SchroCat on upgrading the article on Round the Horne, and as you can imagine, it's damned difficult to find free-use images of a 1960s radio programme. I think my record for getting away with "fair use" pics is three different ones chez Osbert Lancaster, to illustrate his three different artistic careers, but as SchroCat rightly says, it's hard to argue that one needs fair use images to illustrate an article about a radio programme. We are at peer review at the moment, by the way, if you care to look in. We'll be at FAC fairly soon, I think.  Tim riley  talk   14:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * During my schooldays during the 1960s and '70s it was much the same. I dropped history at age, thus cementing a life long interest in it. I would also decry the over-emphasis on the significant events and people, but Wikipedia-wise I get comments like the one above yours complaining that the article is very technical and seems to be all background and aftermath, with insufficient detail on what to article is entitled. I have enjoyed working through the articles, and it is possible that I am now one of the score or so best informed people on the Gascon theatre 1345-46. Which is a frightening thought.


 * I have made a slight contribution to RtH's PR, but shall keep my powder dry for the FAC, which to my eye it seems to be ready for. Or a GAN, if you prefer a steadier approach. Give me a ping when it is nominated if you would. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Venetian Glass
Tim—thank you for taking the time to review Venetian Glass. I currently work full time and am rehabbing a broken wrist, but I plan to address your suggestions tomorrow. On the hour to row to Murano question, that is what the source says. I will check for a second source—although that might be a difficult task. I went from a hotel in Venice to Murano in a power-boat about 5 years ago, but I can't remember how long it took—maybe 20 to 40 minutes. I appreciate your work reviewing Venetian Glass, and look forwarding to making refinements tomorrow. TwoScars (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * – Take your time! No rush at all. Don't bother about a second source for the rowing time to Murano: the existing one will do very well, and my offhand remark is neither here nor there. On another point, I didn't mention this in the review, because it was irrelevant, but I hadn't quite twigged that Murano is not one island but a series of little ones joined by bridges. You make me impatient to get back to Venice!  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tim—thank you for your work on Venetian glass. I have always believed that reviewers are vastly underappreciated and their work is difficult. Cheers! TwoScars (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * – A pleasing comment, thank you, and one that emboldens me to suggest you might think about reviewing one or more other GA nominations as and when the demands of your day-to-day work and the healing of your wrist permit. (Please ignore the remarks below. I have to put up with these editors online and they even turn up at small gatherings at my flat from time to time. What can one do? But they are harmless – and are very generous with their time in reviewing, verb sap.)  Tim riley  talk   22:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Drive Row-by comment
- Practised expectorator though you are, if you can spit from Fondamente Nove to Murano, the wine's on me in May! The ferry takes 18 minutes and an hour under muscle power sounds wholly reasonable, two if you're at the oars. KJP1 (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which oars – and do be careful with the spelling and aspiration – you are at, KJ I cannot say. Nor, of course, can I say which hour you have spent under muscle power.  Tim riley  talk   17:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: You mean row-by comment. Basta! Any further nonsense to be on my talk page, if you please.  Tim riley  talk   17:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * After, afterthought - Do you have the Duplinks script or do you spot them by eye? I'd like to run it over Sissingishurst before she goes on the main page as Sarastro noticed some, but I've never managed to run it. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are dup links to the RHS (first one in VS-W section and second in Head gardeners), Hidcote (first in Building a garden and second in White Garden), the Great Storm (first in White Garden and second in Orchard) and old garden roses (first in Rose garden and second in Roses). I can't remember where I got the dup link gizmo or how to install it., who is technically competent – by which I mean competent technically – may be able to help you.  Tim riley  talk   20:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Me? Competent? How dare you sir!

To install the duplicate link script, add the following line to your common.js: importScript('User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js'); // User:Evad37/duplinks-alt

There should appear in the left hand column of your page under the "Tools" header the magic words "Highlight duplicate links". Press on that, and hey presto, little red boxes should appear round the duplicated links. Pip pip, Sir Redvers Cornposture 20:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Bidni review
Tim, thanks for the comments / feedback on the Bidni article. Bon Appétit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolluxWorld (talk • contribs) 11:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ban this Filth ...
... is the title of a book about a Mrs Whitehouse, who campaigned against what she supposed to be immoral programmes broadcast by the BBC in the 1960s. I am pleased to say that and I have been working on the article about outstandingly the BBC's most flagrant outrage against public morals, the much-loved radio show Round the Horne. We have extravagantly enjoyed researching and writing this disgraceful nonsense, and we look forward to comments from anyone willing to be seen in public frequenting this deplorable FAC. –  Tim riley  talk   21:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Alas, this deplorable article has been promoted to FA. Thank you to all the editors who risked their reputations by looking in at the review.  Tim riley  talk   20:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Appreciation time
I say! What a very nice thing to see on one's talk page. Thank you very much. I shall try to live up to it.  Tim riley  talk   16:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Your peer review of Milton Keynes
For some unfathomable reason, I missed your peer review of Milton Keynes. I am most grateful for your work (as well as really annoyed that I failed to see it because there are some really useful action points to follow up). Thank you so much. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Jules Massenet scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Jules Massenet has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 12 May 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/May 12, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Évohé !
What amazing work... I shall have to educate myself. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * that's most kind of you, mon général. I hope you won't refrain from polishing up any of my linguistic infelicities or anything else you think needs polishing. –  Tim riley  talk   21:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Orpheus in the Underworld
If anyone who watches this page and happens to spot this message cares to look in at the peer review of the recently-overhauled article I shall be very glad indeed to read any comments.  Tim riley  talk   09:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/The Legend of Bhagat Singh/archive1
Hello, Tim Riley sir, it has been a while. How is everything with yourself? Good I hope. I've nominated this film article about the life of the Indian freedom fighter Bhagat Singh starring Ajay Devgn as the titular character. As always, your comments would be most welcome and beneficial to the overall improvement of the article. In return, I'll have a look at Orpheus for you. Thanks. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 08:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And hello to you Ssven2, sir (though we surely needn't be so formal?) I'll look in, but it really isn't my area of expertise and I may not be able to contribute much of value. Still, I see what I can do, if anything. Best wishes,  Tim riley  talk   14:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, and I call you "sir" as a term of respect and you are elder to me. I shall look at Orpheus in the morrow.  —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 15:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

In case you didn't get my ping at the FAC, I'm informing you here that I've resolved your comments, sir, and yes "owing to" is better sounding anyway (Indian English takes more from BrE than AmE). — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 07:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good work, Ssven. Tightly constructed and easy to read. That's the way!  Tim riley  talk   09:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I only had quite a few of them to work on anyway lol. Thank you for your comments though. There were some seriously valuable pointers. As promised, I'll look at Orpheus.  —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 09:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation requests for MK article
Thank you again for your work on Milton Keynes. You may have noticed another editor has added a bunch of CN tags, many of which I don't understand. None are so substantive as to question your judgement. But in case you are curious, I have asked for clarification at User talk:SounderBruce. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If your GA activity has sparked an interest in this part of the world, a short trip north will bring you to Gayhurst House. Here, some early work by the Master may be seen, including his celebrated Cerberus Privy! You'll like the guidebook comment on his efforts. KJP1 (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course these things are a matter of judgement, but to my mind the citations asked for are unnecessary, as I have now said on the user's page. There is not and never has been a rule that every statement made must be cited, and although clearly not everyone shares my interpretation of WP:WHYCITE I do not think you are required to prove an uncontroversial statement such as the existence of a bus route or a road, any more than citations would be wanted for saying that France is in Europe or that the Sun gives off heat. Some of the other requested citations are more borderline, it is true. In any case, adding the citations will do no harm.  Tim riley  talk   06:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Orpheus in the Underworld
Recycling this blatant plug on the current page. If anyone who happens to spot this message cares to look in at the peer review of the recently-overhauled article I shall be very glad indeed to read any comments.  Tim riley  talk   09:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Tim. I trust that you are keeping well on this fine spring day. I am more than happy to review this FAC, not least as it is the only opera, comic or otherwise, I have actually seen. However, given the number of assessors it has already attracted - and they could hardly be less knowledgeable on comic opera than me - I wonder if you would care to direct me towards some other article or articles? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "they could hardly be less knowledgeable on comic opera than me": how dare you! I'll beat anyone in the ignorance stakes on opera - comic or not! - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Relax, SchroCat. Your ignorance on this, and indeed everything else, is not challenged. But you could do worse than looking in at SchroCat's current FAC on Blair Peach if you don't fancy an operatic article.   Tim riley  talk   16:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point, well put. On consideration, I have read the Terry Pratchett guide, and so am not entirely ignorant. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * One of my favourite of the Pratchett canon. I am trying to find the recipe for Nanny Ogg's Chocolate Delight with Special Secret Sauce.  Tim riley  talk   16:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ?
 * Hopeless. Tried it. Doesn't work. Missing key ingredient(s).  Tim riley  talk   16:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I could despatch an order for it to the DW, but I understand that one should anticipate a considerable delay in delivery. And heavy "wastage" en route.
 * RE OitU, I am happy to review, it simply seems unnecessary. Let me know if you would like me to anyway.
 * I am sure that transferring my assessing debt to you to SC is against the Anti-Slavery Convention or some such, but nevertheless I shall set to, Massah. I well remember it being reported. I probably occupied something in protest.
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Enfers Revisited
Dear visitor to this page, I have nominated Orpheus in the Underworld for FAC, and if you have time and disposition to look in at the review if will be esteemed a favour.  Tim riley  talk   09:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Wing Pinero
'So' is indeed a conjunction. The Oxford Dictionary says:

CONJUNCTION 1And for this reason; therefore.

‘it was still painful so I went to see a specialist’ ‘you know I'm telling the truth, so don't interrupt’ Am reverting. Valetude (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * See Modern English Usage: "British idiom does not countenance the use of so alone."  Tim riley  talk   09:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It is sad to be so alone. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

At the BL
[https://www.bl.uk/events/the-fabulosa-story-of-polari How bona can you get? Take a vada.] --Smerus (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC


 * I shall have to go. (Reduced prices for under 18s forsooth! Happily reduced also for the Stately Homos of England.) I shall listen with interest and correct the speakers only when necessary.  Tim riley  talk   20:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

English query
I wondered if I could ask you if the following is OK, it doesn't seem right: 'The compositions of Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827) comprise of 722 works[1] stretch across forty-five years from his earliest...' Thanks.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No good writer would ever write "comprise of", but it isn't actually wrong – merely horrible. The Oxford English Dictionary and other dictionaries admit it as an alternative construction to the normal "comprise" (the dictionaries record what is rather than what should be) but Fowler calls it "a wanton and indefensible weakening of our vocabulary". The sentence would be turned from naff English to good by deleting the "of". (There's an amusing article in The Guardian about the (mis)use of "comprise" in Wikipedia, which is worth reading for a chuckle, but, all the same, the "of" would be better deleted from the sentence you mention.) The sentence also looks faulty in containing two main verbs – "comprise" and "stretch" – without a conjunction, but without seeing it in full I shouldn't like to pontificate. If it went on "...and are jolly good" or some such it would make grammatical sense. –  Tim riley  talk   06:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your very full reply (I read the sentence four or five times and strugled with it). I have now had a go at a hopefully less 'orrible 'improvement' and will see how long it lasts... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Ralph Vaughan Williams article
Dear Mr. riley. You suggested that we talk regarding my addition to the Ralph Vaughan Williams article and your preference for how it should be written. I see that you have maintained an interest in this article for some years, while I acknowledge that I am a new contributor. I also note that you are not an original author, nor are you, as a matter of personal choice, an administrator.

I prefer my formulation and I am not sure why you felt the need to change it initially, nor why you felt justified in changing it back after I had undone it and stated a preference for my original. The change is primarily a matter of style, but there is a small degree of substance in my preference. The relationship between RVW and Stanford was complex, and is most often characterized as stormy or difficult. My phrasing acknowledges that description, and then asserts the source of the complexity. It does use more words than your alternative, but is grammatically appropriate. I am not sure why or by what authority you insist on changing it. Rgrames (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Rgrames
 * Just chipping in, but I prefer the original, which is slightly easier to read. If in doubt, remember Orwell's six rules (number 3): "If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out". As to anyone's "preference", de gustibus, and all that. - SchroCat (talk) 06:11, 10 June 20, 2019 (UTC)


 * The main fault with the proposed change is its discursive editorial tone. The "certainly" is not the encyclopaedic style we use in Wikipedia. The second fault is, as SchroCat rightly says, that it uses more words to say the same thing. As a new editor you may find it helpful to understand the review process of featured articles: they have all been through at least one and usually two reviews by a substantial number of editors. Drafting points such as this are examined in close detail during the reviews, and prudence is advisable before wading in and changing the text that the reviewing editors have agreed. Discussing on the article talk page is generally a good idea: see here for a recent example. A point was raised, investigated, considered and dealt with. This is usually the best way to get featured articles changed.  Tim riley  talk   08:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with SchroCat: the shorter version is better. "Certainly" is an unhelpful filler word, and the complexity of the relationship is nicely caught by the juxtaposition of "affectionate" and "stormy" using the conjunction "but". Strunk and White wrote: "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that he make every word tell."  The words that you added do not "tell" or add any new concepts and are not otherwise helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems that we are developing our own Stanford/Vaughan Williams relationship. I again chose the word 'yet'--as in 'but nevertheless'--carefully. I intend to put it back. Please explain why, in your view, I should not. Rgrames (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For the third time of asking: if you wish to change the text of this featured article it would be helpful, not to say good manners, to discuss it on the article talk page. Nobody owns a Wikipedia article, but the views of its main contributors and peer reviewers should be given due weight against the personal fancies of someone who makes a single drive-by edit. I should not be surprised if any changes you make were reverted by another interested editor. We operate by consensus here, rather than personal whim.  Tim riley  talk   07:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr riley. It has not escaped my notice that your changes have not been to the substance of my changes, at least now that you have decided that my perception of Stanford's approach to RVW had merit. Perhaps, then, your undiscussed edits and reversions on my changes were to teach me proper manners? It might be helpful if you point out where this consensus-building discussion takes place, for I see far more revisions in the history than I see points of discussion in the talk page for this article.
 * As for my apparent status as a drive-by editor, as you characterize me (a bit ad hominem, but let that pass), it was my intention to add my knowledge to that of the creators of this excellent article and thought it best to start in a small way. My reception has me questioning whether membership is open. I think I might have something to offer. I was a music critic for a major American classical music journal for almost a decade. I am a trustee--albeit recently made--of the Ralph Vaughan Williams Society, and I am currently tasked with creating a critical discography to update the one that was originally produced by Stephen Connock and distributed by the Society to its members. I have studied the life and works of Ralph Vaughan Williams for many decades.
 * I am more than happy to assist in the further development of this project--which I again emphasize I find admirable--but do not really want to do so if I am to have every word I suggest summarily overridden. I understand the value of collegiality, and I have a better sense of its operation in this context now, but I also know how to identify someone who feels ownership even if he or she does not claim it. I hope we can work together on this, but I have no desire at this point of my life to be treated as a recalcitrant student or unwelcome interloper. Rgrames (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There really is no need to make a production number of this. If you think something needs changing then say so on the article talk page. As in the example given above you will then have access to all the interested editors. Posting lengthy screeds here bewailing ad hominen – or for all I know or care ad feminam – comments is singularly unproductive. I don't know how many people who watch my talk page are interested in RVW, but 161 editors have RVW on their watchlists, and the RVW talk page is the place to air any suggestions.  Tim riley  talk   20:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Ten pressed men
Good evening Mr riley. I note that I am still very considerably in your debt as regards reviewing, so a gentle reminder that if there are any articles which you would like an ignorant and semi-literate opinion on, you have only to point me in their direction, Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In my debt, forsooth! A fine fool I made of myself at your current one! Does your kind offer include reviewing nominations by my various disreputable associates? Last time I tried that, you mentioned the Modern Slavery Act. But if you are so minded I commend to your attention an FAC that is so far somewhat under-visited: Elizabeth Raffald. Several Wikipedian luminaries have contributed to the article and I'd be pleased to see it reviewed by someone with a fresh eye (they're always better fresh than frozen or tinned).  Tim riley  talk   22:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This starts to smack of good old fashioned, proper slavery. I'll get on to it tomorrow, when my eyes should be appropriately pickled. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A fine article. Any more? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I must admit to being a dilettante reviewer at FAC. Some stalwarts review everything, from astronomy to zoology, but I'm afraid I have to make an effort to dive into articles on subjects that don't appeal to me. I sometimes make that effort, but not often enough, alas. I console myself with the thought that even my pick-and-mix reviewing is better than none, and you may find the same if you let your eye stray over the list of runners.  Tim riley  talk   19:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Me too Tim, me too; dilettante-wise. I do cast an occasional eye over that list, as you can see. Mostly various non-biographical military history with a smattering of other topics which I know just enough about to bluff my way through, or sometimes not. I try hard to limit my reviewing to articles that I think I will enjoy. {{Poutine]] was a favour called in: interesting, if surprisingly politically sensitive.
 * Any way, if you do throw another one at the wall, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * PS I also watchlist User:Deckiller/FAC urgents and help out when I can. Leads me into some lesser-travelled avenues of knowledge. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

undoings
Keep my contr. in. They're not vandalistic nor intended as such.

- L.'s recordings of light music were commercially motivated. Readers Digest brought most of these out, and it was their initiative;

- the von thingie was a narcissistic gimmick of Herbert Karajan. This was his real name: ALL references of nobility were illegal in Austria after WW1. They don't exist there anymore and are forbidden to be used - to this day;

- the italics in the Marijuana Variations title do not expand into the opus-nr, surely?

good evening, Leos1968 (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt your bona fides – merely your judgement, grasp of English and understanding of Wikipedia's rules and requirements. Please discuss on the article talk page if you wish to persist.  Tim riley  talk   15:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * oh another typa grammarnazi in his very own lil' bathtub :) wasn't appealing to yer moral temperament, nor to your mastery of first grade Latin, ye crotty tail of diarrhea. Leos1968 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I imagine that was meant to be rude. Fortunately it is also unintelligible.  Tim riley  talk   16:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * something wrong w/ the powers of your imagination? or maybe you're linguistically challenged. probably, both. it's so easy to pretend you're stupid when yer a hairball. good night. and don't choke in yer cushions, 'cos tomorrow it's early days for scamming phones again Leos1968 (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What a very odd message! Happily such gibberish cannot offend, though I imagine it is intended to.  Tim riley  talk   16:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * you are descending into mindless repetition. probably you contracted some kinda Alzheimer Light from your incompetence in matters musical. you realise that you missed out on Leibo's most extraordinaire recording? what a "ball"! Leos1968 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , stop. Now. If you continue to harass other users and maintain this level of incivility, I will happily file a report on you at a suitable venue. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * oh well.didn't start the fire. my contributions are okay, all of them real facts. but read the autistic mick's first reaction? that's harassment in my booklet. i wish you a great evening as well Cat Leos1968 (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "autistic mick"?? Don't say you weren't warned what would happen... - SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the user above was banned for his remarks toward you. Sasquatch t&#0124;c 18:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for letting me know. I'm grateful for SchroCat's considerate intervention and for your firm action.  Tim riley  talk   19:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!
—— SerialNumber  54129  08:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Orpheus in the Underworld scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Orpheus in the Underworld article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 25, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/July 25, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Baker Street
Hi Tim, I hope all is well. You were kind enough to provide some comments at the Baker Street robbery PR; this has now moved on to FAC. If you have sufficient time or inclination, I'd be most grateful to hear any further comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:Gog the Mild submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * Editor Tim riley is a long standing creator of numerous (45 FA, 20 GA!) finely crafted, detailed, erudite, witty and grammatically superior articles; mostly in the areas of culture and upmarket entertainment, with the occasional sally into low humour. He is also a prolific reviewer of all manner of FA nominees; with his comments being notable for their insight, sympathy and dry wit. He can be relied upon to lift both the tone and the quality of a review, an article and Wikipedia. A wikipedian sans peur et sans reproche and a thoroughly worthy recipient.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   11:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I am so pleased to see this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations. Very well deserved. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Quite right. Well deserved. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I say! How very kind! I am most touched. A very warm thank you to my generous colleagues, above.  Tim riley  talk   14:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Well done Tim!--Smerus (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I've not been so pleased since you got half a WikiChevron! Your stable of FAs is truly impressive but what stands out for me, and for others, is your willingness to help - with reviews, with support and encouragement, and with an eagle eye and exceptionally wide knowledge. This is a very well-deserved acknowledgement. KJP1 (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My hat size has been 7¼ inches for the past forty-five years, but I may have to revisit my hatter after this. Bless you all!  Tim riley  talk   18:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Congrats TR. Well deserved and thanks for all your work here at the 'pedia!! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Too mild. I'd say "Editor of the Decade!"  I am late to this party, but still wish to tender my best, my very best congratulations! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent to see this. Congratulations! DBaK (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Brunton
I looked, I don't see where.

Where? DS (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry - did the link not work? Would you mind trying this instead?   Tim riley  talk   08:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The string "Brunton" does not appear anywhere in the page you linked, nor does the string "Grimston". DS (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * and...? DS (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't seem to be making myself understood. If I have correctly read the edit history of this article you added some detail, and generously said in your edit summary that you had no objection to alternative wordings. I have reworded in the first sentences of the lead of the article. If you're OK with that I need bother you no more. Regards,  Tim riley  talk   13:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no inclusion of the "Brunton" detail? "Grimston", I suppose is okay as part of her husband's name, but what of "Brunton" ? DS (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't think where those two American books got the "Brunton" from. It isn't in the ODNB, Times obit, the DNB archive, Kendal's autobiography, Pemberton's biography, Morley's book, Who's Who, Who's Who in the Theatre or the London Gazette, in some or all of which one would expect to see it if it were correct. And it wouldn't appear to make sense: if she was born, as the main sources say, Margaret Shafto Robertson and married a man whose real name was William Hunter Grimston, where could the Brunton come in? Like her mythical GBE (see the article talk page) I think the absence of any "Brunton" from the principal sources should make us chary.  Tim riley  talk   22:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This name crept into some American sources, but it seems to have been a mistake. As Tim says, her autobiography, Pemberton or Morley would have mentioned it if it were true. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Granted, although this should probably be noted somewhere (commented out?) in case anyone else, like me, finds one of the American sources. " " ? DS (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Very good idea. Will do. Many thanks.  Tim riley  talk   17:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer review for Charles Gounod
I've expanded the article and put it up for a peer review with a view to getting the old boy up to FA standard. Do please look in. Comments will be warmly welcomed.  Tim riley  talk   11:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Revolting students: a medieval riot over bad wine...
If this sounds interesting to you, I'd be most grateful for any comments you may care to make at the peer review (and I'll be along to inspect your Gounod shortly!). Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I remember it well (I was quite young at the time) and will look in. But one of KJ's dreadful piles is before it in the queue.  Tim riley  talk   13:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)