User talk:Tim riley

Ein Hero What The?

Good to hear from you and thanks for the heads-up on Ein Heldeleben, about which I gave my two cents on the talk page. I've started work on an article on the Michael Tippett piano concerto as an adjunct to Brian's revamp on the main article on the composer. Should you have any suggestions on sources or anything else, please feel free. The article itself is still just a stub currently but plan to plunge in depth once my sources are in better order. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Britten and Pears (or something like that)

This might amuse you. While toiling away on the Tippett article, I was reminded that a few years ago I was idly listening to Radio 3 when a performance of The Heart's Assurance, Tippett's song cycle for tenor and piano was announced. The announcer gave a short introduction to the work which, she said, was first performed at the Wigmore Hall in 1953 by Britten and Pears. What I heard, however, was that it was first performed at the Wigmore Hall in 1953 by "Britney Spears". Now, were one a time traveller, wouldn't that be a premiere worth going to! Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe Paris Hilton will perform Delius's Song of a Great City at the same concert. Michael Coveney, talking on Radio 4 about the days of overnight theatre reviews, told of Philip Hope-Wallace telephoning in his review of a Purcell first night at Glyndebourne, duly transcribed by the copy-taker to report Janet Baker's superb rendition of When I am Laid Enough. Tim riley (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Notes

My point during that review was if we're actually using summary style and all the facts are clear there is no need for any notes, and a FA article doesn't require notes to be promoted. Notes seem to come up for a few reasons. A fact in the article is challenged and to clarify during in the review process you add a note to explain to get support. You might be writing and realize that 3 sources say X but 1 says Y and 1 says 'X and Y are wrong, Z' and you decide to add a note in advance of being challenged after choosing to put X in the article. There's also the 'not central to the narrative' type of notes you mentioned. #1 is usually ok. #2 is sometimes ok, although no one reads notes and historians who can't agree about basic facts isn't really that interesting to read most of the time....see WP:SS. The 'not central' type notes I think are not good practice since if we're observing summary style its either in the article or in another article, or omitted. Also, #1 tend to be short sentences or even just a couple of words. #2 can get kind of long, #3 seem to be a whole paragraph with multiple citations and I always wonder with the interesting asides why this isn't in the article! If you have an article you want me to review let me know I'd be happy to help. Kirk (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you remind me which review we are considering, please? I'm floundering slightly. Tim riley (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Peasants Revolt & Southern Rhodesia in World War I

Oh. I don't remember any particular problem with references at either of them. As long as all important statements are sourced and cited I shouldn't expect any problem at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"Trying" Patience

Hello Tim, just to say thank you for your timely intervention. I was just writing a reasoned reply to Ssilvers (a) many people refer by default to Lady Jane's "double bass", as Google confirms, so I think some clarification at least seems justified; b) it's all in a footnote, after all!), but I guess, since the addition stands and you've intervened, keeping my own counsel is a more gracious option. Anyway thank you matron, you made me smile! Alfietucker (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ssilvers, my splendid WP guide, philosopher and friend is my constant Wikicolleague but we can still disagree now and then. You are both hereby sent to bed without your suppers. I have spoken. Tim riley (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

:-D All right, matron! Alfietucker (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Disraeli

Sure, I'll look at it tomorrow, Tuesday at latest. You might be interested in reviewing Amir Hamzah, if you can't do it at the moment you could review at a later date and reserve the review. It needs a good reviewer as in my opinion it has FA potential.. If not, no worries..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for asking me, I shall peruse it tomorrow. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Arianna

I am waking this sleeper up. As an experiment I have (temporarily) added one of the Opera project's optional boxes to the article (I was not hassled about this in any way, it's my own idea). I should be very glad to have your plain opinion as to whether this (a)improves the article, (b) makes it worse or (c) makes no difference. Together with any other wise words you may wish to impart. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Have replied on Brian's talk page. Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Amir Hamzah

Amir Hamzah duly reviewed. And promoted in short order. A top-notch article. Tim riley (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow that was quick, thanks! Sorry for the delay with the Disraeli article, I'll definitely get to it by the end of the week! Yes, I think Hamzah has FA potential, although I believe Crisco is still rather critical of it. I was wondering if you think Fatimid architecture would stand a chance at FAC? It is is pretty comprehensive. Might need a bit of a polish.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I find that a tricky one to answer. Knowing bugger all (a technical term) about the subject I can't guess if there is nothing/something/tons more to say on the subject. What the article says it says very well, but is it substantial enough? I just can't say. Tim riley (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's my feeling on it that neither Aymatth or myself are experts and we both know that articles can appear to be very good and of FA quality but when looked at by an expert on the subject can seem grossly deficient. All I know is that it was written based on what we consider to be reliable sources so should generally be OK, just as you say, there is always that doubt that it's substantial enough without an expert on Middle eastern architecture providing some feedback. It might be worth a shot anyway. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Why not do a peer review asking the specific question as to whether reviewers think that the sources listed cover all of the most important sources on the topic? Also ask the question on the talk pages of the relevant projects. If you find out that you have consulted all the key sources, you can be more confident, and if you find out not, then you know what needs to be done. When did the style fall into abeyance, and why? Did it inspire any later styles? Was there ever a Fatimid revival? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep it in mind. Sorry for the delay on the Disraeli front Tim, really not been feeling much like wiki of late. I'll definitely resume tomorrow!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Well it would only be nitpicking anyway, it's a superb article and am sure will pass FA with little trouble. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Elgin Cathedral FAC

Hi Tim, not sure if you saw my comment at the review but as the nominator is new to FAC I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources and since most are apparently in book form, I thought of you... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Reporting back soonest on FAC page. Tim riley (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And now done. Tim riley (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Many tks as always, Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

GAN Robert Lowell

I offered a brief second opinion on general policy vis-à-vis citation/criteria 2 compliance, I'll take a closer look later on specifics and to see if there are other things needing remedy. I do agree, prima facie, with your assessment and interpretation. Please keep me updated. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know what your stance is on the article, or the nominator's desire to revise it (i.e. the protests of "I don't have the time"), but I wouldn't pass it for based on criteria 1, 2, and 3 issues that I don't think are solveable in the near future. The prose isn't clear and concise, there's a lot of nice-review fluff ("wide acclaim", etc.), lack of worthwhile scholarly discussion of Lowell's work in terms of themes, symbolism, and its place in 1950s/1960s American letters and the confessional movement, and the citations are a mess. If I were reviewing it, I'd fail it as it stands with more than a few comments on improvement. Good luck with the rest of the review. Keep me updated.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Little Tich at peer review

Hello Tim, hope your well. Just a quick note to let you know of the listing of Little Tich at peer review. I would love for you to take part if you're able to. Many thanks! -- Cassianto^Talk 08:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It will be my privilege and pleasure. A bit busy IRL tomorrow, but should be able to spread myself at the weekend, and much looking forward to it. Tim riley (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

A possible boost for Ben

You may like to visit this page, where I am nominating Ben as a "vital" composer (probably in place of Satie). Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

An award for you

Our motto: "It's only hard if you make it hard"		The PENISS Prize
		On behalf of the People Encouraging Niceness/Eschewing Nastinesss in Society Society, I hereby award you the PENISS Prize. The prize is the highest (and sole) honour in the gift of the Society and is awarded irregularly, on merit. It entitles the awardee to the postnominal letters P.E.N.I.S.S. (in appropriate contexts, of course). It confers automatic membership of the Society, and it thus bestows the power to award the prize to others, and they to others, in perpetuity. . Remember, the more PENISSes in the world, the better for all of us. What a nice thought. Please continue your good work!

To present this award to others, simply type {{subst:User:JackofOz/PENISS}} on their talk page. Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You dear, bloody idiot, Jack! Thank you so much (I think). Tim riley (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:David-mediterranean.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:David-mediterranean.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Image was deleted in error from Elizabeth David bibliography by an editor who mistakenly thought the article was a list. Image now restored to article. – Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Elizabeth-david-frenc-country-cooking-cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Elizabeth-david-frenc-country-cooking-cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Image was deleted in error from Elizabeth David bibliography by an editor who mistakenly thought the article was a list. Image now restored to article. – Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Elizabeth David Is There a Nutmeg in the House PB Oct 2001 014029290X.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Elizabeth David Is There a Nutmeg in the House PB Oct 2001 014029290X.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Image was deleted in error from Elizabeth David bibliography by an editor who mistakenly thought the article was a list. Image now restored to article. – Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Italian-Food E-David.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Italian-Food E-David.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Image was deleted in error from Elizabeth David bibliography by an editor who mistakenly thought the article was a list. Image now restored to article. – Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:French prov.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:French prov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Image was deleted in error from Elizabeth David bibliography by an editor who mistakenly thought the article was a list. Image now restored to article. – Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Omelette and GW.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Omelette and GW.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Image was deleted in error from Elizabeth David bibliography by an editor who mistakenly thought the article was a list. Image now restored to article. – Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Elizabeth David bibliography, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Replied on this editor's talk page. Tim riley (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice needed for Britten article

Tim Riley, I sent an email with the content below to Martinevans asking for advice. The same material is also on my talk page. Martin suggested that you are the one of the major contributors to the Benjamin Britten article and should be contacted. He also explained how to contact you other than send an email. I will appreciate your advice. (arno, aka Glencliffe) --Glencliffe (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Note to Tim riley, Martinevans and Ruhrfisch:

I will greatly appreciate your advice about what I have gathered below - whether I am on the correct track and whether it is useful. Regarding the existing Wikipedia information about the "School" - there is no article about the school but many references in various articles as well as the redirect page.

(Wikipedia article title) (Benjamin Britten) No mention of the school in the Benjamin Britten article. Britten died shortly after hearing the first master classes that were the beginnings of the school. (Peter Pears) - no mention in Wikipedia article. (Aldeburgh Festival): "In addition to the annual Festival, Aldeburgh Music also runs the Britten-Pears Young Artist Programme (formerly the Britten-Pears School for Advanced Musical Studies)". (Nancy Evans): "Evans taught singing at the Britten-Pears School in Snape Maltings". (Britten-Pears Orchestra): "Since the very first course in 1972, over 10,000 young artists have attended what started as the Britten–Pears School for Advanced Musical Studies, and is now called the Britten–Pears Young Artist Programme. The programme aims to bridge the gap between conservatoires and professional life, offering unique development and performance opportunities to young musicians. Many have gone on to become leading musicians in their own right."

I think that, rather than an article about the school, some information could be added to the Britten article (at least a reference and link) and more comments could be added to the Pears article. My contribution might be the comments below and the picture of Eric Crozier with his wife Nancy Evans and my wife [she needs to be edited out] as there is no picture of him and a very early picture of Nancy Evans in the Wikipedia article. My picture is probably the last picture taken of Crozier, only a few weeks before his death (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=eric%20crozier). I will gladly make this photo available, but would need someone skilled to edit out my wife. I don't know where or how to add to the Britten or Pears articles. I also suggest that the recent publication listed below (Making Musicians, by Moira Bennett), be included in the Britten and/or Pears bibliography. A personal note - my wife taught at the school from 1990 to 2005, during which time I spent a good deal of time in the Britten-Pears library (adjacent to the Red House) as well as time in Aldeburgh and with the students and teachers at the school. The Bennett book is a history about the school from its earliest beginnings to approximately 2011 with numerous (b&w) photographs.

"'One day in 1953 he [Britten] said: 'What you and Peter and I have got to remember is that we're going to have a music school here one day.' The 'school' came to birth in 1973 with a Snape Maltings weekend for singers directed by Peter Pears, and it has gone on growing ever since." (1) Quotation from Chapter 2, Imogen Holst, p. 50.

"Britten was speaking only five years after the establishment of the Aldeburgh Festival." (2) Bennett, p. 21.

The Britten-Pears School for Advanced Musical Studies (http://www.brittenpears.org/page.php?pageid=625) was opened by Queen Elizabeth on 28 April 1979 (2)Bennett, p.83. It is now the Britten-Pears Young Artist Programme (http://www.aldeburgh.co.uk/bpp).

The School was important to Britten, and also to Peter Pears, who gave the first masterclasses in 1972. [Imogen Holst incorrectly gives the year of the first master classes as 1973] (3)

After the school building was opened…"Pears was in charge of the singers' master classes, held at various times during the year with Nancy Evans as his co-director of singing studies, and many other instrumentalists and singers - among them, Galina Vishnevskaya - who had worked with Britten came to teach." (4) p. 588-589.

Sources for above information: (1) The Britten Companion, edited by Christopher Palmer. Faber & Faber. London, U.K. © (1984). ISBN 0-571-13168-9 Pbk

( 2, 3) Making Musicians A Personal History of the Britten-Pears School. Moira Bennett. The Bittern Press, Woodbridge, Suffolk �© (2012). ISBN: 978-0-9571672-0-9.

(4) Benjamin Britten A Biography. Humphrey Carpenter. Faber & Faber Limited, London, U.K., © (1992). ISBN: 0-571-14324-5.

Existing Wikipedia articles: (Benjamin Britten) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Britten (Peter Pears) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pears (Aldeburgh Festival) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldeburgh_Festival

Relevant websites (About Aldeburgh Music) http://www.aldeburgh.co.uk/about_us (Britten-Pears Foundation) http://www.brittenpears.org/index.php

--Glencliffe (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)--Glencliffe (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

PR Request

Greetings, Tim Riley. I would be much obliged if you could take the time to return to Amir Hamzah for the peer review here. The article has been expanded a bit since your last visit, but not dramatically so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Delighted to do so (and rather flattered to be asked!) It will be my privilege and pleasure to look in, probably tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot! (BTW, I've weighed in a bit on Disraeli). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • A bit! You've added lots of top-notch comment on Disraeli, for which many thanks. Tim riley (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Elgin Cathedral

Many thanks for your kind words and also your checks at the British Library (which I had the pleasure of visiting last week). The process was less daunting than I expected so I may try putting a few other articles I've been the main contributor to up for candidature. It took Aunva6 to take it in hand and do much of the required review improvements and I am grateful to him. Thanks again. --Bill Reid | (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For an excellent article on Disraeli – one of a large number you should have received a barnstar for. Thanks for the very enjoyable read. – SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

How very kind! It's been a good morning, what with this pleasing addition and Dizzy's promotion to FA. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Congrats, no sooner had the peer review finished and it is promoted to FA!! Sorry I didn't have time to cast my support!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh drat! Did I forget this too!? I had a tiny distraction which I ended up becoming too engrossed in. It looks like you didn't need it anyway, but for the record Support! -- Cassianto^Talk 12:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

These kind comments are all greatly appreciated. Wehwalt and I put a lot into the article and it's good to see it safely through FAC. Tim riley (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Arianna

For better, for worse, I've nominated it at FAC. Obviously I hope for the better. Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Shall look in and banish all personal thoughts before commenting. Tim riley (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: There have been few laughs in my Tippett studies, but I've just spotted, and regretfully corrected, a typo referring to his (presumably family-friendly) oratorio A Child of Our Tim. Brianboulton (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

(After picking myself up off the floor). Kindly make sure there's no more libellous talk like that. As a fully paid-up bachelor I DENY EVERYTHING. Writs will be issued as necessary. Tim riley (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

reverted edit of Graham Payn

Thankyou for your work on the article, notably the supplying of refs on April 14, 2009. Would you object to having the url "Obituary of Graham Payn" in the reference, as within the remit of WP:CITEVAR? I thought being able to read the ref was useful, especially as there is more there than is used in the wikipedia article, that may assist future editors. Also, do you object to having "Retrieved 26 September 2013", which could help in the event of the link dying? (unlikely in the case of The Daily Telegraph)--DadaNeem (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Singularly dyspeptic of me – apologies! Don't in truth mind all that much as long the reader sees a consistent layout and phrasing - e.g. no mix of "retrieved [date]" and "accessed [date]". Best wishes, Tim riley (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Kellie Loder

Hi Tim,

The Kellie Loder FAC was successful! Thank you for participating in that conversation. I have nominated the article to go up on the main page here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Gamal Abdel Nasser

Hullo Tim, hope you're well. I have a somewhat-left-field spotcheck request for you this time, namely a Military History Project A-Class Review. I know I generally ask you for these things at FAC but that's the stated destination for this article and I think it'd be great to get a spotcheck out of the way beforehand. I'm keen on that especially because I've copyedited and reviewed the article in my capacity as a MilHist member, and found it generally very good, but not being an expert on Nasser or modern Egyptian history I'd feel more comfortable about fully endorsing if someone like yourself could give it a more thorough spotcheck than mine (which did in fact reveal a couple of things needing attention). Now I know you're probably not a MilHist member but I'm sure no-one there would have an issue with you joining in, particularly given your experience with political biography. Anyway, no pressure, just if you're interested and have time...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to help but for family reasons I'm marooned 300 miles from the British Library and can't guess when I'll be able to return to London. It could be weeks. Most of the references in the Nasser article are to books, so a check of online resources wouldn't be any use to you. The best I can say is that if nobody else has done a spot-check before I get back home I'll be pleased to do it. Best. Tim riley (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Performances of Noye's Fludde

Hi Tim, you might be able to think of a way to steer the Ark between Scylla and Charybdis (to mix my myths) at Talk:Noye's Fludde#Performance history, although there is absolutely no rush and you may not have anything of use in your books (even when you're reunited with them). Best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 15:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Aha! Jason and the Arkonauts. I'll be honoured to look in and add what I can. Tim riley (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Falstaff

Many thanks for your note about the opera, and appreciate your thoughts abut how we might somehow combine the best elements. I worked on it extensively for a class I was giving to an adult ed. group in town which, towards the end, focused on Verdi's relationship with Boito. (Additionally, I did work on Otello and Simon Boccanegra (plus almost every other Verdi article for that matter since the Spring!!)

Anyway, at a quick glance, you appear to have more on the comparison with the plays, which is good. I found some good stuff in Phillips-Matz as well as Frank Walker on the working relationship (since my class also focused on Verdi's relationships with his key librettists, Cammarano and then Piave).

Here's the situation: I leave tomorrow for Italy for the whole of October, and arrive in London on 30th, staying there till 14th. I was going to drop you a line anyway after your suggestion to meet up at Covent Garden for a beer some time ago now, and I don't expect to be able to do very much before month's end. But let me know if you have some merge ideas, and I'll check them at various points. I'll be in Busseto on 10 October, of course!! All the best, Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

D'Oyly Carte Opera Company

Just would like a little more detail on why my entry to the page was trivia (or is it trivial). I'm treading carefully since I've only edited a few pages. It seems to me to be no more a piece of trivia (or trivial) than the television references, especially since it is associated with an historically significant recording. Since you are my senior in these matters I am willing defer to your judgment, but it would be helpful to know the criteria you used so I do not repeat the error. RMoribayashi (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that very nice note. To begin at the beginning I hadn't realised you were new to Wikipedia, and I send you a very warm welcome. We have a rule here, Please do not bite the newcomers, which I have inadvertently broken, and I hope you will accept my apologies. As to what is and what isn't trivia, opinions vary. I take the view that one should look at it this way: in an article of a few thousand words (at most) is the information central to the narrative one is trying to pack in? Other long-serving editors take a less austere view. I am asking my valued colleague and friend Ssilvers to comment on your addition, as he and I sometimes arm-wrestle over what is or is not trivia in articles. I shall defer to his judgment in this case. Meanwhile I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia, and if I can be of any help please don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page. Best wishes, Tim riley (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, RMoribayashi. The album that you mentioned apparently contains only a "passing mention" of D'Oyly Carte. If it had a song *about* the opera company, that would be far more significant. Or if Rolling Stone magazine were to write an article that says that the mention of the opera company in "The Song of the Viking" was of particular significance, that would, perhaps, be worth quoting. I agree with you that the television references were similarly fleeting, and so I have just removed them. In these popular culture sections, it is better to include only examples where the topic has had a more significant impact on popular media or culture. As Tim says, he and I set the bar slightly differently – he would delete most of the pop culture references. But we can at least agree that mere passing mentions that are not commented upon by reviewers do not add much to the encyclopedia article. Let me add my welcome to Wikipedia, and let us know if you need any help with anything, as Tim and I may be able to assist you. If you are interested in music, I would note that song titles should go in "quotes", while the names of albums should be in italics. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome, I will try to do it justice. Your response clears up much. I was following the lead of other pages which are apparently not as well looked after. Wile Todd did go on to record a version of a song from Iolanthe and through that brought the music of G&S to many of his fans, this was his only direct reference to the D'Oyly Carte company. Incidentally, I found this page trying to find the D'Oyly Carte touring history to verify the dates I saw them on Broadway in 1976. Would a history of their world tours be a valid addition to the page? I do have another question unrelated to this page that I could not find an answer to in the help pages. I hope this is an appropriate place to ask. I have made a few additions where I, in ignorance, misused the minor checkbox. I later found out that this is bad form and would like to correct my error. Is it possible to clean up what I have done without disturbing later additions. In other words, is there any way to remove the "M" from a contribution? RMoribayashi (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of the American tours are already mentioned in the article. A history of the company's American (or all of their foreign) productions could be a separate article, I think. In the past, someone suggested an article about G&S productions in continental Europe (including DOC and other productions), which I think would make an interesting article, since the information is somewhat harder to find. Do not worry about "cleaning up" instances in which you checked the "minor" box. It's water under the bridge. Just use the box correctly going forward. You will make far more edits in the future than you have made in the past. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ben and Michael

Tim, on my talkpage is a very nice note from Andrew Lowe Watson, the original author of the Tippett article which I am in the process of mangling. He has kind words to say about the Britten article, too. I thought you should read what he says. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How enormously pleasing! One feels so honoured at such approval from such a source. We have some wonderful colleagues in Wikipedia as well as the handful of the other sort. Thank you so much for pointing the note out. I am tempted to send ALW a message, but what you have already said on his talk page says it all. Pray let me know when Tippett is ready for the attentions of this captious critic. I am stranded in the Lake District for an unknown length of time and will relish any chance to make a nuisance of myself at PR by way of fending off cabin fever. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Progress on the Tippett saga is glacial and much interrupted, but I hope to have it peer-reviewable by early next week. I am off to Madeira for some late sunshine and rest on about 15th, an interlude much anticipated; I need a bit of a rest from this place. Note some important music TFAs looming: Bizet on 25 October, A Child of Our Time on 9 November (both these nominated), and Ben on 22 November. I don't know if there will be JFK-related competition for the 22nd; no relevant article immediately comes to mind from existing FAs. Neither the JFK article nor that on the assassination are anywhere near being FAs; not even Wehwalt himself could knock them into shape in time. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Bon voyage, you lucky bugger! It must be getting on for twenty years since I was in Madeira, being pampered for a week at Reid's. I remember the whole island with great affection. Take stout walking boots if venturing up into the hills. Tim riley (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks (through teeth clenched enviously) to Wehwalt for the photograph. What a gorgeous spot! Tim riley (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Fishing, again

Afternoon, and I hope all is well in the lakes. If you're looking around for diversions while you are away from the metropolis, I've given "Die Forelle" a workover and put it up for GAN. I'm not entirely sure about the various foibles of GA's relating to classical songs and leids, so it's more than the nomination is more in hope than expectation. Could I ask for a visit to have a look over it? (Feel free to quick fail it if you think its a deserved fate)! Many thanks if you're able to spare the time – and no problems if you're not able to. All the best – SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

When I know (i) nothing or (ii) a fair bit about a subject I'm happy reviewing GAs, but with "The Trout" (or any Lieder) I'm in an awkward no-man's-land where I know a bit but not enough to feel comfortable as a judge. May I propose this: if no-one else has begun a review of the article a fortnight hence I'll give it a go, but I am keeping my fingers crossed that a better reviewer will come forward. Failing that, pray prod me on 16th inst and I'll lumber into action. Best wishes, Tim riley (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tim; if you're not comfortable with doing it, then its not a problem at all – I'll not hold you to it (Hopefully a talk page stalker may see this and be interested)! I'll try and do a Fauré mélodie next time, but the call of Schubert's songs is a strong one. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Steuart Wilson

I don't know if this is totally eccentric, but for some reason today it occurs to me that this article, which both you and I have done quite a bit of work on in the past, might be suitable for GA nomination. I confess I'm a total novice about this process, but thought it might a) be worthy; b) incidentally good preparation for me to see from the "other side" how such a process works before I get involved with helping with the Tippett FAC. So do you think SW is a realistic prospect for GA nomination? Alfietucker (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well it's only a C class article at the moment, which I think is about right. It's 1,500 words as compared to Grove's 360 and the ODNB's 1,700, and so is plainly in serious competition with the two main rivals, in quantity at any rate, and the quality is all right too, meseems. But I think it would need some serious work at a library to get it up to GA standard. As a personal rule of thumb I don't feel that an article in the course of writing which I've never opened a book is thoroughly researched. My own contributions to the article, such as they were, were spin-offs from my (considerable) research for the Adrian Boult article.

Oddly, I haven't found that going in for GAN gives one much insight into FAC or vice versa. I find GAN rather unsatisfactory, depending as it does on one editor's views of any article. You can run across reviewers who interpret the GA criteria as FA-lite and others who (rightly, me judice) are quite a lot less stringent. (I know some people think I have been too lenient with some GANs I have passed.) At FAC, with many people wading in with views, the standard seems to me to be much more consistent. Such articles as I have taken to GAN have, on the whole, been through peer review first for that reason. – Tim riley (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I did open quite a few books for my contribution to Steuart - in fact it was my shocked discovery of his homophobia when reading Britten's diaries edited by Donald Mitchell which first provoked me to start adding to the article. (Not that LGBT rights is a hobby horse of mine: just that the industry I work in has many of that orientation, and I have considerable sympathy and sensitivity to their cause.) Then, when I had rather less to do late in 2011 I spent a fair bit of time out of idle curiosity filling in more, partly from books I had to hand (e.g. Michael Hurd's biography of Boughton) and partly through extensive and fairly intense internet searching. So, I guess, by that measure it might be worthy of a GAN. But perhaps I should go for peer review first. I'll look into that - or do you have any tips? Thank you for your time over this, btw. Alfietucker (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

As a successor to those frightful people who so terrorised Sir Steuart I am not his greatest fan, but his artistry as a singer can't be denied. Glad you're thinking in terms of peer review – the best way to go I think. A simple process, and curiously comfortable. Though in theory it's the same as FAC – open season with everyone shooting at you – it's done as it were en famille rather than under the bright lights of FAC. Comfortable and friendly, you know. Happy to set it up for you this time, if you want, though the process is not labyrinthine. I claim no proprietary interest in the page, and will gladly cede the GA gong to you if you steer it home. (PS: not only was he a horrid homophobe, he couldn't spell, either: "Steuart", forsooth!) Tim riley (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask a favor of you?

Hello, Tim riley, how have you been? I'm a Japanese Wikipedian who created Piano Concerto (Delius) before, with your great cooperation. Today I found that the article Symphony No. 3 (Raff) is composed of complete copy-paste from an external web site. This obviously violates copyright and needs to be deleted from Wikipedia right now. However, deletion procedure here seems different from Japanese one and it will take long time for me to fully understand the guideline and submit the deletion request. Would you kindly submit deletion request instead of me? You are the only English speaking Wikipedian who I had contact before and are currently active. Best regards, --Ponruy (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Replied on Ponruy's talk page and dealt with on article page and talk page. Tim riley (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your rapid response and action. Your instruction on Talk page of the Symphony is also great education for me. I will learn more to deal with this kind of problems.--Ponruy (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Stracciatella

Tim - In traditional Wikipedia style, please accept this gift of a triple (or quadruple?) whammy from across Italy [1]. By all means feel free to adjust the ingredients to suit the refinements of your impeccable taste (though take care with the sciusceddu...). Buon appetito! 86.162.136.32 (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do I have the strong feeling I know who this is from? How very nice, and thank you so much! Tim riley (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Prego, Tim! (Fwiw, perhaps my motto... Conscientious editors never die; they only change ip.) 86.162.136.32 (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I dare say. Mattina nebbiosa (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

E chi sarebbe? Seriously, thank you so very much for including me in your group—I was always sad not to have been in the picture. The stracciatella page is a bit of a minestrone unfortunately, but I'm happy that this pot-pourri of information (however illustrated!) is on Wikipedia, and I feel I may have learnt something in the process about balanced writing on the evolution of cuisine. I've been addicted to the page since reading of the sad demise of Enrico Panattoni last week... In memory of a Dylan Thomas lookalike who, like Panattoni, crossed the Apennines from the same village of Altopascio to sell castagnaccio, before setting up a Tuscan osteria con cucina in Bologna. Best wishes, 86.162.136.32 (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Friday Afternoons

Friday Afternoons is a red link in BB's list of works, but mentioned in his lede. Is it more important than A Ceremony of Carols or others? Will there be an article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gerda (and Tim) - sorry to butt in, but it was me who added Friday Afternoons to the lede, mainly because it's possible in my view that people will search for this given the profile the collection was given by Moonrise Kingdom. I think I will probably create an article - perhaps even today... Alfietucker (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Great! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Britney et al

I have dragged myself over the finishing line with Michael Tippett, and it is ready for review, though I'm still sorting out some of the references. God, I need a holiday! I hope you can find time to cast an eye over it – and Christe receive thy saule. On another matter, I shall be going later this week to the Stamford G&S Society's current production of The Mikado. They generally do these things quite well, though like most such companies these days, the singers tend to be on the elderly side. The Three Little Maids don't have quite the right allure when their combined age exceeds 150. And Nanki-poo should definitely not be portly. I suppose the thing to do is to close the eyes from time to time. Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Done, with much pleasure. At the Buxton Harrogate G&S Festival there is one date reserved for a company with a minimum age of 60. I haven't, in truth, been to one of those. Poor tenors! Why can't a Nanki Poo be tubby when there has never in the history of opera been a slim Calaf? If the Stamford G&S troupe doesn't do the operas properly I imagine the ghost of Flash Harry will haunt them night and day. Did you know Mrs Tinkler was Flash's piano teacher before she taught Tippett? I have a lovely picture of the grand Sir Malcolm paying homage to her, a sweet old dame. Tim riley (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Quarter Million Award

		The Quarter Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Benjamin Disraeli (estimated annual readership: 299,665) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers!

The Million Award is an initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Benjamin Disraeli to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers and all best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Gosh! How very unexpected and pleasing! Thank you so much, Tim riley (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)