Jump to content

User talk:Tim riley/Archive21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom

[edit]

The Phantom Tollbooth is now at FAC. Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw

[edit]

An editor is trying to insert further material re the Academy Award into the lead. I have reverted, and also left a polite note on the editor's talk page. Better be watchful while the article is on the cusp. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. This was one predictable attempt to lumber the lead with a piece of trivia (or to be charitable, a fact of minor importance to the article). The other, which I await with a pouch full of dry powder, is mention there of Lerner and Loewe's musical version of Pygmalion. Tim riley talk 19:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to raise the point on the musical now...! – SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there's a moral in there somewhere if sad people continually try to breathe new life into the Pygmalion myth! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A pharaoh back from the deads

[edit]

Hello dear Tim Riley! I have just completed and submitted as a GA candidate a new pharaoh article on Djedkare Isesi. A long lived king, he was the first reformer of the Egyptian state (with catastrophic consequences...), fond of writing letters to his officials and during whose reign many "firsts" occured: earliest letter on papyrus, earliest depiction of warfare, earliest piece of wisdom literature, earliest record of an oracular divination etc... I would be most grateful if you were once more wiling to review the GA nomination of a pharaoh article (in this case see here). Iry-Hor (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I shall look in with great pleasure if someone else doesn't get in first. Tim riley talk 17:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert and Sullivan

[edit]

With regard to the Gilbert and Sullivan categories, I was using Category:The Beatles as a model, where it is a subcategory of the categories for each member, but since I seem to be outnumbered here, do whatever you like. Trivialist (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Trivialist – a comradely response greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 15:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New lede sans cites at Austen

[edit]

Just returned after a week away and the new lede, along with a group of new references in the main article, is now posted at Austen. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your kind closing comments on the GA are appreciated. I have given some time to follow-up thoughts for an FA section for the major novels of Austen though this could take some time, more on this in the coming weeks perhaps. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw bore

[edit]

It's been a week since anyone contributed to the FAC. Can you see any unresolved issues that we ought to be tackling? I don't think I can. Brianboulton (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. All seems well to me. I imagine the coordinators will have him on the slipway soon. Tim riley talk 11:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harper

[edit]

Hi there Tim, if you have the time and are interested I have William Harper up for FAC here. If you thought the UDI affair was something with Smith in charge, just try to imagine what might have happened if this chap had been PM of Rhodesia instead. Any thoughts would be very much appreciated. Hope you're well. All the best, —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exeat

[edit]
I'm more or less absent for a month or two, busy on an off-WP undertaking. Back by the summer, with any luck.

I can be contacted by email if, per impossibile, I am urgently needed, and will in any case look in briefly to meddle from time to time. Otherwise, see you in June or thereabouts. Happy editing!

Tim riley talk 17:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Djedkare FAC

[edit]

Hello dear Tim Riley, after having settled the issues with italics, I can announce that Djedkare Isesi has reached FAC, see here. Thank you for all you did already! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn Terfel

[edit]

Hi Tim. Still three weeks left on the Dragon. I was wondering if you think it would require too much effort to get to Terfel to GA? Even a 3kb improvement would register on the board as a core improvement. Or do you have a rule against BLPs like Schro? Perhaps Roald Dahl could still be improved? No worries if not, as you did do the WNO article!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not available till June or thereabouts. See note above. Good luck with BT. Tim riley talk 12:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Missed this. Will miss you being around!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: March 2016

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Jessie Rose has been nominated for Did You Know

[edit]

Hello, Tim riley. Jessie Rose, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 22:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FRWL

[edit]

Hi Tim, Many thanks for your comments and edits on From Russia, with Love. This is now at FAC, so if you happen to be passing through at any point and wish to make further comments, I'd be grateful to receive them; no problems if you are tied up with other matters, natch. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disraeli article reversion

[edit]

You reverted a minor edit I made on the Benjamin Disraeli article regarding a point of grammar. Rest assured this is not an argumentative note. On the contrary, I found your reason for the reversion most interesting. I had added “of” after “all” in: “All Disraeli’s grandparents….” Your implicit reason was that it was appropriate to use British English instead of American English for this subject. As the subject is a very notable British figure of the past (and one whom I have always greatly admired), I don’t dispute that reasoning. However, I have never before considered this point. You're saying that writers in the U. K. omit the preposition in such instances that seem natural here as an indefinite pronoun? That is the case now and has always been? If so, I wonder why we Americans altered the practice. I've always been interested in such differences between us regarding the common language. Thanks much for the input.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page stalker): Since Tim is away, and I'm also a native Brit, let me say "Yes" to your question. "[You] Americans" have not necessarily altered any practice - it is very possible that British English has changed since 1776 (or near offer). New England accents are closer to Shakespeare's speech than mine is, for instance, and spellings like humor and color were commonplace in 18th century England. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) The practice appears in both US and UK English, just for some reason at different points. For example, Americans "look out the window" while Brits usually "look out of the window". See for example Zero-marking in English (though reduction extends beyond just that). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking in briefly: Thank you, HB, for your friendly and interesting note and thanks too to CC and NM for their stimulating comments. I'd sum up my view of the matter thus: in BrE "all of xxx" generally means "every bit of xxx" whereas "all xxx" means "every example of xxx". So, "all of my limbs will be covered in hair" means that my four limbs are going to be completely hairy, but "all my limbs will be covered with hair" means that as many limbs as I possess will be hairy. The BrE use without the "of" can be seen in the King James Bible ("and all the sons of God shouted for joy") and in Shakespeare ("And all our yesterdays have lighted fools/The way to dusty death"), and in Gilbert and Sullivan ("When all the great officers of State resigned in a body") etc. I know the "of" is often used in AmE for the equivalents of these, but is it a rule? I'm thinking of Arthur Miller's play All My Sons (not All of My Sons), but you'll know better than I on this point. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 19:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all. I also found this interesting, and Tim's explanation is very clear. I hope I'll remember it in future writing. As to one point above, I understand that Noah Webster did change many American spellings to make them more phonetic, which reminds me of an old joke: Noah Webster's wife entered the kitchen to find him kissing the maid. "Noah, I'm surprised!" she exclaimed. "No, my dear," he replied. "I'm surprised. You're amazed." -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I never thought my ever so seemingly insignificant comment concerning a seemingly equally insignificant matter would have engendered so many interesting replies. Tim, as I said, in the case of indefinite pronouns (“An indefinite pronoun does not refer to any specific person, thing or amount. It is vague and ‘not definite’. Some typical indefinite pronouns are: all, another, any, anybody/anyone, anything, each, everybody/everyone, everything, few, many, nobody, none, one, several, some, somebody/someone.” [The English Club internet site] ) it is my experience that usually “of” is inserted. However, I went to another online grammar site (that appears to be American), and it states that your perspective is preferable because it “probably sounds less clumsy,” but adding “of” is also correct, so take one’s choice. As in the example you cited from the Miller play, it is true one does sometimes here the “of” omitted as also in the popular soap opera (which I wouldn’t be caught dead watching (assuming it is still running), I might add!) All My Children. So it would appear as if your way might be at least equally correct as mine on both sides “of the pond” as you Brits sometimes express matters.
Nikk, you’re right. We do (almost always from my experience) say “Looking out the window,” omitting the “of” as sounding both clumsy and perhaps even redundant. It’s curious that in this instance we reverse matters, arguing the opposite way! Ssilvers, thanks for the joke about Noah Webster. I hadn’t heard that one before. Most humorous! Thanks to all for this educational and thoroughly enjoyable experience. And Tim, I never had any intention of reverting your reversion, so please sleep soundly! BTW, you must be some sort of Wiki potentate judging by how many users apparently view your talk page on a regular basis! Salute! Very best to all!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tim is possibly the best researcher on WP, period, and he is very generous in reviewing the work of others. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time for the toons...

[edit]

Hi Tim, I have recently been working on Walt Disney, which is now up for PR. Any thoughts or comments on his huge figure would be much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I tempt you back briefly?

[edit]

Hi Tim, A brief note to let you know that Walt Disney is now at FAC, should you wish to visit and comment. Cheers! – SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as it's you. I have got a bit bogged down with my off-WP magnum opus, and I shan't be sorry to have a break from it. Tim riley talk 18:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FLC

[edit]

Hi Tim. Do you have time to look at List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Buckinghamshire at FLC? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: April 2016

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Olivia de Havilland

[edit]

Hello, Tim. I hope you are doing well. I see you are on sabbatical from Wikipedia. I am preparing the Olivia de Havilland article for WP:FAC nomination and would appreciate any feedback or guidance if you find yourself available. You can add your comments to the peer review page. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Venice-composers-2.jpg listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Venice-composers-2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 10:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:John-cann-bailey.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:John-cann-bailey.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. --B-bot (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Henry Wood may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • the conducting gave Wood good reviews.{{refn|[[George Bernard Shaw]], in a long review in ''[[The World'', commented on all the principal singers, the costumes, scenery and choreography, but

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grossmith-family-tree.tif listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Grossmith-family-tree.tif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A yes for No?

[edit]

Hi Tim, You have previously been good enough to review one of the previous Bond novels; I have recently filed Dr No, Fleming's sixth Bond novel, at PR for further consideration. If you have the time or inclination, I'd be grateful for any comments you may have. No rush and no compunction at all, obviously. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monteux

[edit]

I've made an adjustment to the Monteux article. The information that Pierre's brother died in a concentration camp was challenged by an editor, who added a footnote supported by two citations to French sources indicating that he died elsewhere. As this has nothing to do with Pierre, I thought it advisable to remove the mention of Henri's death from the article. You are the Monteux maestro and I will of course defer if you feel differently (I'm also updating some urls that have gorn orf). Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just the job, and thank you very much for mentioning it here! Tim riley talk 16:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Pride 2016

[edit]

As a past contributor, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?

  1. Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
  2. Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
  3. Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2016

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Dr No

[edit]

Hi Tim, Many thanks for your comments and edits on Dr No. This is now at FAC, so if you happen to be passing through at any point and wish to make further comments, I'd be grateful to receive them; no problems if you are tied up with other matters, of course. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Done. A pleasure to revisit. By the way, I don't think I mentioned that when I was still working for a living, a newspaper published a story (content forgotten) headlined "From Russia with fish". This set off an office frenzy of retitling the entire 007 canon: we agreed on The Fish Who Loved Me, Live and Let Fish, You Only Fish Twice, Fish are Forever, For Your Fish Only, etc, but we practically came to blows over whether the seventh novel in the the sequence should be Goldfish or Fishfinger. – Tim riley talk 11:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is that James Pond? I know Judi Tench was excellent in the films... - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Groan! If you aren't careful I'll counter with Diamonds are Forelle. Tim riley talk 13:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Covent Garden

[edit]

The Covent Garden article has been scheduled to appear on the main page at the end of this month on the 30th. Shortly after it was scheduled, a FAR was opened by User:Scott: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Covent Garden/archive1. I am looking at addressing his concerns, though they are vague, and he appears unwilling to expand on his concerns. As you were involved in the FAC in 2011 (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Covent Garden/archive1) would you mind looking at the review, and providing some guidance as to how to proceed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Dooley

[edit]

If you have a mind to get your Irish up, step this way.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-correction to US spelling

[edit]

Hi Tim. When I edit, Wikipedia flags British spelling as wrong and sometimes auto-corrects it to USAmer - e.g. sceptical to skeptical. Do you know how I can stop this? I cannot see anything in preferences. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Dudley, Have you recently installed IE 10 on your computer? – SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have auto-update on and it has installed IE 11. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1 – Click on Tools>Internet Options.
2 – Select the Programs tab.
3 – Click Manage add-ons.
4 – In the left-hand column, click Spelling Correction.
5 – Scroll to the bottom of the window and uncheck the box beside Enable spelling correction.
6 – Click the Close button.
Hope this helps! – SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much but Microsoft have left out the facility to turn off spelling correction in IE 11. They say they will consider putting it back in future versions. Why do Microsoft's updates always make their programs worse? I use Access extensively and the modern versions are very inferior to the old ones. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to firefox. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. I just thought of that myself! Dudley Miles (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A. S. F. Gow, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Manilius and Gower Street. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of botched and unnecessary citations

[edit]

Hello. I don't understand why you removed the reference to the newly published book of Britten-Pears correspondence. Please explain. HerdMusic209 (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the fact of your putting your question in the middle of the previous section here (now moved) I infer that you don't normally edit Wikipedia. I should explain that Wikipedia is not a site for advertising new publications. We cite books as support of stated facts; the facts in the Pears, Britten etc articles were already fully cited and the mention of the new book added nothing of value, besides being inserted in such a way as to mess up the layout and appearance of the page. The latter could be remedied by a competent editor if necessary, but there is no cause to do so as the insertions were superfluous. Tim riley talk 18:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I welcomed the new editor, before anything else ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tim, for controlling spam. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tim_riley/Archive21&oldid=1077611591"