User talk:Alfietucker

Polymath

I was looking in to thank you for your change chez Britten. Thank goodness someone can do sums! While looking what was going on I was tickled by your recent list of contributions: Benjamin Britten, Psycho, George Orwell and Piglet. I feel there's some sort of balloon game to be had there. Tim riley (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Balloon? You did say balloon? One of those big coloured things you blow up?" Yes, I guess Norman Bates, Piglet, George Orwell and BB would make very interesting passengers for a balloon debate (is that what you meant?). I confess, the range of topics I tamper with reflect more than anything else my idle curiosity/occasion hobby horses when I'm taking a break from my "day job"! Always nice to hear from you anyway, and hope things are good for you these days. Alfietucker (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Original research and images

Hi,

You reinstated an image on AAH with the comment that it illustrates an idea that is published in AAH proposals. Unfortunately, this is not the way Wikipedia reports on fringe topics like this. We are required to adhere to independent sourcing unless it is a direct primary source citation. If you can find that image in an actual AAH publication, you can include it with the caption, "This is an image used to illustrate certain ideas from [thus and such work]". But until such direct citations are noticed, we cannot include this kind of pedagogical work as it is entirely opposed to the idea of WP:OR.

jps (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

By "pedagogical work", do you mean any book proposing the AAH (in which case I don't know of such a thing), or the work being done by WP editors? If the latter, then I don't see the harm in illustrating whence its proponents draw some of their inferences, particularly if captioned (as the image was) "Newborns float and hold their breath instinctively when submerged. This is argued to be one of many aquatic adaptations by proponents of the aquatic ape hypothesis." Clearly the caption isn't even claiming that this is evidence for AAH, but is stated quite clearly this this is an argument by its proponents. Alfietucker (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can find an article that uses that image to illustrate a point, that's cool. But the image is of a swimming baby. That's all it is an image of. To say anything more about it is original research. A better solution would be just to find some images that are actually relevant because the sources refer to them. jps (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mohammed Shafiq may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Imogen Holst

Thank you for your recent input. The Court Lane Music recording of strings works, which I had overlooked, was issued in January 2009 so this, not the 2012 choral selection, was the first CD entirely devoted to Imogen's music (and the choral selection included a work by Britten). I have made the necessary alterations to the text. Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Great - sorry about the rather hasty edit, I should have known better. Alfietucker (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Message

Hi. I agree that the quote you removed from the bombing of Dresden article should not be in the intro, but you should have moved it to another section. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I did consider this, but I didn't see that the quote would have added much to the article. If you feel differently, by all means place it in an appropriate section within the main text. Alfietucker (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, one of the goals the bombing of Dresden was supposed to achieve was to damage German morale, but the quote explains how the bombing had the exact opposite effect. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A single quote is not enough to clinch that point, particularly as it is by a soldier who implicitly accepted that "the Fuhrer wanted to create a better world." Certainly it can't be used on its own without breaching Wikipedia's policy against original research. If you can find a published reliable (i.e. well-researched) source that states that the bombing failed to damage morale, then that's another matter. Alfietucker (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll let the matter be as it is. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Shirley-Quirk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holt High School (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) 08:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

I've mostly been looking at editing pages of interest to me, of course, I have to remember to check my bias in the spirit of wikipedia, and I think I'm getting too hung up on the guides about editing etc,such as the |"claimed" to "said", I was thinking that Lee Rigby would have killed people in that locale, but now I think about it, I couldn't possibly know that without his service record, I just thought claimed would mean mean it was in doubt, when actually his killers couldn't possibly know.

So,yes, I'm having to think a bit differently about these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarchoGhost (talk • contribs) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Glad you understood. As I said on your page, welcome aboard and hope to see you around. Alfietucker (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Shirley-Quirk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roy Henderson (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) 08:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do not revert good faith edits

Clearly my recent edit was an attempt to fix badness in the BoB article. Instead of fixing it further, you decided to re-introduce the badness. Please put some effort into your work, I know the Undo button is all so easy to use, but that's no excuse. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but placing the info as you did under the section "Musical score" made the situation worse. So I restored the text to where it had originally been (and which no one else had objected to) - and no, I didn't merely press undo: if I had, a lot of your more constructive work would have disappeared. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Another reversion of good-faith edit

Why did you revert my edit [1] of Antisemitism? What "original research" did I do? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is that your main source, an essay by Hilaire Belloc, is more a personal opinion piece (by a notorious anti-Semite) than a piece of reliable research, and says more about Belloc than about the subject of the article. You further describe Belloc's writing as "[A] more nuanced attempt at explanation": that is your opinion, not objective fact, and as such is contrary to Wikipedia policy in which such value judgements may only be expressed if supported by a reliable published source, and even then probably only if the author of that opinion is named. Alfietucker (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Explanation per UKIP talk page

As I said, I'm not too interested in discussing politics with users, mostly due to WP:FORUM, but you asked for an explanation. I suppose what I meant was, have you edited articles related to Islam, or that of Muslims, without attesting to them as radicals, or increasing the amount of content in articles that attests that they are? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, yes I have: just within my past 100 edits, try Mo Ansar*. Then, since the start of 2014, there's Lama Hasan, Maajid Nawaz*, Quilliam (think tank)*, Khudi Pakistan, Mohammed Shafiq* (though I think he played a less than honourable role during the Nawaz cartoon Tweet incident, I would not - on present evidence - call him radical), and Muslim Council of Britain. I've done a fair amount of editing on the ones I've asterisked, but the rest my involvement has been just the occasional edit, usually to tidy up what I find; and I edit a great deal elsewhere - e.g. film, music (especially so-called "classical"), children's books, Russian culture etc. (You may notice that in the great deal of "talk" on this page, only two or three topics are regarding Muslim related articles.) There's more articles on non-radical Muslims I've edited even further back in time - Mohammed Amin (businessman), Usama Hasan and Ajmal Masroor are three more who occur to me - but it's now late and I can't stir my memory further right now. I hope next time we communicate it will be on a friendlier note and on a different matter. Alfietucker (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't have much desire to talk politics with users here, especially due to the public nature of these discussions. I agree that I hope it is friendlier, I don't really like to argue, I just get frustrated when editors are accused of WP:NPOV when I feel it is undue, or by editors that may simply share a different POV. I wasn't intending to call you Islamophobic either, for the record, it's the articles themselves that I see as such, or more the manner that they are written. I apologise either way, it was definitely uncalled for --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I realise that I'm not infallible, but still I hope to try to improve some of those pages which are, or may seem, Islamophobic. As they say (at the risk of seeming portentous) "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". As for what I wrote about the editor at the UKIP talk page, it was based entirely on their behaviour when they tried to add material to the lead (you may notice in the editing history that I didn't delete it out of hand, but spent time trying to find what was salvageable - it was another editor who finally cut it out altogether). Like you, I try not to judge other editors simply on their apparent political bent, and as long as there is goodwill shown I am happy to work with them. Even if there isn't, I do my best. Anyway, I should turn in now. Good night! Alfietucker (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I am far from infallible. I do appreciate your sentiment about editing pages which could be seen as Islamophobic though, I have edited articles on many subjects that I would prefer not to be associated with, but sometimes it is inevitable when your interest includes them. I'm glad that we got to discuss this more personally though. I should probably try to sleep myself soon. Sleep well --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mo Ansar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spectator (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) 08:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

John Shirley-Quirk

Much enjoyed the expanded article. I loved JS-Q's voice (not to all tastes, I know) and am v. pleased to see justice done to him in WP. Tim riley talk 21:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tim. So very good to hear from you and thank you for your kind comments. I "grew up" with recordings by John Shirley-Quirk, and had the pleasure of seeing him perform in Cambridge sometime (if I remember correctly) in the early 1980s. I'm surprised if anyone objected to his voice - it was so rich, commanding and intelligently used. (Peter Pears, for instance among singers associated with Britten, arguably had two of those qualities, but only a fairly limited range of beauty to his tone - not always evident!) Anyway, seeing that there seemed to be limited action on the article in the days after his death, I thought I'd step up to the plate. I expect - and hope - there's a good deal more to be added at some point. Anyway, thank you again, and all power to your elbow! Alfietucker (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar

Hi, I noticed the false allegations which seemed to be directed at you in the AFD discussion regarding Sharia patrols (London). Having been on the receiving end of the same sort of thing myself you certainly have my sympathies. Thankfully everyone saw through the use of smears in the attempt to delete what is clearly a notable topic. It's a shame we don't see action taken against those engaged in such behaviour, particularly when they're so experienced and in such privileged positions. If anything, you should regard such behaviour as a compliment, and funnily enough the attempt has backfired and significantly strengthened the status of the article. I hope you'll accept this Barnstar in recognition of your work (I would have awarded this sooner, but thought it would be more appropriate to wait for the AFD to be finally closed). Shakehandsman (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind recognition and accolade. I would tend, myself, to give the OP of that AfD discussion the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a knee-jerk reaction rather than anything so calculated as "directed" at me. But I really did think I should speak up rather than allow what appeared to be an attempt to "shut down the discussion" (and indeed the article) on a false premise. Alfietucker (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Antony Hopkins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dr Faustus

James Bernard (composer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Psycho

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Liberty GB

An article that you have been involved in editing, Liberty GB, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ivanvector (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Mo Ansar

Please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mo_Ansar#Source_please Crystalfile (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Have replied there. Alfietucker (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this acceptable as a source for Farage climate change skepticism?

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFpzaQPKC54

I think this video firmly proves Farage being a climate change skeptic. If you agree, could you revert your undoing of my edit? Perhaps insert this video as source regarding his stance on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lommaren (talk • contribs) 13:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Youtube sources generally are frowned upon at WP, and I think this one would be no exception as the video is not created by a reliable secondary source, being prepared by UKIP themselves. However, I have found this from The Guardian which I'm sure will do. Perhaps you could find an appropriate part of the article to write a suitable sentence giving this article as a reference. (Sorry not to do it myself - need to "take a break" right now, and perhaps you could do a better job yourself if you have the time this afternoon.) Alfietucker (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Have come back to this, and found a reliable secondary source about Farage's speech re the Arctic ice cap. I've added a new subsection to the article and reinstated the category. Alfietucker (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The Ascent of F6

This play is linked like music by Britten, - if he wrote music for it, the play article should mention it, or we should have a article on Britten's music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what I've been doing while you've been writing that message. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Prokofiev GA

Excellent, and just as it should be. Very pleased to see the gong. I'm not passionate about Prokofiev, but nonetheless I think one could make the case that he's the only composer of the 20th C. who was top-flight in all departments: real symphonies, concertos, ballets, chamber music and operas. Discuss. Candidates over thirty need not attempt questions 10,2,5,3,4, 11, 9, or 1. Where was I? Oh, yes. I was, and am, applauding loudly as your fine article is elevated. Tim riley talk 21:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you might have Shostakovich fans on the war path with such a claim. ;-) Thank you, anyway, for your very kind words - much appreciated as always. Your work, of course, is in an entirely different league, and since you *really* have done so much to elevate classical music articles through your sterling work, I am particularly touched by your encouragement. All my very best wishes, Alfietucker (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User messages.

Please do not leave messages on my user talk page. BelziBhaal (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

John Ireland (composer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aeolian Hall

Russian Symphony Concerts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Antar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"Plot" versus "plan" in Operation Trojan Horse

You reverted my change of "plot" to "plan" in Operation Trojan Horse, and I'm asking that it be restored. The word was part of the following sentence 'A number of governors and the Muslim Council of Britain dubbed the reaction of authorities to the plot a "witch-hunt"'. Using the word "plot" in a sentence on complaints of over-reaction implicitly discredit those complaints. It is also a charged and angry word that moves the article away from factual reporting and towards evangelizing a position. "Plan" is an accurate word here, and any missing implication of secrecy or harm that "Plot" would convey is sufficiently supported by the rest of the article. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry not to have replied sooner - real life work intervened, and so it is only now I've got around to checking my talk page.

It does seem, to be honest, that the complaints of "over-reaction" (to adopt the term you've used) were disingenuous and - as you say - the rest of the article bears out the implications of "secrecy" and "harm" that the word "plot" implies. If you feel differently, please take your case to the article's talk page. Alfietucker (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent Calormen edits

I misunderstood your edit summary. I thought you meant that the criticisms themselves were not cited. I understand what you were saying now. LloydSommerer (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your civil feedback - it's always good to know when there's understanding and resulting goodwill. Alfietucker (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1944 in British music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Donald Stewart (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) 08:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

RVW to the rescue

What think you of this, about two thirds down? I haven't read this quotation anywhere else and am dubious about it. Thoughts, please? Tim riley talk 15:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid Tony Palmer is a great one for elaborating and embroidering facts to make a good story, and to find an actor or actress to impersonate a personal friend of his subject to endorse his - i.e. Palmer's - version (e.g. claiming that Holst *stayed* in a street of brothels, rather than simply visiting it, while on his Algerian holiday). So I wouldn't trust any quote from that source, but I'm interested enough to see if something similar might be found from a more reliable source. Do let me know if you find anything promising in the meantime. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the ultimate source of the anecdote that RVW "reproved" the LPO at the rehearsal is a letter Sophie Wyss wrote to his widow, Ursula, in August 1958. The fullest quote from this I have found reads: "the orchestra behaved like naughty schoolboys, not understanding Britten's musical idiom. Dr Vaughan Williams was at the rehearsal and reproved them and they pulled themselves together and gave a fair performance." (quoted in Michael Kennedy Britten, p. 22) Alfietucker (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Good. As Ko-Ko says to Nanki-Poo, "Very glad to hear my opinion backed by a competent authority." Tim riley talk 16:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Tangentially, RVW is about the last of the big beasts of 19th/20th century British music to have escaped the attentions of Boulton, Riley or even both. I feel I really must have a go at getting him up to FAC level, and I wonder if by any chance you might be interested in joining me in the enterprise? Quite understand if not, naturally. Tim riley talk 16:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)