User talk:Tim riley/Archive3

Possibly unfree File:Galuppi-Burano.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Galuppi-Burano.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Tim. I added a "Source" line to your description.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow!!!!!!!
I can't believe you find the article so good. Thanks. I worked on it after it failed its FAC thrice (taken by a friend of mine). I think I will change dueling to conflicting. Actually the singers third album was a double one. The first disc contains ballads and shows the artist underneath her make up, briefly herself. The second disc contains uptempos and showed her alter ego, known as Sasha Fierce; she is aggressive, outgoing and so on. Thanks again. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Already nominated for FAC. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 18:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Stanford
In his own words, "I like it, my boy!" Bloody good job. I've made just a few tweakettes, nothing major at all. Cheers. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  11:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Royal College of Music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gwyneth Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Royal College of Music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Costa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC) '''Hello, Tim riley. You have new messages at Jafeluv's talk page.''' You can [ remove this notice] at any time.

Martin Luther
A review of a good article you recently passed has been requested here. You may wish to comment on the reassessment. AIR corn (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Quiet calm deliberation..."
"...disentangles every knot". This, I am fairly sure, is from one of the G&S operas. I want to quote it on the FAC talkpage. Can you confirm its accuracy and say where it comes from? Better still, do you know what comes just before it? Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Arthur Haddy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Newbury and Sandy Powell


 * Peter Andry (record producer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to City University

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's that man again
With reference to to our mutual friend Claudio, is there any chance you can recover this JSTOR article ("Rinuccini the Craftsman" by Bojan Bujic)? It's from Early Music History, which may present a problem. Brianboulton (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do, with pleasure, but not till Wednesday, when I return from dial-up exile in Cumbria. Tim riley (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and if you're interested, the "lost operas" article is now properly at PR if you have time to look at it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I fully understand the background to all these in-jokes about old Monty Greens, but they make me chuckle :) MistyMorn (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just that I can't be doing with Monteverdi, and both the Bold Sir Brian and I therefore find a certain piquancy in my regular rummaging in the archives for Monteverdian material. The Rinuccini the Craftsman article is now safely on its way, BB. Tim riley (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ooops... I seem to have uncovered another colour conflict. Well, it seems we can agree to agree on Sir John [BRAVO!]. And maybe Sir Tony too? (Oh, and apologies to Sir Brian for intruding on his section.)  MistyMorn (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Russian explorers
Hi Tim, do you think this would pass GA requirements?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to look next week when back in regular web access (away in rural e-inaccessibility at the moment.) Tim riley (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno - images
Hi Tim, could you take a look at the above and more specifically the two pantomime images in the centre of the article. They were uploaded, I think, a few years ago, but after havimages image review by Yomangani, the mother goose image has been identified as having a sourcing problem. SS believes you may know of the origin. If you do could you let me know so I can update its rational. All the best! -- Cassianto (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, Cassianto, I said that I think Tim can help with THIS image: File:1896 DanLeno-WidowTwankey.jpg, which was uploaded by the late User:kbThompson. Tim, this was a PeoplePlay image - It says Theatre museum.  Where have the PeoplPlay images gone?  As for the mother goose image, what I said to Cassianto was:
 * You will need to prove that the Mother Goose picture was first published before 1923. ... Maybe the 1946 magazine says that it is a reproduction of a postcard or something? Otherwise, you have three options: 1. do the research to find out where/when it was first published; 2. find another image that you like just as much; or 3. convert it into a "fair use" description: if you discuss the subject of the image in your text adequately, using the image to exemplify what is being talked about in the text, it should pass the overbroad NFCC#8. Let me know if you have questions about that." -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Images look great! Thanks Tim. -- Cassianto (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks indeed
I am very much obliged for the Arianna article. I doubt I'll use it much in the lost operas article, but it is providing a wealth of useful information for the expansion of the L'Arianna article on which I am working spasmodically. On an unrelated matter, was it Beaachcomber who produced the List of the Huntingdonshire Cabmen? And wasn't this a Telegraph feature? Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Huntingdonshire Cabmen was a feature in The World of Beachcomber, a TV programme inspired by Beachcomber. I'm not sure they were invented by Beachcomber? It seems much more like a Milligan invention to me, but I could be wrong though. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Beachcomber's column was in The Daily Express. The List of Huntingdonshire Cabmen was his creation, and according to Beachcomber also existed in French (Les Cochers de Huntingdonshire), Italian (Le Cocchiere di Huntingdonshire) and German (Die Mitschuldigen Ausgeschöpkopf im Teufelsglocke Wahlwehrwandschutz Gesellschaft Veislangen). (Daily Express, 2 September 1958, p. 6) The original English version was in five volumes, but a single-volume selection existed under the title of The Cream of the Cabmen. (Daily Express, 8 November 1956, p. 6) In the BBC series, Sir Michael Redgrave read out extracts each week with a poker-faced gravity and ceremony that were irresistibly funny. Tim riley (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Express?!! How are the mighty fallen! O tempora, o mores etc etc! Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing person
Tim, I wonder if you may be able to help me with Daisy Burrell? I have been writing an article on her, and in my search for sources it has struck me that I may be the first to do so since Pictures and Picturegoer in 1919 and the limited efforts of John Parker for Who's Who in the Theatre. The chief mystery is that Daisy appears to vanish, not once, but twice. None of the standard references give a date for her death, although the odds on her having died are now quite short. It seems likely that she put her career behind her and is remembered (if at all) under another name. I wonder if you know of any published or unpublished sources which might throw some light on the matter? Moonraker (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your addition, very helpful. Moonraker (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Glorious John!
Ouch! I fully expect to be batoned across the hand for my clumsy fiddling... MistyMorn (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I claim no proprietary rights – fiddle away! A piece of OR: when I was a lad in the 1960s I was sometimes allowed to slip into rehearsals. Little lingers in the memory, but I do smile to recall that in the finale of the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto, when the big tune arrived JB turned to his soloist and said, "I've followed you all through – now you follow me!" But did I hear JB say it or was it Sir Charles Groves quoting him? Memory mists over.  Tim riley (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A lovely story and an interesting thought. (This morning, rereading the end of Le Carré's Tinker, Tailor, I was looking forward to reaching a detail in Smiley's observation and reasoning which for some reason had stuck in my mind over the years — so interesting to compare the memory with the original... Which turned out to be even better than I remembered it!) MistyMorn (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This wikilink started as a copyedit. Feel free to edit mercilessly, as and when the company takes you. MistyMorn (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking to learn a bit more about FAC, I immediately wound up here... oops! I'm afraid the edits I've been making may be more of a hindrance than a help. If so, please accept my apologies. And, of course, feel free to revert or whatever. MistyMorn (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank You...
Congratulations, but, ah! I knew it would come sooner or later. You have abandoned Victoriana and classical music to devote yourself heart and soul to The Beyoncé Knowles WikiProject. Woe be unto us. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But do I know you? Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 07:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your kind words are greatly appreciated, Jivesh. Pray ignore Ssilvers, above, who is my friend and regular collaborator on Wikipedia projects and who is enjoying himself at catching me ski-ing off-piste. Tim riley (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Lol, I thought he was talking to me. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 11:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Beecham and authority control
Hi: thanks for your message. Basically, I am adding authority control information to various biographies; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Authority_control

I am aware of the blank page problem with the OCLC link; it is supposed to link to a page on OCLC WorldCat Identities which shows a graph and some other information related to what the person has published or has been a subject of. I think it is a problem with the template, which I don't know how to fix. I will leave a message on the talk page for the above link to see if it can be fixed. Hope this helps.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim: thanks for your response. I agree that the current link in the template should point to Authority control. I would suggest putting in a query at Wikipedia Talk:Authority control about redirecting the link; I imagine there is a bot that could do it... In re: your other question, I am a librarian and am conversant with the structure of the LC authorities database, which can be quirky at times; however, I am not the only one doing this work because I know other people are adding info from the other authority files (VIAF, PND, etc.; well in the case of PND it looks like it was a bot...); I will say I found one or two incorrectly coded LC records for people with the same name or similar names which I have fixed. Basically, I guess I am saying if you want to help, I am most appreciative. And if you further questions, let me know. Happy to help.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Gosh! I thought from the title this section was going to be about his "benign dictatorship"... MistyMorn (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Nuisance, I know,
...but is there any chance of recovering this 1994 article from behind the wire? Brianboulton (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Parody music
As far as I know, this is NOT an article you have ever edited, or have any particular interest in (although it does, naturally, mention Sir Arthur Sullivan). Some one wants to hijack it for academic musical theory as opposed to general interest (at least that is my impression) and s/he and I have a dispute going. I would especially appreciate your opinion. Perhaps you will see in his argument something I am missing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Houp La!
Very impressed by what you have added, not least the pictures, which are excellent. Moonraker (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Get out of jail...
Thanks for the indications... though I wouldn't dare touch your prose! That's really helpful because I get thoroughly confused about WP practices in general. So far I've found just two small "factual" queries (family/chronology) which I erroneously tried to address in the same ways that I would have done had the article not been put up for PR. I'd be happy to post the queries on the PR page. Should I try to undo the related edits which I so clumsily introduced? Btw, glad you enjoyed Get Peered. I used to be fascinated by chess, but I nearly always made terrible blunders. Same difference over here, I'm afraid. ''Your starter for ten... Which famous composer won a game against a future world champion? (Answer)'' MistyMorn (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will do. MistyMorn (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Request
Hi Tim. I hope you are enjoying good health. Will you please be able to spare some of your free time and have a look at the prose of "Broken-Hearted Girl"? Please. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 11:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Alice Delysia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Curtain raiser (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Monteverdi's lost operas
I have closed the peer review, and nominated these missing masterpieces at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Fauré piano music
I am sorry I haven’t responded to your request for comments a while back. As I think I wrote before Fauré is not really my cup of tea (outside the songs), so there’s not much for me to say (I only bought the Howat book for the other three composers...). I have now read through the article and it's very good and informative. Just a few comments:
 * 2nd para: 'sets' implies to me that these groups of works were written intentionally linked, rather than just sharing the same title over time; I don’t have a quick solution to this.
 * I would delete the Prelude to Penelope or move to very end (appendix) - same with Masques et Bergamasques
 * A word about Fauré’s piano(s) would be nice, along with any witness accounts of his playing style
 * Perhaps more about his use of form, but maybe this isn’t available in reliable sources or simply not relevant.

I am sorry I can’t get more excited – but there it is! Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much both for the comments on the prose and for your kind words. By the way, Ms Knowles is married now. She just had a baby. :D Hey, thank you again. You are too good. I will reply to your comments on my talk-page. Okay? Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 11:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The 3 Bs

 * Sir John - Gosh, good thing you didn't do much more than pass the time of day with her, or you would have been had up for OR! I've borrowed the book from the public library, and I agree it's a charmer (I also greatly enjoyed reading Susana Walton's Behind the Facade). I think your article too is an excellent contribution too.


 * Sir Tommy - Not so sure what direction the wikilink should take... There's no lack of good source material, but somehow I would see it so much better in the context of a Timbo special on Beecham the impresario, or something vaguely along those lines.


 * Sir Adrian - (no news). MistyMorn (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a great story! I can see you'd have a good line in OR. The one time I found myself on Ischia, I was sorry it was closed season for the house and garden. It must be an amazing place. Sadly, Lady Walton is no longer around. Happily though, her legacy looks good, including that music programme. And I guess there must be quite a Waltonian feel. MistyMorn (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: piano music of Gabriel Fauré
This is a note to let the main editors of piano music of Gabriel Fauré know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 13, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/February 13, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The piano music of Gabriel Fauré is among his best known work. Written between the 1860s and the 1920s, Fauré's major sets of piano works are 13 nocturnes, 13 barcarolles, six impromptus and four valses-caprices. These sets display the change in his style, over the decades, from uncomplicated youthful charm to a final enigmatic but sometimes fiery introspection, by way of a turbulent period in his middle years. His other notable piano pieces, including shorter works, or collections composed or published as a set, are Romances sans paroles, Ballade in F♯ major, Mazurka in B♭ major, Thème et variations in C♯ major, and Huit pièces brèves. For piano duet, Fauré composed the Dolly Suite and, together with his friend and former pupil André Messager, an exuberant parody of Wagner in the short suite Souvenirs de Bayreuth. Much of the ambidextrous Fauré's piano music is difficult to play, but it is rarely virtuoso in style. The composer disliked showy display, and the predominant characteristic of his piano music is a classical restraint and understatement. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

College of Arms
No problem at all, I anticipated this and already have a solution of how the article could be split. But I am obviously biased and would not want to separate a thing from it! The article have low editor traffic, maybe it is best we approach some instead of waiting for them? And yes I saw the FA nomination for Swedish heraldry, it's a wonderful article and should pass with no problem at all. My expertise is restricted to just Gallo-British heraldry (more precisely English and Scottish) and the drawing of them. Best Regards, Sodacan (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the GA review, I will definitely take yours and User:Brianboulton advice, and try the article for peer review and FA. My idea for the splitting of the article is to retain the History and Roles section and break off the officers section and create a another article called 'Officers of arms of the College of Arms', anyway hope that doesn't have to happen now. Thanks again, Sodacan (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Delius
For some unaccountable reason I missed Fred's 150th birthday on 29 January. What a bugger - I've been meaning for months to nominate it for TFA, wrote a note to myself, etc, and still forgot. Too late now, but if you agree I will nominate it anyway, later in the year. I see Jimmy Edwards, above, is getting his day in the TFA sun, so music is not altogether forgotten. (It's Kathleen Ferrier's centenary in April; for God's sake don't let me overlook that). Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Another Frederic's 39th birthday is on February 29! Maybe I'll have Pirates ready for his 40th. :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ...and amid all this birthday stuff I also forgot to acknowledge Barbirolli's elevation, so please accept belated congratulations. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Alice Delysia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Oscar Straus


 * Luther (play) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to L'Express

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Alice Delysia
The DYK project (nominate) 16:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Royal Opera, London
Thanks for the invite. I'd love to look over the article (and have gotten to the point in revamping Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky that I can take some time off and give RO-L my full attention). Will do so on my earliest opportunity. Jonyungk (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'll try to hunt something down to copyedit. Thanks also for the pointer to the Rossini man; I've seen him riding the storms of course. MistyMorn (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Vanishing references
Tim, I took the liberty to question User:George Ponderevo as to why the references were deleted in Alice Delysia. I'm sure it was a mistake, but curious all the same. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably, I think, assuming that a reference applies to all the assertions between it and the one before it - with which I have some sympathy - but I know from experience at FAC etc that such a liberal view won't wash in WP, and you have to put in a ref after more or less any assertion. Tim riley (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Maybe he considered it to be an over use of a source, which of course it's not! I suppose I too could be accused of being a little over zealous with references, such as Leno, where I found myself referencing after every full stop. Rightly so, I was quickly sent into the corner by SS and was made to where a pointy hat! :-) -- Cassianto (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a matter of proportion, no doubt. And we all have our different outlook thereon. This is why PR (as well as on-the-hoof prodding by one's WP colleagues) is such a good thing. Tim riley (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more! :-) -- Cassianto (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cassianto, the most powerful sorcerers wear pointy hats! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL -- Cassianto (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No they don't. They wear Victorian top hats. Tim riley (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tim - http://www.zazzle.com/old_grey_wizard_sorcerer_photosculpture-153709858557931125 AND http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-52616251/stock-photo-sorcerer-hat.html   I rest my case. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree. My view is neither liberal nor deprecated at FAC. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that over-citing is just as likely to lead to problems at FAC as under-citing. George Ponderevo (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By chance, a Featured Article almost entirely written by me is on today's front page, so I may perhaps be forgiven for flattering myself that my views might not be without merit. Tim riley (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a very nice and obviously well-researched piece of work, although I'd say that the lead is inadequate. I don't see that it supports your basic contention though, but as you've opted to pull rank then so be it, do as you will. George Ponderevo (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No rank. I'm just one of the file, as are we all. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * George, it's a question of line drawing. I think we all agree that you don't need to repeat the same cite for 10 consecutive sentences in a row.  On the other hand, I think that only using it once in those 10 sentences is not enough to reassure the readers (and FA reviewers) that *all* the information comes from that one source.  So, I repeat the link every few sentences, or if there is a direct quote.  I think that in the case at issue, I agree with Tim's judgment: the two extra cites that you deleted are helpful and do not constitute "over-citing".  But reasonable people can draw the line in slightly different places, and that is what the FA comment process is for.  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * George, I agree with everything above. As I stated on your talk page here, referencing after every sentence is, of course, unnecessary. However a lot of information will require a certain number of references after, say, three or four periods, as some would question the verifiability of the text. I dont know about yourself, but  SS, Tim and I have all sat the FAC process so we do have first hand experience.  As for the "pull rank" comment, this discussion is all within the interests of  WP:BONAFIDE and not about one-upmanship. If your deletions had of been discussed on the talk page of that article, then this could have been resolved there and then.  I encourage you to keep a beady eye on "over-citing" and look forward to working with you in the future. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fauré article
Just passing along some kudos for TFA. The article looks fantastic. Congrats and hope to see more of your work in the future. We need to see more classical music representation! Cheers. ALTON  .ıl  17:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Alton. May I knock on your door to look at future articles before I put them up for FA? Tim riley (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am not nearly as active in editing as I used to be and I'm sure I'm far behind the current standards and practices. I wouldn't be much help. Although I'm thinking, with your FA as motivation, to get back into editing. ALTON   .ıl  05:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi (Reminder)
Greetings Tim. Hope everything is fine for you. I have already nominated the song article. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 15:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Tim. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 04:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bentworth
Hi Tim, can you GA review this for me?♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hokay, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, Ericoides kindly took those recent photographs and hopes to get more. I'll await now and see what sources the editor has.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Tim do you think its worth me nominating Clint Eastwood for FA? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It was already greatly cut down for GAN and we decided that it really can't get much shorter without jeopardising some of the important information. Cutting it by a third would damage its level of comprehension. It would be possible to shorten it a bit but not by a third I don't think without affecting the quality of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Depending on what the kb of readable prose is at the moment it should be possible to whittle it down to around 100 kb but I did shrink it down a great deal for the GAN and actually I ended up restoring a lot of it because User:Nehrams2020 and I believed it wasn't as good. I dare say you're right though that people would want it shrunk. List of Chinese inventions is the biggest FA I can think of at 261 kb. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you think?
... or, have a look at this, which I've fiddled around with. Comments welcome. I have some refs up my sleeve if required. --GuillaumeTell 22:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I added it, wearing my night-owl hat. --GuillaumeTell 00:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Ox
Hi Tim, thanks for doing assessment. I've yielded to all of your suggestions so far. Hopefully this can all be dealt with before I face any blowback from the Fae RFC/U.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Edward German 150
Having missed Fred Delius's 150th birthday a couple of weeks back, we have also overlooked German's 150th which is today. German is presumably well regarded in Brit light opera circles, and probably deserves a better article than he's got. I daresay Ssilvers has it on his "to-do" list. Or you? Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ssilvers is largely responsible for getting the article up to the substantial B class article that now exists. I haven't had much to do with it, being, in truth, pretty lukewarm about German's music. German always strikes me as more in Eric Coates's camp than in Sullivan's. I have got it inked in on my wall calendar to nag you in the middle of next month about the Ferrier anniversary. – Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Precious

 * Thank you so much, Gerda! The article has been much improved by the attentions of reviewers, including yourself. Tim riley (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Parody music
I agree that all that stuff doesn't go in the Lead, but it's at least as good as the unreferenced crap that's currently in the body, so I wove it into the body. But this entire article is utter unreferenced WP:OR. One could easily argue for deleting 90% of it. If you are interested in this article, I strongly advise hitting the books. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Where are we with this article after your recent appeal for comments. If I can be of any help in revising the page, please don't hesitate to let me know. Tim riley (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your helpfulness, and sorry not to get back to you earlier. To be honest I am getting a little fed up with the negative attitude of certain people (see above) - it is perfectly true that (like a fairly large slice of wikipedia, alas) we need a lot more references here - but I personally would have liked to see the basic shape of the article altered to something a little more workable first. Very little point in finding references for a lot of stuff we might well end up deleting anyway, referenced or not. If the division into classical, folk, jazz and other popular music could be organised to replace the current attempt at a chronological history, with a new very general lead, that would at least allow different people to have a go at their own sections. My own background is probably too "generalist" and my own music library too limited to do much serious work on anything else. The very fact that parody in music means so many different things to different people I find more interesting than confusing - but I seem to be in a minority of one. Perhaps I just need to take this one - and anything else that has ever been edited by a certain person - off my watch list, and concentrate on something else. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (putting this here as well as on my talk page just in case)
 * Playing around? Looks absolutely brilliant to me! Just exactly what we want. I think we could easily do worse than just plug that straight into the article. I'm sure there are people who will want to change things here and there, but for one I am deeply impressed. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(Again - sticking this here as well as my talk page just in case you otherwise miss it)
 * I consider the person in question a mentor and friend too, just quietly - which is exactly why his (or her??) stubborness and "brisk" tone gets up my nose so much at times! Back on topic - I think your draft - while it does of course still need more work - should really replace the current article without further ado. The "holes" may be best sorted out by the various parties, most of whom have (or had) a much more restricted idea of the scope of the article - along the "my kind of music is the only kind" trail. Let them each fix up their own "bit". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Splendid work, Tim riley. I have no idea how you do these things so quickly (and so well)!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You've done a splendid job, imo. Thank you for the reply to my vague query: I see you've highlighted the 'specialist' usage of the term in the lede, which I think is helpful. I guess others—way more knowledgeable than I am—will determine exactly to what that term should refer (ie how restrictive the definition should be). Yesterday, I took a quick look at the parent section on the Parody page; you might conceivably wish to edit ruthlessly.... Given the presence of the sub-article, I limited the sourcing to Grove. Besides, I wouldn't have known what to do with the U-tube torpedoes. And the Fred Astaire does seem a bit like "Paris is a city..." MistyMorn (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Tim. Do you think Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) should be mentioned in parody music? Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 08:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Why, thank you, dear Dr. B. (And I hardly need say to you, the help of Wiki-colleagues makes a crucial difference. Tim riley (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Fanny ronalds.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fanny ronalds.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Mea maxima culpa (and pretty stupid, too)
Do you recall a few months back, when I was working on George Bizet, you questioned why Bizet should seek the support of the then 26-year-old unknown Fauré in his efforts to get work staged at L'Opéra? I said "That's what the sources say" and the matter was left. But I got my Faure wrong; it's the one without the accent – Jean-Baptiste Faure, L'Opéra's star baritone. OH my oh my oh my. I've corrected the text, but my shame will live for evermore. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The French only use accents to confuse the English. I fell for the same trick years ago in Père Lachaise being delighted at what I took to be the vast and impressive monument dedicated by France to a great composer, with the single word "Faure" on it. In fact, as I was crestfallen to discover, Gabriel is buried in a very modest grave elsewhere in Paris, and the great pile in Père Lachaise is for the politician Félix Faure, who took Clintonian goings-on to a fatal level, died a happy man, and is buried near the vast monument. – Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Haha! I nearly fell out of my chair and ROTFL!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Parody music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I disambiguated this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Charles Dickens' article.
Hi Tim. You have contributed greatly to featured articles, and therefore know what content meets class A standards. Charles Dickens article has been of a low standard for a long period and edits unvetted, and the one issue that needs to be dealt with in Talk:Charles_Dickens was one editors sweeping allegations. This subject in particular, has been in dire need of a collaboration and discussion among editors, and not one editors POV, so that consensus on the material is reached on talkpage, and the addition and wording scholarly. Thanks. Harrison 1979 (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Evviva!
Tim – after some of your more recent frequentazions, I wondered whether you might spare just a moment, or conceivably three, for L'Italia s'è desta...? Only if you felt like it, of course. — MistyMorn (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, knowing your lithe wit, and remembering that certain types of dancing can give you the giggles... but I guess that has something to do with tutus! Seriously, thank you. Any tips based on your long GA experience would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure. I think hints on which way to go for honey were what the nominator, Connolly15, was chiefly looking for. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for taking the time to sift through the article. I'm sure your helpfully couched remarks will be useful. Preparing for Wikipedia PR can be a daunting task for guys like us with little experience of the process. At least, that's how I feel... My own inclination would be to make sure all the content is adequately sourced first, and try to do a general clean up. Good teamwork would be an asset, I guess, and I think Connolly has a really good attitude—very professional. I feel that your view that the length is not excessive is encouraging, though presumably we should be looking to compact rather than expand. That sort of overriding editorial consideration is perhaps harder to tackle as a group, than something like unified spelling, which rests on a simple decision. I also noted that you did not raise any major concerns about content (hydraulics apart) or balance. So, some encouragement there, I guess. Many thanks again, —MistyMorn (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, what a fauringly long process... Yes, of course I will! If nothing else, to try to make up a little for my unhelpful, wide of the mark comments. Btw, I'm sorry your very helpful iti review didn't get the attention it deserved. I found that surprising and felt a bit bad about it, but was wary of stepping in myself. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Fred gets a stamp
Per this, kindly drawn to my attention by Carcharoth, I have added a few words to Fred's article. Note Kathleen F was also included. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and wording about sexuality
Thanks for leaving the message about this on my talk page. It seems like the conundrum over the Sexuality section will not go away, between the wording issue and the one over content (including a threat on my talk page to remove some content or else). Now you know why I skipped ahead to the Music section of the article (sigh).

It seems like no matter where we fall on the language issue, someone, somewhere is going to have an issue about it. Therefore, the bottom line seem to be how to minimize the potential damage. In other words, what we need is a solution. Use "homosexual" and attach a note about it being an official term despite the connotation seen by some? Use "gay" plus a note about it being considered the currently acceptable term, though an informal one in some circles? I'm open to options and to deciding between the two of us on this&mdash;there seems to be an aversion to the usual suspects' hashing things out on the Talk page. Jonyungk (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You may have a point. As for WP editors, I was about to leave an inquiring note on the LGBT Group Talk page and saw Smerus's note to them requesting FAR. That weasel (to put it extraordinarily nicely and to make a long story extremely short). Jonyungk (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Christian Friele
Hello Tim riley. I have nominated the above article for Good Article status and would be very obliged if you could review it for me. I think you might find it interesting. Best wishes, Eisfbnore  talk 10:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks – take your time. Eisfbnore  talk 20:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can see where you're coming from; the lead was indeed very poorly written. To be quite honest, I have been influenced by the engaging writing style in many FAs (including your Fred Delius), and thought it appropriate with a bit of editorial comment to jazz up the prose. For the moment though, I am withdrawing it, but I will perhaps renominate it when I have incorporated your invaluable suggestions. Cheers. Eisfbnore  talk 16:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As a token of thanks for your helpful comments, I just gave Georg Solti a very tiny paraphrasing review. -- Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 10:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And may I kindly ask for some assistance with the English grammar in another Norwegian's article? Am I right in thinking that the subjunctive is called for in this sentence? Or ought I to use the past subjunctive, which is identical with the indicative? -- Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 08:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends whether you ask an American or an Englishman. I believe the American would say "provided that she protect her neutrality", but British writers have been less keen on the subjunctive for most of the past two centuries: in 1926 H.W. Fowler wrote that the subjunctive "is moribund except in a few easily specified uses"; where US English would say "It was vital that everything be done quickly", in modern English usage we'd say "It was vital that everything was done quickly". An Englishman would certainly write "provided that she protected her neutrality". So you may take your choice! Both are correct, though I find the first version stiff and formal compared with the second. Tim riley (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Stiff and formal, riley? I concur exactly with your explanation of the US/UK usage, but to me the subjunctive feels like a sweet, strong cup of coffee - very satisfying; precise and delicious.  :-)  -- The Brisk American Ssilvers (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Raising the blood pressure and keeping one awake at nights. Tim riley (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blood pressure? Not a bit!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

William Burges (architect)
Hi Tim. I've nominated this for GA but its needs a thorough GA review. Can you review it for me?♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, but can you put your name and reserve the review and state you'll review in a few days? I just want to ensure it is given a professional review by a good reviewer that's all as I feel the article will be much better off afterwards! Yah, its a biggy alright but I'm sure the subject will be of great interest. Will look at your article peer review tomorrow most likely. Regards. Oh William Burges (architect) I've asked Charles to move to William Burges so will likely redirect this!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks. I've moved the review page to without the (architect), we are now William Burges solely. Take care!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were the peer review LOL. Yes if you look at the top you'll see it has already been requested for peer review. What I meant is that I know you are capable of most thorough reviews which definitely improve the quality of the article by the time the review is over because you tend to spot a lot of things most GA reviewers won't but will be spotted should it ever be nominated for FA. It was intended as a compliment, I hope you are not offended or thought it inappropriate. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well a peer review conducted by several Tim riley types would certainly be useful. Anyway, enough flattery!♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Eesh things are hectic a the moment, I'm struggling to remember everything I need to attend to as it is. Can you re-remind me in two or three days time?♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!
How very nice! I shall go and make myself a little pot of coffee to turn the will into the deed. Tim riley (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

William Burges, again
I don't know how to do Barnstars, or coffee, but thank you so very much. KJP1 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!! Well it seems the three of share an interest in such articles so its a win-win situation! Great review BTW!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Tim. I need your input at the GAR of Kirkenes–Bjørnevatn Line. I've requested a citation for quite a strong claim about its peak but the article writer believes it is unnecessary. Can you offer some input as to what you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Tim, could we have your thoughts here. As much as I like it, I have suggested doing away with the Burges image gallery and moving all the pictures in that section to commons,  if the article is to progress through FAC smoothly.  I have trawled the FA architects category but cannot find a recent FA article which actually has one. I could be wrong though. -- Cassianto (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tis OK now, refs have been added.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Bizet's Carmen
It has taken a while, but I now have sent Carmen for peer review. I welcome any comments which you feel able to provide. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:Coward's diaeresis
I've got two dots before my eyes now..... Quentin X (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Constable! Someone has just stolen a paragraph from this page. Do not approach this man: he may be dangerous. Tim riley (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam
Hi Tim - Sorry I've been a bit absent of late. Great to see the great Monteux getting the Timbo treatment (no screaming skulls there). Should the British not satisfy your every need, this might just be of some interest to you. —MistyMorn (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the "young", sorry about the unsignedness. Will try to atone, —MistyMorn (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Straight off I usually claim 15 — a couple of months back, that is... My friends south of the Alps are usually happy to play along, and some of the girls are quite polite. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And you, also
Hi Tim, thanks for the message and kind words. I am 'dipping my toe' in Wikipedia again after recent events. Likewise, if you need help you know where I am. Jack1956 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:JB-bust.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:JB-bust.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: William Walton
This is a note to let the main editors of William Walton know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 29, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/March 29, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

William Walton (1902–1983) was an English composer. During a sixty-year career, he wrote music in several classical genres and styles, from film scores to opera. His best-known works include Façade – An Entertainment, the cantata Belshazzar's Feast and his First Symphony. Born in Lancashire, the son of a musician, Walton was a chorister and then an undergraduate at Christ Church, Oxford. On leaving the university, he was taken up by the literary Sitwell siblings, who provided him with a home and a cultural education. His earliest work of note was a collaboration with Edith Sitwell, Façade, which at first brought him notoriety as a modernist, but later became a popular ballet score. Other early works that made his name were a Viola Concerto and Belshazzar's Feast. By middle age, he had ceased to be regarded as a modernist, and some of his compositions of the 1950s were criticised as old-fashioned. In his last years, his works came back into critical fashion; his later compositions, dismissed by critics at the time of their premieres, were revalued and regarded alongside his earlier works. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Church of Our Lady & St Alphege, Bath
Finding you had somehow managed to get Sir Georg to FA without the benefit of my proof reading skills, I created the above by way of thanking you for your review of William Burges. I'm only sorry that I can't find a picture but will try to rectify that later. With warm regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Added a quote from Crook to the St Paul's section of the William Burges article which I think you may appreciate. KJP1 (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I chuckled. Quite right too! Tim riley (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno
The article on Dan Leno has been nominated for Featured Article consideration here. Since you participated in the Peer Review of the article, I thought you might like to comment there, and we would welcome your comments, if you have time. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Carmen
The lady has arrived at FAC and I hope you will visit her there. If you do, beware her warning: "Si tu me n'aime pas, je t'aime; Si je t'aime, prends garde à toi!" Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

William Walton
I don't know whether you nominated this article for TFA but noticed in the FAR archive that you nominated it for FA. In any case, congratulations and well done! (Now all you need is a baseball bat to beat away the potential vandals.) Jonyungk (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Great to see Willie up on the front page, where he deserves to be, and with those spikey sea shells as counterpoint, I think. Nice one Tim! Once again... —MistyMorn (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for these kind remarks. I haven't got a baseball bat, but I have blown 30 years' dust off my old cricket bat just in case. Nothing too outrageous by way of vandalism so far; it's the well-meaning but ill-considered (I almost wrote "half-baked") drive-by edits that really get one down. Next on my list of composers for FAC treatment are Faure and Parry. I hope I may perhaps enlist you both to review them at the appropriate stage. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It'll be a pleasure, sir (...oops, must adjust my satnav!) —MistyMorn (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Careful on the term "drive-by," Tim. Where I live, it's a very ... ah, "loaded" term with potentially fatal results. :-) Jonyungk (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken! Well, that was all surprisingly painless. No need to hit anybody with my cricket bat; a few forward defensive prods were all I needed. Solicitous Wiki-colleagues saw off the smutty schoolboys, and the demi-cuit good faith edits were few, innocuous, and easily remedied. And, of course, there were a couple of genuine improvements, which I have gratefully left in place. Tim riley (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One registered user was serially replacing the article with SOS messages asking to be blocked permanently. I trundled off to the Help desk to pass the potato. —MistyMorn (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief! The article wasn't that bad surely? What could have caused the poor unfortunate to have suffered anaphylactic shock? Tim riley (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe a touch of the southern sun? But I doubt it. (Btw, he article is excellent! Like its subject and its composer...) —MistyMorn (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

FA status in Piano music of Gabriel Fauré
Please see this comment. Best wishes, Gidip (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Source reviewing & Koht GA review
Replied at my talk page. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 14:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A thorough copyedit of Halvdan Koht would be most welcome. Geschichte (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Great! -- Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 10:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Alt text
Hi Tim, I prefer succinct alt text that describes important aspects of an image that are readily apparent to sighted users. But because of the way images work on Wikipedia, we often need to add alt text to images where *describing* them isn't that important to an article, so in some cases, even alt text like "A church" will do. Graham 87 02:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Solti
Greetings. After your message on my talk page in February, I finally got round to reading Georg Solti. Very nice indeed, congratulations. It fully deserves its FA status. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 17:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Long-term planning
I mentioned a couple of weeks back that I had put down The Rite of Spring for attention this autumn (it's about 4th or 5th on my priority list, though that changes quite often). Would you like to join this project as a conom? It occurs to me that, if you are doing Pierre Monteux, you'll be in a good position to write a brilliant account of the Paris premiere. I'm quite prepared to do most of the research and writing but it would be good to have more hands to the wheel. No serious writing from me for a few months, but I shall be gathering sources. Let me know what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks
You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.0.15 (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel Fauré
Enjoy your break in the green, Tim. I'll enjoy perusing the article. Buon viaggio, —MistyMorn (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd even managed to spot the link this time... I'm a slow learner! —MistyMorn (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure Pyotr Ilyich thought the music of Gabriel Toussaint-Honorévich "tres adorablé" but I'm having a challenge reading through the occasional rough spots in his article. Mind if I do some tinkering? I'll try not to ruin things too horribly. Jonyungk (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have my peer review done by the end of the week. My time has been limited by travel.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you tell me more about the scandal over the Pris de Rome? The date you give it 1905 and mention Ravel but, according to the Wiki article on Ravel, he was denied the Pris for the third time and expelled from the Conservatoire in 1895. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Kathleen's centenary
I remembered to nominate for TFA, but the responses on the request page has been, well, underwhelming. If you could kickstart a little enthusiasm there, that would be great. I have left my Faure comments on the PR page. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: I am very pleased you've decided to take a look at Tichborne. I had thought, in view of your services beyond the call of duty re Claudio the Inestimable, that you deserved a rest from my witterings, but any help you can give is more than welcome! Brianboulton (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The family tree is terrific! There was a messy, extended tree as an appendix to the original version, poorly drawn and over-detailed, which I tried to adapt but gave up on. Yours does the job perfectly. I have added sourcing details (the two main books have family trees). You could if you wish add Katherine Doughty's birth year, which was 1834. I have put the chart into the article, and can only offer my awed gratitude. I will of course be dealing with your PR points shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Another couple of suggestions for the diagram. Could Alfred be acknowledged as the 11th baronet? And could we add a box from Alfred indicating that his infant son, Henry Alfred, was the 12th baronet? His dates are 1866–1910. I don't propose we take the chart further than that, but I am investigating the later Tichborne line, which appears to have become extinct in 1968. I will this look up in Burke later today when I visit the library. Brianboulton (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

William Burges
Hi Tim. We think this is nearing FAC, but I mentioned to KJP I think it should be peer reviewed first. Do you agree?♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely. I think it's making a rod for one's own back going to FAC without first having a peer review. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Monteux
Hi. This is just to let you know I have just uploaded three new photographs of Pierre Monteux (see Commons:Category:Pierre Monteux) whose article you have greatly developed. All three were taken in 1933. At least one of them ought to be usable, but I thought it best to let you decide. Regarding the image showing Monteux with his wife and daughter, the original caption identifies his wife as a former American vocalist (ancienne cantatrice américaine), so I presume she must be Doris Hodgkins Monteux. The dates also concur. I thought at first that her daughter's name, Nancie, was a misspelling of Nancy (just as Monteux is consistently misspelled Montoux), but according to this New York Times article it might well be correct. – Mu (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :-) I've just noticed we talked about images two years ago. Maybe again in 2014? – Mu (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Request
Do you know of any journal or newspaper articles that give an account of the first performance of Michael Tippett's A Child of Our Time in March 1944? Google searches return empty. Any article dealinw with any of the early performances of this work would be most welcome. Also, anything on the Israel premiere in 1962, which Tippett briefly mentions in his autobiography but says nothing about, would be marvellous. In your own good time, of course. Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tippett goodies received with many thanks. I am not a big fan of Michael's; in particular his operas leave me stone cold. But early in his career he wrote, I believe, two works of some quality. One is his Double Concerto, the other is A Child of Our Time. Looking at the latter's current article, I think something needs to be done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Offenbach
Hi Tim, When you have a moment can you take a look at the above as a drive-by editor has kindly visited. The edits look like minor grammatical errors but I thought I'd check before doing any reverts. They have only four edits in their contributions all of which are for JO. -- Cassianto (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the minor changes to the text are OK, but I've left a comment on the article talk page that you might like to add to. Having posted it, I see that Ssilvers is ahead of me and and made a similar comment yesterday. Tim riley (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Tichborne et al.
I'm back in harness. First, thanks for monitoring Kathleen after her TFA mauling; it looks as though most of the necessary work was done on the spot by the anti-vandal squad and that no lasting damage was done. What fun some wikimorons must have had defacing an article like that. Cancer - hilarious isn't it?

I have now nominated Tichborne case at FAC (a week later than intended but better late... etc). While I was away I attempted to read Julian Gloag's analysis of Tippett's A Child of Our Time. It is almost completely incomprehensible, even to the likes of me who read music articles regularly. Almost, though not quite, enough to drive me into the Riley camp! Brianboulton (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A test for your forensic skills
Can you, or one of your watchers, identify from their initials a couple of music critics who were active in the 1940s and probably later? The first is "E.E." who wrote in The Musical Times in April 1944 (definitely not Edward Elgar); the second is "E.B.", who wrote in Music and Letters that same month. I wasn't around at the time, alas, so I'd be grateful for any suggestions on these. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Later: I think E.E. is Edwin Evans (see his WP article). And Tippett mentions Edwin Evans as having criticised the composer's earlier Fantasia, so I think that is probably conclusive. That leaves the question of E.B. - I'm sure we'll track him down. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Later still: How about Eric Blom? Brianboulton (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Google Books citation tool
A little birdie told me this: Paste a Google Books url into here and it will make the full refs. -- Junius Junior 21:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Lear bicentenary
Hi. I'm not sure whether my addition to Selected anniversaries/May 12‎ has been correctly positioned (I've never done this before). Edward Lear currently seems rather rudimentary and I wonder whether it would be regarded as suitable for listing on the Main page - any thoughts? I'm more or less back in action here after various alarums and excursions so could probably spend a bit of time on beefing it up if I can track down my Book of Nonsense. Best. --GuillaumeTell</i> 21:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You sound as if you aren't a Lear fan, much to my surprise. I can quote reams of his stuff and just now I looked up his recipe for an amblongus pie and it still makes me laugh.  Oh well, chacun à son goût. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 10:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry to leave a slur on your escutcheon. Actually, I read the (as usual for WP, convoluted) rules and think that I did put my Lear one-liner in the right place, but confirmation from your learned friends would be welcome.  --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 10:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Fauré FAC
Tim, you've maybe not completed the nom process. At any rate, the article doesn't appear to be listed on the FAC page - check it out. Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A special gift

 * What a pleasing surprise! Thank you so much. At your service if you ever need a proof-reader's eye over other articles. The congrats are mutual with the Batavia massacre also being promoted. Tim riley (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll keep that in mind, thanks. (Fauré must have set some record... it was nominated barely three days before promotion) Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (...sign of the Tim's?) —MistyMorn (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on Fauré! I think we are now at the stage of assuming a TR article is an FA article.  I blinked and it had vanished! -- <b style="color:#008;">Cassianto</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Source reviewing
Salvē! I took a few days off Wikipedia to concentrate on my Latin studies, and did the unforgivable misdeed to forget the task I had promised that I would do. I hope you can forgive me & am very inclined to do a source review for another article of yours in the near future. Obprōbrium meum vīvet in saecula saeculorum. -- Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 14:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ego te absolvo! But I shall remorselessly take up your offer for a later FAC review in due course. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Excūsō prō rēspōnsiōne tardā; studia latīna mea tempus Vicipaediam recēnsēns meum extenuant. -- Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 08:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Douglas-Home and D'Oliveira
I stumbled across your Douglas-Home article a few days ago through his cricket connection, and noticed in the peer review a mention of the D'Oliveria affair. Through a different route, I've also found some decent sources on Arthur Gilligan, a rather unpleasant former England cricket captain who was a fascist in the 1920s, but was MCC president in 1968. I just wondered if your ADH sources have any mention of Gilligan and anything about his rather unfortunate political leanings which cannot have done much for his credibility in this case? Any information gratefully received! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Request
Hi Tim, I was wondering if you could give Ruma Maida a copyedit like you offered above before I bring it to FAC. If so it would be much appreciated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it (and yes, quite off the beaten path for you). I haven't a clue why the efn template was showing up as numbers... I've added a bit of information in response to your comments as well; I had forgotten to note that they were married in both a mosque and church. BTW, I've nominated the article. Thanks a lot, and I'm looking forward to your next nomination! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A Child of Our Time
I rather gather that Tippett is not exactly your favoured tasse de thé; quite understandable (though he had his moments). However, I have laboured to produce this account of his magnus opus which is now sitting in Peer Review, and would be grateful if, when you have caught up on the doings of Alec, you could give it a glance and maybe a comment or two. In January 1975 this penniless student saved up for a Royal Festival Hall ticket for a performance of Child in honour of MT's 70th birthday. Sitting modestly, two rows in front of us, was... Tippett. I don't think he recognised me, though. My girlfriend thought he looked "dishy"; I said, you just try your luck. Brianboulton (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Pass the port...
Just that he lived there for half a century. And quaffed some fine wine, I'd guess. How about zelatore? —MistyMorn (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR
I am beginning the slow process of organising material for Cosima Wagner. Do you think you could retrieve this, which could conceivably be useful? If your eye lights on anything else specific to Cosima, perhaps pick that up too (if not too much bother). Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do, of course. I bought a remaindered biog of her weird daughter in law Winifred a year or two ago, but didn't get very far into it before deciding to read elsewhere. But I'll enjoy rummaging for Cosima stuff. More shortly, probably by off-Wiki email. Tim riley (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sent, with five other articles that may be of use. I look forward to an article purporting to prove that she wasn't frightful, and I am stockpiling hand grenades to lob in at peer review. Tim riley (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I have a book or two on the history of Bayreuth around the place; I will be home Wednesday or Thursday and will look around for any sources I have that Brian hasn't listed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think, on the strength of research to date, that Cosima is going to emerge unfrightful, even with due observance of encyclopedic neutrality. For what it's worth, the sources accumulated to date are listed in my sandboxes 7 and 8 (links on my userpage) Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Avery Brundage
If you would care for another frightful person, I have dropped this one off at peer review. I'm actually rather surprised that I kept it under 90K.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Douglas-Home
Just another note to say well done on another really good piece of work. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 14:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC) <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 19:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Congrats! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for these kind remarks. Tim riley (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A Child of Our Time
To let you know, I've nominated this at FAC (I was most pleased with your friend's kind comments, please convey my thanks) Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Leo Franklyn
Just to let you know, I nominated the article at Did you know? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, well! That's remarkably quick off the mark. Thank you very much! Tim riley (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Sounds like an interesting man indeed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At the age of seven I was taken to see him and Rix in Simple Spymen and though it was more than fifty years ago I still chuckle when I remember some of it. Tim riley (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * shame I never saw Chrisye in concert... he died several months after I arrived here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 23:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Messiah
Hi, Tim. That was three hours of useful work you discarded. I did it because my friend Gerda had it listed as her FA-credit. She thanked me on her talk. You see the issue with the duplicate refs? Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Leo Franklyn
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment
Hi Tim. I don't think we have met before. I just wanted to let you know how very rude I found this among other of your supercilious comments there. In trying to improve that dreadful clunky lead sentence I did not expect to encounter such organised resistance. I wish you well in your future career in FAC; I will certainly not comment again in that particular discussion, but I will perhaps try to keep a closer eye in future on such matters. Very best wishes, --John (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. It is possible to disagree with people without sounding patronising or supercilious. I am afraid I find your comment somewhat unsatisfactory; the most obvious examples are your use of the word "obsession" to describe my comments, and your assumption that I am not familiar with Fowler's. The thing is, I am no longer commenting on the stylistic matter, on which you may have your own way, but in how your personal comments come across to me. I do take offence at your tone. When others offer you such feedback on your personal style, you are of course free to ignore the feedback or even to escalate it as you have, but the wise course would probably be to take the opportunity to reflect on how you come across to others. --John (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply, posted to but instantly deleted from John's talk page:
 * Good gracious! If those are your very best wishes I should be reluctant to meet your worst. You seem to have overlooked my steer towards Fowler's Modern English Usage, which I strongly recommend. I prefer the second (Gowers) edition, but even the third, rather quirky, edition by Burchfield is worth reading. As far as I know there was no organised resistance to your personal obsession about "however"; I think the chorus of disapproval arose from people's watch-lists. Be that as it may, I really do recommend your reading Fowler, as it may disabuse you of some of your illusions about the proper use of the word that so agitates you. With the very kindest imaginable regards.

My talk page policy
Sorry you seem to have missed this. It's right at the talk of my talk page. Per User:John/Pooh policy I prefer to keep conversations about the same topic threaded in one place rather than distribute them. Quite a lot of editors have similar policies. --John (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. I am, in the circumstances, rather hoping I shall not need to avail myself of this offer. See Attlee to Lasky. Tim riley (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Peter Montem
Thank you for the kind invitation, Tim, which I shall enjoy taking up (though I'm rather glad there's no hurry). On a quite different note, I boggled at the idea of Toye turning around an institute teaching English at the time of Luigi Fortebraccio and Beniamino Buonuomo.
 * Well, I could Parry the first ones and got about as Farrar as this pun (a couple of days left, I think). But then I found myself on my back Michael... —MistyMorn (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim. Thank you for the hilarity. Which reached me just after brute of a dental extraction, so I'm still trying to get my teeth into some of them... (btw, I just assumed as common knowledge the fact that Lewis then had to be referred to in Italian by a Popeye name). As regards your work on my childhood hero, Pietro Monti, I apologise for partially duplicating an issue about the RAI orchestrathat had already been raised elsewhere at PR and have now moved it elsewhere (the comment, not the orchestra). I'll postpone posting any other wry remarks until you're ready. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The Valiant Researcher Barnstar
You deserve another of these for your great efforts today in visiting the British Library to which KJP and I owe you for! Thankyou! BTW I and a few others intend to get Mother India up to FA to celebrate the centenary of Indian cinema. Your comments and ideas for improvement would be most welcome on the talk page!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually wanted to create a new award in your honor, using a cropped section of the image File:Research-Warner-Highsmith.jpeg, but alas I don't have time. This will have to do. :-) – Ling.Nut (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I say! How extraordinarily kind. I am greatly honoured. Thank you so much! Tim riley (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review: Late Spring
Mr. Riley:

I would like to ask, if it's not too late, if you would take the time to peer review an article to which I have given a great deal of loving attention: Late Spring, Banshun, a film by the great Japanese director, Yasujiro Ozu.

I am selecting you for this honor (if you would consider it so) for two reasons: 1) you critiqued the article Ruma Maida, about a recent Asian (specifically, Indonesian) film, which has since passed its Featured Article candidacy; and 2) your specialty is music, and Ozu's films strike me as very musical and abstract in their rhythm and structure (see the Style section of the article).

It is greatly to be hoped that you have viewed Ozu's film, as you would then not only understand what I mean by its musical rhythm, but also its cinematic significance. (I have never read an unfavorable review of the film by any critic.) Of course, I am here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your consideration (even if you reluctantly decline).

The article is rapidly approaching the two-week limit after which I understand the peer review request will be archived.

JDB

Dylanexpert (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I do indeed consider it an honour to be invited, and will certainly contribute to the peer review. I have added my first lot of comments but I have a bit of a backlog on PRs and FACs, and so may be a few days in completing my work on Late Spring. Tim riley (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll peek in too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mr. Riley, for your judicious comments. In almost all the passages you mentioned, I will make the suggested correction, or try to find another way to work around the problem. A thousand thanks! Dylanexpert (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Crisco 1492 - I haven't looked over your comments yet, but when I do, I will respond on your talk page. Thanks also. Dylanexpert (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I promise I haven't forgotten to complete my review, but I am unusually snowed under and I can only beg your patience. I'll be there, I assure you. Tim riley (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made all the corrections you have already indicated. Dylanexpert (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Crazy Gang
What a coincidence - I bought a programme for the Crazy Gang (Together Again) just this afternoon! I'll be delighted to take a look time permitting. I am in the middle of the exam marking cycle at the moment! Jack1956 (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Andromeda
Thanks for the review! If you want more, Aries (constellation) is getting a GAN review now from Casliber, but I'd love a peer review once he's done, if you'd like. I'd lve to review something of yours too, if you need it! Thanks again, Keilana | Parlez ici 21:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Brundage
If you have a moment, I have the old boy at FAC]. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Simple Spymen
Casliber (talk • contribs) 08:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this what you were looking for? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bless you! You've made an old man very happy. Tim riley (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Glad you liked it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

William Burges
Tim, thank you so very much. I'm very pleased you're happy with it now and your support, and the huge efforts you've made to improve the article, are valued and much appreciated. It strikes me that I may be able to return the favour one day. I know next to nothing about music but 20th century British politics is another abiding interst of mine and I have a fairly large collection of diaries/autobiographies/letters etc. of many of the participants. I noticed your great work on Alec Douglas-Home too late to assist - however, if you've plans for any others in the pipeline, I'd be delighted to help if I can. My real focus is pre-WWII, Asquith, L-G, Baldwin etc. but I can cover more modern figures too. Just call on me anytime if you think I may be able to help. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Tim, I've gone through my "No ISBN" references replacing with the appropriate OCLCs. Very helpful, thank you.  I'm wondering if you can help with one other issue.  User:Nikkimaria, who has done a grand job of checking the Notes and References, remains concerned by my Vost's catalogue, listed in the References and cited in FN:196.  My problem is that I can't find it anywhere on the web.  It's a sales catalogue for Burges's Mirrored Sideboard, produced for Vost's sale.  Vost's is, or was, in Newmarket, although their website [www.vosts.co.uk] - which used to work - seems to be dead now.  The printer was Miro Press, of Bury St. Edmunds.  No publication date.  Certainly no ISBN.  Shall I just leave it blank.

Hope you had a good day at the WWI seminar. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Tim, I really appreciate your support, and your efforts with checking the sources. I have to say I was disappointed by the number of errors you found, and the process of correcting them was painful.  I think the root of the problem lies in the fact that I didn't understand how to cite properly before User:Dr. Blofeld found the article and, in correcting the mess that was there before he did, I cut-and-pasted heavily.  In doing so, it's clear I got some wrong.  I'm very grateful for your help in putting them right.  Best regards.  KJP1 (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Tim, thank you for taking up the cudgels on my behalf, but User:Br'er Rabbit's interventions have not put me off at all. Actually, I think it likely he's improved the referencing although I can't really say.  Certainly the things I do understand, namely the content and the verifiability of the article, appear untouched.  You might argue his manner of going about it could be more encouraging, and perhaps it would have been better if he'd contributed during, rather than after, the FAR but, by improving the citations, he's made his own contribution to the article, for which I'm grateful.  As to User:64.134.168.97, I'm afraid I don't understand what he's saying at all, so if it's critical, or insulting, it's quite passed me by.  Best regards.  KJP1 (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I should be delighted. Although, are you sure you shouldn't be devoting your attentions to his grand-father?  From the British Library to St Pancras is but a very short stroll, yet so rewarding!   KJP1 (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Tim, KJP. I'm quite sure I fixed technical issues in the article. I'm pretty sure I didn't touch the content other than the odd bit of punctuation and formatting. And a spelling fix. The harvnb system is good, but the sfn system is better; it's really just an optimisation of harvnb. I think that would be an excellent next step. It works the same way, but with a shortened syntax. It would reduce the amount of non-prose in the article body by at least several kilobytes, making things easier to read in the editbox. They're easier to maintain and adjust, too.
 * As I said to Tim on my talk, I'd have helped earlier if I'd been aware of this article. The point of the longish post on my talk and on Graham's was to improve the calibre of the reviewing of articles. The process should have identified the issues I saw, but didn't. I'm seeking to change that. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul McCartney FAC
The article is much improved since your last comment, and your input would be appreciated at the Paul McCartney FAC. — GabeMc (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent sources spot-check, the issue you raised is now resolved. I hope you can find the time to look over the article, maybe make some comments if needed and !vote, thanks again. ~ GabeMc   (talk)  02:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Cosima Wagner and other matters

 * Cosima: my expansion is done. Later today I will submit it for peer review and will be very grateful if you can find time to look at it. I really must find nicer people to write about.
 * As I am largely done with Her, it's a good time for me to start getting serious about The Rite of Spring. Are you still up for this? If so we need to agree things like division of labour, sharing sources etc. Please ping me when you can. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Country Houses
I was wondering if you or you know anybody who'd be interested in such a project. One of my chief loves is British country houses and I don't at present see a project set up to help coordinate it and to collaborate over. If interested let me know and I'll consider making a proposal.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It really isn't my strong suit. I'll happily pay my entrance fee and wander round Chatsworth or Rufford Old Hall, but I'm really rather ignorant. At your service for copy edits, peer review or research, but I don't think I'd be a useful member of a project. Tim riley (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Mmm OK. Its just very poor that we only have one section at GA for "architecture". We should have thousands of good articles all organized by things like as "Country houses" and such. If a project existed it would only be a loose organization anyway, experience has told me wikiprojects are mostly a waste of time and most work is done between a handful of individuals. WHat I do want however is to obtain as full a list as possible of country houses in England. One editor says he has a database on it, which I'm desperate to see. If not I could do with being emailed some index page scans of books by Pevsner to improve the lists by county.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks Tim! Not sure about the midwifery though LOL!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Could you GA review Castles in Great Britain and Ireland for me. I think you might enjoy the topic.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno
My impression is that your edit was based upon an earlier version of the article and so, besides making your change, you also inadvertently reverted the other subsequent edits. See Help:Edit conflict for some advice on this. Andrew Davidson (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Precious
Sorry my email just crashed. Ignore my last mail. You archived it. I thought these were just from today! -- <b style="color:#0C93ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 18:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Rite
This page is where I am stacking lists of sources for the Rite project. I will add your JSTOR contributions as they come through. Feel free to add things that you think desirable. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The articles are arriving by email, many thanks. I've not been able to read them yet, but some look intriguing. Could you let me know what book sources you intend to use for your part of the project? From the list on the workpage I have the Peter Hill, the T. F. Kelly and the Grout & Palisca (last-named gives very little). I don't have the Stravinsky autobiog. Are there other basic titles that ought to be used, do you think? Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Georg Solti FA
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for editorial efforts that helped Georg Solti become a WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Alice-Elgar-by-Haines.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alice-Elgar-by-Haines.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. &mdash;innotata 14:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Giles Gilbert Scott, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kilburn and Arthur Stanley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

George Butterworth
Tim,

I see you were working on the Butterworth article as part of the WWI Editathon. Some time ago I ordered up his service file at The National Archives and photographed the contents. Obviously doesn't meet WP:PRIMARY, but might be useful for cross-reference. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/11226331@N05/sets/72157626145614787/ David Underdown (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll
There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc  (talk 02:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Georg Solti
This is a note to let the main editors of Georg Solti know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 25, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/July 25, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



Georg Solti (1912-1997) was an orchestral and operatic conductor, best known for his appearances with opera companies in Munich, Frankfurt and London, and as a long-serving music director of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. In the 1930s, he was a répétiteur at the Hungarian State Opera and worked at the Salzburg Festival for Arturo Toscanini. His career was interrupted by the rise of the Nazis. After conducting a season of Russian ballet in London at the Royal Opera House he found refuge in Switzerland, where he remained during the Second World War. After the war, he was appointed musical director of the Bavarian State Opera in 1946, the Frankfurt Opera in 1952, and the Covent Garden Opera Company in London in 1961. In 1969 Solti was appointed music director of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, a post he held for 22 years. He restored the orchestra's reputation after it had been in decline for most of the previous decade. Known in his early years for the intensity of his music making, Solti was widely considered to have mellowed as a conductor in later years. He recorded many works two or three times at various stages of his career, and was a prolific recording artist, making more than 250 recordings, including 45 complete opera sets. The most famous of his recordings is probably Decca's complete set of Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen, made between 1958 and 1965. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the best, conductor and article, thank you! I grew up with his Ring. Did you know that my user page has a reference to a recent Walküre at the Frankfurt Opera? Did you know that you are an awesome Wikipedian (18 February 2012)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Welcome back Tim! just in time to take your place on the podium. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, sounds familar... They may only give out bronze stars for FA, but your contributions are pure gold! —MistyMorn (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How about platinum, to match the sapphire better? - Thanks for your heart-warming words, Tim! Go emulate, it's easy. I was inspired by those who spread peace and awesome Wikipedian stars before me and emulate them, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Anybody have any estimates of how many men have been made a Sir in British history? Would be interesting to see a full list since 1100 or whenever. I wonder if it would be possible. Might uncover many missing notable medieval personalities.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

ED gravestone
Just back from Sussex and have laboriously managed to photograph and, even more laboriously, upload which you might wish to insert in the Later years section of the article. Hope you had a good hol. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 16:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Late Spring
Tim: I have addressed all your objections and concerns to my knowledge. Soon I'm be ready to nominate the Late Spring article as a Featured Article. (I have indicated this on the Peer Review archive page.) Thanks for your great help! Dylanexpert (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Late Spring is now a Featured Article candidate. Please have a look. Dylanexpert (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes etc.
Well, I'm glad to have restored someone's spirit, anyway. I actually have a lot of sympathy for BR: he's a big-picture, technical-type guy, and the kind of sharp practice I described is pretty much the only way to get anything to happen in that field, given the general ossification of community practices around here. (I've seen other people push the strategy much harder, and for far more trivial things.) But you can't decouple the suitability of an infobox as a summary from the content of an article the way you can reference formatting or accessibility measures or whatnot. They're clearly an excellent fit for a great many articles, not at all suitable for some (usually ones that don't fit well into some hierarchical ontology), and questionable for some in between; but that sort of gradient is exactly where you want to be establishing guidelines for broad categories of articles based on local consensus, since there's no brightline rule you can apply throughout the 'pedia. Choess (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Rite of Spring
I've made progress; basically, I have written a "Creation" section (Concept, Composition and Realisation), replaced the "Music" section with something more readable, and added a short summary on the published editions of The Rite. The main work outstanding is:
 * Lead (last of all, and dump the infobox)
 * A Background section summarising Stravinsky's early career and his involvement with the Ballets Russes
 * The whole "Performance history and reception" section: Premiere, Early revivals, Later performances. I would like to contribute to the discussion of more recent performances, in particular the efforts to recreate Nijinsky's original choreography.
 * Rewrite the inadequate stuff on "Adaptations and arrangements", much of which looks ready for the chop.
 * A Recording history section

We also need to consider the question of images, e.g. there are potential poblems with the Roerich designs - for discussion later.

When you have your breath back, please give me a ping and we can decide how to tackle the outstanding work. There is some interest shown in our expansion on the article's talkpage. I hope you enjoyed your break - I am very envious. Brianboulton (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am, as I type, in the music reading room of the British Library with Peter Hill's and Pieter van den Toorn's Rite of Spring books before me. I scribe away diligently and will report back shortly. Tim riley (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have opened a "Notes" section at User:Brianboulton/Sandbox4, to facilitate noes, messages, suggestions etc relating to the Rite update. I suggest we check the page regularly. I am leaving a note now, relating to sources. Brianboulton (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Good. I have the BL and Walsh and others on my schedule for tomorrow. I propose to ignore the 3 vols of corresp with Ansermet. My French isn't up to it and I don't know that Ansermet was on the inside track in any case. I'll rummage and gather material and then report back to you as GOC. Tim riley (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sellers
Hi Tim, Sorry, could I ask for a piece of advice in regard to Sellers? It concerns the possessive. Thanks very much! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Would be great Tim if you are visiting the British Library anytime next week to see if you can get hold of a copy of Michael Starr's 1991 biography and see if it has anything of value. Google book researching I'd rate it as one of the very best books on him, second only to the Lewis one unless I'm mistaken. Are you still speaking to me though LOL, you've been quiet of late.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to go to the BL next week (Brianboulton is masterminding a revision of the Rite of Spring article) and will make a point of ordering Starr's book. (Of course I'm still speaking to you! Your amiable kick on the shin was well within the rules of engagement. I was away for most of July (France and then Cumbria) hence the silence. Tim riley (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, how was Cumbria? I've done a bit of work on it recently, beautiful the Lake district! What are you working on at the moment? KJP and I are due to begin on Cardiff Castle sometime, to GA...♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wet! As usual. Working on so much! New music project suggested by British Library; Not yet done with PR suggestions to Pierre Monteux (my fault); battling against Wiki-lawyering on Georg Solti; following up my task from the recent WWI Wiki-bash at the BL; and The Rite of Spring. Happy to help if I can with Cardiff Castle: let me know. Tim riley (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Re Rite scholarly articles, see my note here. Brianboulton (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the Michael Starr book. It says it explores each of his films one by one. I picked up a lot of notable info in the snippets alone.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Schrodinger's cat is alive/sandbox down to 114kb now, I'm thinking somewhere between 100 and 110kb. I don't want it to get down to a point where important information or quotes which reveal a great insight into his personality are removed. So far I've managed to condense without really affecting its comprehension, which was why I expanded it in the first place. I don't feel happy promoting articles unless they are widely researched in both google books and highbeam as much as is reasonable. Top importance subjects with thousands of potential sources need the most research I think. The idea is to then chisel away at it and leave a highly comprehensive concise article. Anyway that's how I've always written, if that not "elegant" then tough luck eh? William Burges is 125 kb BTW. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Music MS
Hi Tim,

Just to let you know I've finally sorted out the music MS we discussed back in June and should be able to start uploading images quite soon - I'll let you know when they're up on Commons and send a list through. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

FAC alert
Amid your various concerns, spare a thought for a certain Reginald Heber, who has wandered somewhat bemusedly into the FAC cauldron. I think you were away when this was peer reviewed, but I'd welcome any comment you might care to add now. Brianboulton (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Morale and good editor retention
This is to let you know that I've begun a thread on Jimbo's talk page which takes as an example the content of an interaction in which we were involved. As I've written in a prominent disclaimer, there's ''No intention to canvas here about infoboxes, involved individuals, or anything else. Rather, to use this concrete example to raise an issue which goes beyond individual personalities or any particular dispute. —Misty MORN '' 18:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
'''Tim Riley is no longer active on Wikipedia. Warmest thanks and best wishes to the many editors with whom it has been a pleasure and a privilege to collaborate. No thanks, but good wishes all the same, to the minority of editors who carped, sniped, arrogated a monopoly of wisdom, and ultimately killed the joy of contributing to this wonderful project.'''

Best wishes to you!
Tim, I find it extremely sad that you seem to have decided to leave – practically, a bolt from the blue. It has been a real honour to have the chance to collaborate with you and receive the benefit of your advice, wit and warm humanity. You will be sorely missed by many here, I suspect. All good wishes and hoping our ways continue to cross offline, —Misty MORN  16:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nooooo..... Please no, you're one linchpins in good article promotion around here. As they say "don't let the bastards get you down". Yes, the sniping can get annoying at times but on such occasions its best to take a wiki break. You're letting them get the better of you. I strongly hope you'll take a few weeks off and then remember how much you loved contributing good content and reviewing. It sometimes takes a long break to regain it and refocus on why we are here and to be passionate again about content. I'm afraid you can't completely avoid what you are concerned with but the reason I'm still here is because its my encyclopedia as much as anybody's and content easily makes it worthwhile above the heartache in my opinion. Yes you should be thicker skinned than this but if it is affecting you take a long break, but I do so hope it won't be permanent.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I only gave you this earlier:
 * You know what's best for you. But there are people who are trying to improve the atmosphere, especially in the FA realm.    Please look in and dip your toe in the water from time to time.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Me too, Tim. Really. I hope you can find your way to this just being a break. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Really unfortunate. Please come back. (Full stop.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ditto Wehwalt and Br'er Rabbit. I only crossed paths with you briefly but it was lovely and productive. Thanks for your contributions, and we will welcome you back if you choose to return. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 18:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am gutted. Tim: an excellent editor, a great mentor, a charismatic wit and a thoroughly nice chap.  You helped me with so many articles and often replied to my spontaneous private emails at silly o'clock in the morning in the interests of the articles upon which I contributed too.  You were instrumental in the construction of Stanley Holloway which you did so superbly here and invaluable in the classical music and composers arena. This is truly, truly terrible news. --  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk  18:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I also am very sad to see you go, Tim, and I will miss your valuable and valued contributions here. Jack1956 (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A many-month wikibreak did wonders for buoying my spirits, I hope it can do the same for you. Maybe we'll even have some new practical-solutions for the facepalmery by then. (If you think of anything, drop a note at WP:Editor retention :) Best wishes, -- Quiddity (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Remember Solti, Messiah together - I returned from a unique concert and wanted to write about it, but am not in the mood, reading this. - You watched my user, changing from He was despised to Amen, it took a year. All the best for you, Amen, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I entered your name in our list of missed users of quality articles, hoping that I can move it some day to those who returned, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thinking of you with thanks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As above, I can only say I'm desperately sorry to see you go, and I wish you all the best for your next project! You've been one of the best writers and most helpful editors I've seen on-wiki in recent years, and you'll be sorely missed. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Very sorry to see you go, & I hope you'll return! All best wishes, Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Best of wishes Tim... although I shall miss reviewing Monteux at FAC... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I had also looked forward to that one... In fact, I had promised to do a source review of one of his articles as a token of thanks for his brilliant copy-edit of Halvdan Koht. Indeed, my prose would be a lot poorer and less British without you, Tim. Eisfbnore  (下さいて話し) 11:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to join the other editors here in wishing you well – and in hoping for a return. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't remember how much direct contact we've had in the past, Tim, but I've been a quiet fan of your invaluable work on Gilbert and Sullivan related material and other topics. I was sad to learn just now from a mutual friend that you're going. I can certainly understand being frustrated with Wikipedia attitudes--the 2 after my name is on there because I once deliberately scrambled and destroyed the password to my account, so great was my irritation--but I hope you'll also consider some day returning. We'll leave a light on for you. Khazar2 (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Tim's problem was that he expected all editors to behave with the same grace and good manners that he displayed in his dealings with the community. He generally avoided conflict, but in the end could not escape from the harsh, contemptuous style that is increasingly the method whereby certain editors push their agendas. His value to the project will surely outlive theirs; for the record, he was the main or joint-main editor on 16 featured articles,  and provided a significant helping hand on many more. He was a thorough but kind reviewer, rarely ending his assessments of even the least promising material without a word of encouragement. His knowledge of classical music, and his access to sources whereby articles could be given range and depth, were assets the encyclopedia can ill afford to lose. Tim will be hugely missed by his many friends here. As to Pierre Monteux, I will do what I can to complete this project; such work deserves bringing to a worthy conclusion. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope Tim will read this page at some point in the future and realise just how many people adore the chap. Perhaps sometime in the future Tim you will remember why you came to the project, the enjoyment and pleasure of writing your "classy" articles and the people you genuinely appreciated which was reciprocated. We've all had sour experiences with "the community" but what keeps us here is content which is always more important.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling, and everybody needs a break; however please rejoin this nuthouse when the time is right; sooner than later; enjoy your break...Modernist (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tim - extremely sad news. Your contribution just to my little bit of the wikiworld was immense, and your wider contribution much greater still.  It was an absolute pleasure to work with you and I deeply regret that I won't be able to do so again.  KJP1 (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the event you ever wander back just to take a peek, I created Philip Tilden in your honour. An interesting architect, and I think that elements of his life might amuse you.  KJP1 (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Tim, I am sorry to see you leave wikipedia. You have contributed so much over the last several years, and it's sad to think those contributions have come to an end.  I hope you eventually change your mind and return, in whatever capacity feels right for you, as there's a lot of work to be done here, and your input is valuable. Rosiestep (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, but it's a great pity - Illegitimi non carborundum! --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 00:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a great loss for Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am very surprised and sorry you have stopped, as you made so many positive contributions to many different articles. Thanks, and best wishes! Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ouch. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Always sad to see great editors leave. We who are Wikipedia need to make this place better.  Doc James  (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I regret that social and organizational infrastructure on this project ever allowed anyone else to bring you anything except thanks and gratitude for your contributions. If it is any consolation, the increase in popularity of Wikipedia over time is attracting the attention of various activist efforts to make Wikimedia projects a safer and more fun place in which to contribute. I appreciate all the time you spent on the site and wish that you could reconsider visiting the community again if you ever felt that we made sufficient changes to reform response to problems which good editors have. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   17:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just got back, to receive the sad news. Yes, too many morons on Wikipedia. It's like the world. They should be leaving, not you. Do reconsider. Rothorpe (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't let them get to you Tim riley, we need more editors like you. Don't let the negativity drive you away. ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tim. Thanks again for your kind words about my starter articles on musicians.  I had hoped to collaborate with you more in the future.  Hope you will re-consider leaving.  All the very best Richard J Myers (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As someone whom you may well have classed with the "less than perfect" editors - PLEASE reconsider. You (and editors with your qualities) are what Wikipedia needs more of, not less. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tim, you were a valuable contributor and it is extremely sad news that you have stopped editing. You have made so many invaluable and positive contributions here, especially with regards to the composers and classical music-related articles. This is truly a profound loss to the Wikipedia community as a whole. I hope you reconsider leaving Wikipedia and return soon. Best of luck, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Charles Villiers Stanford
Just to let you, and your talk page stalkers, know that Charles Villiers Stanford has been selected as Today's featured article/October 30, 2012. BencherliteTalk 22:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel Fauré
Tim, your service to the project is appreciated - Gabriel Fauré, we sing his Requiem on 27 October in the Bruges Cathedral and on 10 November Wiesbaden, music of consolation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a great experience! Only afterwards I heard that Henze died. - Congrats to Pierre Monteux, FA before I even found time to support, well deserved again ;)
 * ps: now I think of Stanford's "Beati quorum via integra est", and integrity, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you help me to write on the music of Fauré's Requiem? It's "of the angels" - to use a phrase you coined - hard to reduce to reliable sources ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to see the composer featured! We didn't get Requiem as far as I hoped but had a good start, "I paradisum deducant angelis" - we will sing it once more on 10 November --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Bow ties are cool
Nice job on Charles Villiers Stanford, piqued my interest, because bow ties are cool. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Tim is back
Hooray! Big smiles in Tel Aviv. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 18:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanksgiving
<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"><p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0;">precious for the best news of the day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Video of Wikipedia users learning of Tim's return. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Even those who caused his departure have found out. --  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   22:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Welcome back! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Great to see you're back! Andrew Gray (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back Tim, your return is one of the main reasons I'm also back. Please let's work together as a team to focus on content and eradicate the self-important assholes from interfering with what we do best.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Genuinely you are one of the few true encyclopedists on here. It is editors like you that the few of us who are truly value as the core of the project. Content and potential is what we are about, what a pity it is so many have their head completely stuck in wikipolitics and are destroying the enjoyment of the website with their nonsense. Unfortunately at present we have to put up with it for supporting the concept of building an encyclopedia of the highest quality and depth... None of us would tolerate it but for content potential. As long as you know that there are others who feel exactly the way you do about it, its wrong, but the world isn't the way we'd like it either... Many cheers to you Sir Riley! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  15:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Welcome back!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome from me as well - I'm so glad you're here! :) Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 23:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So say all of us... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Great to be able to work with you again! - Please go ahead with the Requiem. I stopped "mourning" (no dedication this time, the ones I miss are well and alive) and went forward to uplifting BWV 36, would appreciate your copy-edit for English, musical terms and links. - In case you have more time: I feel left alone with Franz Kafka. You may know that PumpkinSky and I improved the article, then a rather wild mix by several editors, in August for CORE, it went through GA, PR and FA. I still feel that - no wonder with a hstory like that - the prose is uneven, and I am helpless with changes for facts for which I lack the sources. Perhaps you could have a look and take it on your watchlist. - On referencing: Kafka is well developed. The Requiem is fine as long as you and I are more or less the only editors. But I feel it's better for later editors when the references are listed separately from the body. (I can't tell how much time I spent, trying to modify a reference, to find that within an article, and, trying to change prose, to find where longish refs in the text end.) A first step - no more - was taken here, for example. My next project (after improving the refs for BWV 61 and 62 and translating 36: BWV 40, because I am going to sing it on 9 Dec! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Tim. I've only just heard the good news. Welcome back. --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  09:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Connotations (Copland)
Well, welcome back. Had no idea you'd left but then again, I'd been away quite a bit myself.

Aaron Copland's 100th birthday earlier this month got me back to classical music articles and working on the one linked in the title. I've added almost all that I can, content-wise, at this point and am open to any suggestions. Also contacted Brian but, as his usual, he's pretty swamped and might get back to me sometime in the future. Jonyungk (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Cardus
Have you seen this, from the Telegraph review of Daniels's book: "With the possible exception of Bernard Levin, Cardus helped to educate more readers than any journalist who has written for an English newspaper". Isn't that promoting little Bernard and his prejudices somewhat beyond his station? (discuss). Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hah! You know jolly well that I am a great fan of Levin. His journalism was very different in style and form from Cardus's: it's the fox and hedgehog thing – the fox knows many things; the hedgehog knows one big thing (or two in Cardus's case). One thing they have in common is a tendency to get drunk on the English language. What the Telegraph imagined Levin educated us in, as opposed to entertaining us or politicking at us, I can't imagine. I must get hold of Daniels's book forthwith. As blood (mine) will be spilled if I attempt to smuggle more books into Riley Towers I'd better go and read it at the British Library. Tim riley (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Daniels's book is a great browser. Wouldn't the aforementioned beloved reward you with it as a Christmas gift, if you did pretty-please? I have managed to squeeze my own beloved for a bookcase, which gives me housing for another 150 books (or 200 paperbacks) – less the 130 or so that currently live on the floor. On a more pressing issue, do you have any thoughts as to where we can get a free image of C.P. Scott? They must exist, but I've not been able to find one that is indubitably so. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a 1921 image from The Illustrated London News, CPScott-May1921.jpg which I believe is within the rules. Tim riley (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That will do nicely! I see you've posted it to the C.P. Scott page; personally, I'd have ditched that awful bust image rather than moving it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neville Cardus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Benny Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Fauré
Fantastic work Tim, congrats to you and Gerda so far. Its great to see you back, producing consistently solid and impressive work. Best. Ceoil (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Spotcheck request
Hi Tim, hope you're settled in again...! I wonder if I could prevail upon you to run a spotcheck on the Operation Barras FAC, as almost all of the sources are books and Google preview doesn't appear to be of much help. You've been of great assistance in such cases before (see how our good deeds of the past come back to haunt us!) so if you've time it'd be much appreciated... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Grimaldi FAC
Hi Tim, just a quick note to let you know of Grimaldi's FAC which I have just listed. I would be most grateful for any comments or criticisms you may have to offer. Hope all is well! --  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   13:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Cardus query
On p. 207 of Autobiography NC refers to a book he edited after Langford's death, comprising a selection of Langford's music writings. I have tracked it down; the details are here. Should this be added to NC's bibliography in the article? Brianboulton (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ouch! Just seen it, at the end of the list. Sorry to have bothered you. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Different query: Do you have a copy of Ten Composers? If so, can I refer you to p. 139 of Brookes, and ask you to check out the quote on that page concerning Delius, and also provide the page number? Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't got it, but I've ordered it from the British Library. It's stored offsite, alas, so I have to wait till 11th inst. I'll report back. Tim riley (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A point to consider, re "Australia". I had conceived this section as dealing with Cardus's 1940–47 sojourn rather than encompassing his earlier visits. By this reckoning, the second paragraph of the remodelled Australia section (Bradman etc) would be transferred to the cricket section (he went to Australia for cricketing, not musical reasons), where I think it would make a much better conclusion than my present rather clumsy ending. The alternative is to reserve all mention of the 1936-37 visit to the Australia section, though that might lead to chronological confusion. What do you think? Another thing bothering me is the reference to a private visit made to Australia in 1938. This is not mentioned in his autobiographical writings, nor in Brooke's biography, nor in Daniels. What is the source for this visit, and is there any information about why he went? Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Later): In anticipation of your preferring the second option concerning the Australia section, I have rewritten the ending to the "Cricket correspondent" section so as to leave the Australia section untouched - except that I have removed part of a sentence to avoid Sir Thomas having to die twice in the same article. Please give your views, though they be quite different fom mine; I am amenable to all changes for the better. Brianboulton (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The way you've recast the article seems to me spot-on. I'd have no strong objection to moving the 1936/37 Ashes tour stuff up if you prefer, but I think it eases the way into the wartime Australian section. As to his private visit in 1938, he arrived in January and returned home in March   He had a bowl for the Melbourne Cricket Club while there.  Curious that neither of his biographers mentions the trip. I find the Australian Trove site, whence the three cuttings above come, a useful resource for all sorts of things. I've just been using it in re Nellie Melba as well as Sir Nev. I haven't forgotten about checking Ten Composers (above), but will postpone till tomorrow afternoon, my schedule having gone haywire today. – Tim riley (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Fascinating information on the 1938 trip; I see the Mercury describes it as a "health visit". I suggest that the present cryptic comment be expanded into a couple of sentences, to give the gist of the visit. I've answered about the image question on my own talkpage. I've also added a short "unsettled" section to the article, covering the 1947-51 years, which should help to bring about a tidy end to the Australia section. Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Music for a Time of War
Thank you so much for uploading the image of the four composers -- it looks great! Also, I just wrote a question for you on the review page. Thanks for your assistance, again, for both the review and the image. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Cardus
I have made some significant changes to the "Reputations" section, which perhaps you could look over. I am currently doing some work on "Books by Cardus" and also drafting a lead. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC) (aka "tim boulton")
 * Dear brian riley, the reputation section is spot-on, I'd say. When rejigging the list of NC's books please note my concealed comment about "Cardus on Cricket", which Brookes dates to 1951 but is, I think, even earlier. At all events I've got it in the wrong place now and I'll adjust shortly. I have not mentioned that in the 1940s and 50s Hart-Davis republished several of the pre-war collections originally put out by other publishers. I don't think this information would add much of value to the readers of the article, but will put it in for completeness if you prefer. I'm so pleased you're doing the lead. It's a hugely important job that I am rather bad at and hate doing. Tim Riley (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Re Cardus on Cricket: ABEbooks dates the first edition of C-on-C to 1949, pub. by The Sportsman's Book Club. It also shows editions for 1951 (Sportsman's), 1977, 1983 and 2000 (all Souvenir Press). Only the 1977 version is listed by Worldcat (strange, that), so there's no OCLC for the 1949 book, but I think we should list the original. I don't think the republications of prewar books need to be listed - the list is copious enough anyway. As I am rejigging the list slightly (principally, subdividing it into autobiography, cricket and music), I'll redate C-on-C. If there are any aspects of the reformatted list that you don't like, let me know (I'll be posting it soon). Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have grave doubts if The Essential NC should be in biographical. I'll order it at the British Library (probably stored offsite, so a 48-hour delivery) and check. Tim Riley (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Daniels (whose subheadings I have adopted) lists it as autobiographical, but I'll abide by your judgement. Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have drafted and posted an extended lead. My next task will be prose trimming, which I always do when a draft is complete and which normally brings about a useful and welcome loss of verbiage and unnecessary detail. I'm not hurrying with this, since we have agreed not to seek a peer review until the New Year. I won't touch the Australia section - you can do your own tinkering here. Any tidying up of my often wayward prose and punc will always be appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Will look later today, tomorrow if not. Happy New Year Tim!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  09:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nostradamus
Hi Tim. I'd greatly appreciate if you could give this a read and scrutinize and leave some comments on the talk page. Please be completely honest with your review, my concerns may be unfounded. I suppose my main concern is the sourcing and that it isn't as a comprehensive and well researched analysis as it could be. But this is coming from an editor well used to 250 + citations and over 20 books used in articles. Also if you are visiting the British Library any time soon to check out a few of the books I've highlighted maybe and make a judgement call on whether the article has a sound coverage or not would be great.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll look at this thoroughly over the next few days. At first glance it seems very slim for a Featured Article of 2012 standard, yet some of the comments I briefly skimmed through on the article talk page showed serious grasp, I thought. More anon. Tim Riley (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tim. The editors dispute that the article doesn't contain a comprehensive coverage of him. They may be right at least in regards to that, maybe not much is known about his life as such, but there are a few biographical books on Nostradamus such as this which I think ought to be checked out to just verify that this is the case. I think they may be right that a lot of material on Nostradamus is pure speculation, and credibility of sources may range wildly, but I have a feeling that it could be made more comprehensive and improved, aside from the obvious referencing problems or lack of references. I believe that such a major article should have far more than 44 citations.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I think the best thing would be to concentrate on improving it with sources and sorting out the ref system. At least then it'll technically be more sound.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

rites of spring FA, errors and omissions.
I noted that on the article page you posted "It is sad that a single user thinks it legitimate to overturn the work of knowledgable editors and the many reviewers who have peer reviewed this article and later approved it for FA ". I have posted several additional issues with the article to the talk page, which as one of two people who are  recorded there as having done the recent rewrite, you might be interested in addressing. I find it sad that any responsible wikipedia editor would not welcome critical comment on flawed articles. It seems to me that arguably there are sufficient omissions from the article that it would not attain the 'completeness' criteria needed for an FA. This is notoriously one of the hardest things for a non-expert FA assessor to judge. Being as my purpose here is to improve wikipedia, and I do think it laudable you are seeking to get this article into shape for the anniversary, it would make a lot more sense to fix it rather than have it de-listed.Sandpiper (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, the name mixup was a complete accident, but I see from the above that you answer to it. Sandpiper (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Music for a Time of War/archive1
Thank you for taking the time to contribute to the peer review for this article. I believe I have addressed your concerns, apart from still needing to expand the RVW paragraph in the program section (which I knew was incomplete) and reducing the number of citations when possible. I am happy to address these concerns as I continue expanding the article. If there are any concerns still needing to be addressed, or if you have any responses to my replies, feel free to let me know. Thanks so much! Looking forward to taking this article to GAN, then FAC in the near future. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Good to see you back
It's great to see you editing again. Is there any chance you could take a look at Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar, at FAC here? Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Camberwell ahoy!
I shall be off-wiki until 28th, holed up in deepest Camberwell. I doubt I shall be online during that time, so Cardus and other current issues will be on hold for a few days. I have made a couple of small edits to the "Australia" section, merely to improve continuity with the previous sections; otherwise I still have a little trimming to do on my own prose. Please feel free to polish up the loose ends I leave in my wake. I do hope that you have a thoroughly satisfactory and restful Christmas. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Of course you can. :) Thanks.

Support! I thought of you when I placed a reference to Messiah on top of my talk, in fond memory of working together, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Messiah (Handel)
I'm looking for someone who might be standing guard over the article. I read a newspaper columnist who claimed King George II stood and therefore all had to stand. His source was apparently unaware this may be a myth (I should probably pass this along to him), but it brings up an important point: the article should say, if a better source can confirm this, that if the king stands, you should too.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  • 19:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Naturally, if Her Majesty stood up all the audience would do so too. Unnecessary to mention that. I daresay she might do so at Messiah, out of tradition, but the point is that the old tales about King George starting the tradition have long been discredited. Tim Riley (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you didn't take it out. I'm not so sure it's common knowledge that if the king stands, you do too. Some of us didn't grow up with a king.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  • 20:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I took the point. (Mind you, if your excellent Mr. Obama stood up in mid-performance wouldn't you all rise out of respect for his office?)
 * Probably, but we don't treat our presidents like kings.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  • 22:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)