User talk:Tim riley/Archive31

Wondering where you went
Hi Tim! Great job on the work you've done recently at FAC, particularly the recent Keswick, Cumbria FA. Im writing because I was wondering if you still wanted to bring your many talents to help the Spokane, Washington FAC. They would be much appreciated! You got my hopes up when you expressed an interest in looking into it a while back, and Ive been checking to see if anyone has been posting any feedback on the FAC page, but I havent heard from you in over two weeks lol. I know you keep yourself busy around here and just wanted to know of your plans. Right now the FAC has sort of stalled with no new feedback in over a week and now Ive started to run out of my ideas to improve the article, so if you still can spare the time and are still interested, the time to act is now. Would love to have you onboard. Thanks!G755648 (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So sorry! I fully intended to look again but got distracted. Put it down to old age and absent-mindedness. I'll put a marker on the FAC page straight away, and look in properly over the next day or two.  Tim riley  talk    14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking for advice
As a leading Wikipedia guru, can you give me a bit of advice. (What do you mean flattery?) I need to create a stub article on Hermeneutic style, but should it be shown in the article title and text in italics or what? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I wouldn't say so, but it's your area of expertise, not mine. To my layman's understanding it is on par with Baroque or Augustan prose and similar labels that we don't italicise. That's my advice, but caveat emptor!  Tim riley  talk    14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, if we are both wrong and someone who knows better shows that it should be italicised, it will be the work of an instant to effect the change. I look forward to reading the article, despite your disclaimer that it won't make me understand what the word "hermeneutic" means.  Tim riley  talk    21:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Paris
A perfect example of why it's a bad idea to promote a core high-traffic article. Way more trouble than it's worth. It's gone to the dogs. They're all over it now, before we know it it'll be back to 2005 status. I don't care enough about it to watch it and dispute things. The same feeling I get on the Kubrick article. Long term it's going to be more trouble than it's worth. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I hadn't looked at it for ages, and now I do I am horrified at the ludicrous mess it has become since I promoted it to GA last year. I have initiated a GAR, because to me it plainly fails several GA criteria as it now is.  Tim riley  talk    14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There's been too much editing of it to keep track of everything. Way too many conflicting interests to make it worthwhile. The best thing I think would be for somebody to promote it to FA and try to get it protected from editing. It's the perfect example of the pitfalls of being an open wiki and that excessive editing can sometimes be a bad thing. I'm sure Paris isn't the only article. I'm sure would agree with me on this. Peter Sellers is one which would have ended up in a similar state if it wasn't for the extreme amount of time Schro and Cass have spent protecting it from the dogs. That's the price to pay for maintaining a quality article on a core topic.♦  Dr. Blofeld  15:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd not thought of it like that, but you're right of course: the more popular the topic the more likely the page is to suffer the well-meaning attentions of POV and OR enthusiasts. I spend quite a bit of time removing good-faith uncited additions from Disraeli and Elgar, but the more obscure pages I've piloted or co-piloted to FA suffer less in that regard. That's not to say we don't get some drive-by amendments that are genuine improvements, but they are few and far between.  Tim riley  talk    16:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The page is a victim of that since almost ten years already, Tim riley, and no admin has ever done anything about it, or even really looked enough to see the problem. I came to thank you and apologise for your re-correcting the English that I had already corrected today - all that work was heavy-handedly reverted by someone with their 'own' vision of things. Blofeld knows exactly of what I speak - unfortunately. Thanks, and cheers.  THE PROMENADER</span ✎ ✓ 00:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Admins, to be fair, have no authority to wade in unless commanded by a consensus of the rest of us editors to do so. I'm chipping away at the accretions since GA last year. Very pleased indeed to find a thoroughgoing Parisian riding to the rescue. Promenader – any resemblance to Edmund White's Le Flâneur, one of my favourite books?  Tim riley  talk    00:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, unfortunately not! But I'll look that up for sure. The nom de plume came from a website I ran until my work ran me away from it around five years ago. And I do love to walk ; )  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓ 00:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's my joint-favourite book about Paris, with Alistair Horne's Seven Ages of Paris. Highly recommended.  Tim riley  talk    00:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What brought me here was "A Movable Feast" ; ) Thanks!  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓ 07:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Promenader is one of the few who seems to have his head screwed on and what is required. And he cares enough about Paris to deal with the idiots.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And has now been blocked by FP on the somewhat spurious grounds of pointing out that people are edit warring and showing ownership, rather than trying to build a consensus. All rather silly, especially as it seems that we have an admin who has lined up with POV pushers. Such is life - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised Schro if Caden at something to do with that, I see he's been involved with User talk:Metropolitan getting him unblocked. Pathetic really that he sees this as a way to get his own back on Cassianto or whoever. Siefkin is working in good faith but I'm sorry to say he's made a complete hash of the history. It just doesn't flow any more. So many short unsourced paragraphs and that now. The best solution would be to restore to a similar version which passed (including the shortened landmarks section currently) and then for you Promenader to go through and correct errors and improve it. Now that he's blocked it's likely to degrade even further by the POV pushers.There's way too much editing going on by incompetent editors.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey and, perhaps an objective opinion on the Paris talk page about what can be improved in the article's present version (compared to its Sandbox version) would be helpful - and feel free to forward this suggestion to anyone else, too. A few opinions would do a lot to help. Thanks a million in advance.  THE PROMENADER   ✎ ✓ 17:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm too tied up at the moment to be able to spend much time on Paris. The situation that surrounds it is one I try as much as possible to avoid, as little positive or constructive tends to come out of ongoing endless arguments between two entrenched sides. At the end of the day, life is too short to have to deal with some of the opinions on that article, especially when I have limited Wikitime at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The 'what is Paris' discussions of yore are not what's going on there now - it's about article quality. But I understand.  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓ 18:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Ellen Wilkinson
Just a note to thank peer reviewers and let them know that I've now closed the review and opened an FAC page here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Another cracking job.  Tim riley  talk    15:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments on deletion
Tim, this came across as extremely rude. You're entitled rto your opinion - and it was a valid one - but the way you put it across creates a hostile environment for editors and I really hope you refrain from comments like that in future. Not everyone has thick skin! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 18:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there is nothing remotely rude about the comment, let alone extremely rude. Mildly brusque, maybe, but not rude. – SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is, as always, do your homework before firing off accusations. We are busy people, with finite time for editing, and it is irritating to have it wasted.  Tim riley  talk    18:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * yet another Can you turn down the rude in here, please? I can't hear all the rude going on outside ; )  THE PROMENADER   ✎ ✓ 18:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's Paris rude, you must be positively deafened. I so admire your perseverance in the face of artillery fire that would have many of us taking cover.  Tim riley  talk    18:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, you know. It's like the sound of street traffic; you stop noticing it after a while.  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓ 19:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Very nice, and I chuckled, but chez the Paris article I see you as Horatius at the bridge, and I'm one of those at the front who cried "back!" (wimp that I am – see award for it here). But I wish more power to your elbow, sir!  Tim riley  talk    21:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hehe - how flattering of you to make such a comparison, sir. But lately I've been painted The Boy Who Cried Wolf, and penned for it, to boot. ; )  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓ 21:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's quite an award! I'm still chuckling ; )  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓ 21:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You should see Paris today ; )  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓ 14:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the page or the city? I prefer the latter.  Tim riley  talk    15:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, me too, the latter by far. But according to the article talk-page, I'm now an 'elitist bourgeoise wannabe "intellectual"' (buffing fingernails on shirt, looking around for award). I've been promoted; my dream has finally come true ! (pops champagne ; )  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓ 17:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm about to blow my lid with the state of the religion section of the Paris article. It's absolutely disgraceful. The work of a clear moron. Seriously what can we do to maintain a half decent level of quality? Restore it and get it protected? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That was done only to show Siefkin "who's boss", content had nothing to do with it. I'm about to blow it - yet again - too, only because no-one will do anything, and just by coincidence, Sunshine just somehow turns up... in totally the wrong place (two sections up) asking the wrong questions (not even reading any comment, or even the section, probably, about today's bad behaviour). This is very odd, I'm thinking he was called there... either yesterday, or today... as a distraction? Anyhow, this is painful, both for the article and us.  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓ 23:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

BNA access
Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I say! Delighted. Thank you, sir!  Tim riley  talk    15:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

PR request
Hi Tim, I was wondering if you could take the time to review September Morn, which is up for review at Peer review/September Morn/archive1. As this article has been controversial in the past, I'd understand if you didn't feel up to it. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to do so, though I am to the visual arts what walruses are to roller-skating. For domestic reasons (bouncing between two flats only one of which has internet access at present) my editing is a bit sporadic just now, but I'll look in soonest. I don't give a hoot about controversy, and will just give you my honest and highly inexpert opinion. While we're in French cultural vein, would you care to look in at the peer review of Francis Poulenc, whom I'm aiming to get to FA in due course? No controversy there – just a lovable man who wrote lovable music. –  Tim riley  talk    15:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Love to, once I go over The Fifth Element (another French article... my, they certainly do get around). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2014
Subscribe/Unsubscribe • Global message delivery • Romaine 23:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of London Philharmonic Orchestra
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article London Philharmonic Orchestra you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you make a comment about my new project?
Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org?
 * Done.  Tim riley  talk    20:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Henson
I have started to add comments on the article's talk. Brianboulton (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Super stuff! Thank you very much, sir!  Tim riley  talk    13:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Emile Littler
Hi, as the creator of the Emile Littler article, would you know if he owned racehorses at all? The owner of the winner of the 1971 Irish Derby was Emile Littler, and its too unusual a name to be coincidental I'm sure! I'd like to put a link in if possible but can't find anything to confirm it 100%. Any info gratefully received, thanks. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume so...I found so many references in the Guardian archives to horses owned by "Emile Littler", and so have erred on the side of probability and inserted a reference into the article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (I said that without moving my lips, did you notice?  Tim riley  talk    16:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC))
 * Thank you, I've linked Littler from the Irish Derby article now. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is, I see, a "Sir Emile Littler Challenge Cup" (Handicap Chase) run at Plumpton, so you can be quite certain he was a man for the horses.  Tim riley  talk    16:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ...he was also Sir George's brother-in-law don't you know! There are mentions of Littler's equestrian interests in Robey's autobiography I'm sure. Cassianto talk 18:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you all, much appreciated. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

TFAR notification for John Barbirolli
Thanks very much for your high quality WP:FA contributions to Wikipedia.

I've nominated a page you helped bring to Featured Article for "Today's Featured Article" consideration, nomination is at Today's featured article/requests/John Barbirolli.

Awesome bow tie.

Bow ties are cool.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Good to see him,  precious  again! - The Human Voice, - by the logic mentioned in that discussion you could use Britten's preferred version in Britten's article, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * What a very pleasing message to get. Thank you so much.  Tim riley  talk    19:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of London Philharmonic Orchestra
The article London Philharmonic Orchestra you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:London Philharmonic Orchestra for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of London Philharmonic Orchestra
The article London Philharmonic Orchestra you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:London Philharmonic Orchestra for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Bravo! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Help! email bust!!
My email is currently sulking – I can't read or send anything, although I see I have several messages   referring tantalisingly to Christmas. Could you or another of the London mafia visit my talkpage, let me know what if anything has been agreed – and as necessary use the page as the means of communicating with me? Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, while I'm about it: This is to inform you that  John Barbirolli, which you nominated at WP:FAC,  will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page  as  Today's Featured Article on 2 December 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we are homing in on lunchtime on 4 December, but SchroCat may be able to update this. (Barbirolli, I recall, is only a Featured Article because you gently prodded me into steering him thither, bless you!)  Tim riley  talk    17:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Details from Mr R are correct: it's at the Wehrwalt Arms. It's four of us, and probably/possibly Bencherlite as the fifth. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - lunch being around 1.00 pm (I may have shopping duties in the morning)? Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good time. I'll try and get there half an hour earlier to grab a suitably-sized spot. Tim is lunching elsewhere before joining us proles. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Lionel Hamilton
Can you find an obituary for this chap? I couldn't find anything.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Me neither, I'm sorry to report. I suspect we have both been tilling the same ground, and I can't think where else to look. The only male Hamilton in my copy of Who's Who in the Theatre is Neil, an American actor. Sorry, Doctor!  Tim riley  talk    15:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Richard III of England ex-GA Review
Tim. You were kind enough to review and fail the article some time ago at its nomination, citing a severe dearth of references etc. I believe they have been fixed; can you advise what to do next? Can you 're-review' it, or does it have to be re-nominated by someone else? Thanks for your help. Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  21:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The standard process is to re-nominate from scratch. Once the article is on the current GAN list, I – or any other editor – can choose to review it. I'd be glad to do so, but perhaps it would be better if another editor came forward to do this review: a fresh pair of eyes, you know. But if nobody does within a few weeks, please drop me a line and I'll willingly pick up the reins. –  Tim riley  talk    21:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers Tim. Is it better for an involved or uninvolved editor to nominate it? I.e., can I do it now or should we wait for a neutral party? <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  22:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is much better if an involved editor nominates it. We get into all sorts of mire when an enthusiastic visitor nominates for GA or FA an article he or she hasn't actually written. Only the main editors of an article can realistically be asked to answer for it. If, as I take it, you have upgraded Richard III's article you should most certainly nominate it and steer it through the review. I have been looking at it since our earlier exchanges above, and I am immensely impressed. But I strongly recommend putting it up for WP:Peer review first.   Tim riley  talk    22:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Francis Poulenc
After a peer review so thorough that it felt like the WP equivalent of going three rounds with Mike Tyson, I have put Poulenc up for FAC. Anyone kind enough to watch this here talk page is most cordially invited to look in, as indeed is everyone else.  Tim riley  talk    18:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Keswick
I have just finished Strathclyde and the Anglo-Saxons in the Viking Age by Tim Clarkson, which put the early history of Cumberland (between the River Eamont and the Firth of Forth) in a different light, and also checked T.M. Charles-Edwards Wales and the Britons, the first volume of the Oxford History of Wales. In Roman times it was the territory of the Carvetii. Charles-Edwards thinks it may have been in the short lived British kingdom of Rheged after the Romans left, but Clarkson questions whether this kingdom ever existed. In the seventh century the area was conquered by the Kingdom of Northumbria, and remained under its control until the Vikings destroyed the kingdom in the late ninth century. The Kingdom of Strathclyde conquered it in the early tenth century. After that it gets complicated. Strathclyde was conquered by Scotland shortly before 1070 (not 1018 as the source I gave you before said). According to Charles-Edwards Cumberland was Scottish until William Rufus conquered it in 1092, but Clarkson says that it was conquered by Siward, Earl of Northumbria, who died in 1055, and it was never part of Scotland. Not sure how much of this you will think is relevant to Keswick, Tim, but I can supply references. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this, Dudley. My first thought is that you are better placed than anyone to tweak the Keswick article, and if you are inclined to do so you will have the grateful thanks of,  Tim riley  talk    22:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Grateful thanks as promised above hereby duly delivered. Thank you so much.  Tim riley  talk    10:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for London Philharmonic Orchestra
Cas Liber (talk • contribs) 00:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

While the storm rages...
Life goes on, and I have just put A Handful of Dust at peer review. Your comments will be much appreciated. I have seen the note re Plonk, above, and naturally I will be there. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

PS. It seems you've forgotten to to list Poulenc on the FAC page – at least, I can't see it there, although the review itself is active. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Done and done. Thank you very much for spotting my absent-minded omission.  Tim riley  talk    21:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising
Thanks a million for your FAC support of Temperatures Rising. Unfortunately a consensus was not reached and the article was not promoted. Although it had your support along with three others there were two reviewers who opposed the article. I addressed all the concerns of one of them (Nikkirama) but he (or she) never acknowledged this. The other opposition came from Graham Beards, who complained about the article not having a production section. Alas I cannot add this section at present time as I have no valid sources of information about the modus operandi of the series. Temperatures Rising is not available on DVD so there are no audio commentaries or "behind-the-scenes" extras, nor are there any books or websites devoted to it. Graham Beards also kept harping about the prose being "unprofessional" and "not engaging" even though I had a copy-editor plus two published authors look over the text. Beards was at times rather vague about what he thought was wrong with the article. Maybe I'm over-reacting but I found much of his criticism to be done in a seemingly smug and condescending manner. At current time I will leave the article as it is but in the near future I will post it as a good article candidate. Again thanks for your FAC support. Jimknut (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

'A second welcome.'
Thanks for 'A second welcome'. Not all edits on this ip address are mine, but your kind words appreciated. I've just seen your very fine article on HHH (whom Lucas admired). Thank you - Dr H deserves this detailed treatment. A pity photo copyright laws are so strict - I'd like to have illustrated the L article similarly. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.32.51.236 (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What a nice message to get! Thank you.  Tim riley  talk    20:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's rules on copyright go well beyond the legal requirements and equate pretty much to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Nonetheless, a single copyrighted image of the subject of a biography is permitted, and I have added one of Lucas.  Tim riley  talk    21:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the trouble - as good as the warmest welcome! (I've sent scans of others, including some early ones, supplied by the family, to the NPG.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.32.51.236 (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)