User talk:Tim riley/Archive27

2019: May and June

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Bhagat Singh/archive1

Hello, Tim Riley sir, it has been a while. How is everything with yourself? Good I hope. I've nominated this film article about the life of the Indian freedom fighter Bhagat Singh starring Ajay Devgn as the titular character. As always, your comments would be most welcome and beneficial to the overall improvement of the article. In return, I'll have a look at Orpheus for you. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

And hello to you Ssven2, sir (though we surely needn't be so formal?) I'll look in, but it really isn't my area of expertise and I may not be able to contribute much of value. Still, I see what I can do, if anything. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 14:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and I call you "sir" as a term of respect and you are elder to me. I shall look at Orpheus in the morrow.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

In case you didn't get my ping at the FAC, I'm informing you here that I've resolved your comments, sir, and yes "owing to" is better sounding anyway (Indian English takes more from BrE than AmE).  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Good work, Ssven. Tightly constructed and easy to read. That's the way! Tim riley talk 09:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I only had quite a few of them to work on anyway lol. Thank you for your comments though. There were some seriously valuable pointers. As promised, I'll look at Orpheus.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation requests for MK article

Thank you again for your work on Milton Keynes. You may have noticed another editor has added a bunch of CN tags, many of which I don't understand. None are so substantive as to question your judgement. But in case you are curious, I have asked for clarification at User talk:SounderBruce#Citation tags at article Milton Keynes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If your GA activity has sparked an interest in this part of the world, a short trip north will bring you to Gayhurst House. Here, some early work by the Master may be seen, including his celebrated Cerberus Privy! You'll like the guidebook comment on his efforts. KJP1 (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course these things are a matter of judgement, but to my mind the citations asked for are unnecessary, as I have now said on the user's page. There is not and never has been a rule that every statement made must be cited, and although clearly not everyone shares my interpretation of WP:WHYCITE I do not think you are required to prove an uncontroversial statement such as the existence of a bus route or a road, any more than citations would be wanted for saying that France is in Europe or that the Sun gives off heat. Some of the other requested citations are more borderline, it is true. In any case, adding the citations will do no harm. Tim riley talk 06:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Orpheus in the Underworld

Recycling this blatant plug on the current page. If anyone who happens to spot this message cares to look in at the peer review of the recently-overhauled article I shall be very glad indeed to read any comments. Tim riley talk 09:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tim. I trust that you are keeping well on this fine spring day. I am more than happy to review this FAC, not least as it is the only opera, comic or otherwise, I have actually seen. However, given the number of assessors it has already attracted - and they could hardly be less knowledgeable on comic opera than me - I wonder if you would care to direct me towards some other article or articles? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"they could hardly be less knowledgeable on comic opera than me": how dare you! I'll beat anyone in the ignorance stakes on opera - comic or not! - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Relax, SchroCat. Your ignorance on this, and indeed everything else, is not challenged. But Gog you could do worse than looking in at SchroCat's current FAC on Blair Peach if you don't fancy an operatic article. Tim riley talk 16:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair point, well put. On consideration, I have read the Terry Pratchett guide, and so am not entirely ignorant. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

One of my favourite of the Pratchett canon. I am trying to find the recipe for Nanny Ogg's Chocolate Delight with Special Secret Sauce. Tim riley talk 16:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

?

Hopeless. Tried it. Doesn't work. Missing key ingredient(s). Tim riley talk 16:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I could despatch an order for it to the DW, but I understand that one should anticipate a considerable delay in delivery. And heavy "wastage" en route.

RE OitU, I am happy to review, it simply seems unnecessary. Let me know if you would like me to anyway.

I am sure that transferring my assessing debt to you to SC is against the Anti-Slavery Convention or some such, but nevertheless I shall set to, Massah. I well remember it being reported. I probably occupied something in protest.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Enfers Revisited

Dear visitor to this page, I have nominated Orpheus in the Underworld for FAC, and if you have time and disposition to look in at the review if will be esteemed a favour. Tim riley talk 09:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Wing Pinero

'So' is indeed a conjunction. The Oxford Dictionary says:

CONJUNCTION 1And for this reason; therefore.

‘it was still painful so I went to see a specialist’ ‘you know I'm telling the truth, so don't interrupt’ Am reverting. Valetude (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

See Modern English Usage: "British idiom does not countenance the use of so alone." Tim riley talk 09:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It is sad to be so alone. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

At the BL

How bona can you get? Take a vada. --Smerus (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC

I shall have to go. (Reduced prices for under 18s forsooth! Happily reduced also for the Stately Homos of England.) I shall listen with interest and correct the speakers only when necessary. Tim riley talk 20:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

English query

I wondered if I could ask you if the following is OK, it doesn't seem right:
'The compositions of Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827) comprise of 722 works[1] stretch across forty-five years from his earliest...'
Thanks.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

No good writer would ever write "comprise of", but it isn't actually wrong – merely horrible. The Oxford English Dictionary and other dictionaries admit it as an alternative construction to the normal "comprise" (the dictionaries record what is rather than what should be) but Fowler calls it "a wanton and indefensible weakening of our vocabulary". The sentence would be turned from naff English to good by deleting the "of". (There's an amusing article in The Guardian about the (mis)use of "comprise" in Wikipedia, which is worth reading for a chuckle, but, all the same, the "of" would be better deleted from the sentence you mention.) The sentence also looks faulty in containing two main verbs – "comprise" and "stretch" – without a conjunction, but without seeing it in full I shouldn't like to pontificate. If it went on "...and are jolly good" or some such it would make grammatical sense. – Tim riley talk 06:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your very full reply (I read the sentence four or five times and strugled with it). I have now had a go at a hopefully less 'orrible 'improvement' and will see how long it lasts... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Ralph Vaughan Williams article

Dear Mr. riley. You suggested that we talk regarding my addition to the Ralph Vaughan Williams article and your preference for how it should be written. I see that you have maintained an interest in this article for some years, while I acknowledge that I am a new contributor. I also note that you are not an original author, nor are you, as a matter of personal choice, an administrator.

I prefer my formulation and I am not sure why you felt the need to change it initially, nor why you felt justified in changing it back after I had undone it and stated a preference for my original. The change is primarily a matter of style, but there is a small degree of substance in my preference. The relationship between RVW and Stanford was complex, and is most often characterized as stormy or difficult. My phrasing acknowledges that description, and then asserts the source of the complexity. It does use more words than your alternative, but is grammatically appropriate. I am not sure why or by what authority you insist on changing it. Rgrames (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Rgrames

(talk page stalker) Just chipping in, but I prefer the original, which is slightly easier to read. If in doubt, remember Orwell's six rules (number 3): "If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out". As to anyone's "preference", de gustibus, and all that. - SchroCat (talk) 06:11, 10 June 20, 2019 (UTC)

The main fault with the proposed change is its discursive editorial tone. The "certainly" is not the encyclopaedic style we use in Wikipedia. The second fault is, as SchroCat rightly says, that it uses more words to say the same thing. As a new editor you may find it helpful to understand the review process of featured articles: they have all been through at least one and usually two reviews by a substantial number of editors. Drafting points such as this are examined in close detail during the reviews, and prudence is advisable before wading in and changing the text that the reviewing editors have agreed. Discussing on the article talk page is generally a good idea: see here for a recent example. A point was raised, investigated, considered and dealt with. This is usually the best way to get featured articles changed. Tim riley talk 08:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat: the shorter version is better. "Certainly" is an unhelpful filler word, and the complexity of the relationship is nicely caught by the juxtaposition of "affectionate" and "stormy" using the conjunction "but". Strunk and White wrote: "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that he make every word tell." The words that you added do not "tell" or add any new concepts and are not otherwise helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems that we are developing our own Stanford/Vaughan Williams relationship. I again chose the word 'yet'--as in 'but nevertheless'--carefully. I intend to put it back. Please explain why, in your view, I should not. Rgrames (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

For the third time of asking: if you wish to change the text of this featured article it would be helpful, not to say good manners, to discuss it on the article talk page. Nobody owns a Wikipedia article, but the views of its main contributors and peer reviewers should be given due weight against the personal fancies of someone who makes a single drive-by edit. I should not be surprised if any changes you make were reverted by another interested editor. We operate by consensus here, rather than personal whim. Tim riley talk 07:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mr riley. It has not escaped my notice that your changes have not been to the substance of my changes, at least now that you have decided that my perception of Stanford's approach to RVW had merit. Perhaps, then, your undiscussed edits and reversions on my changes were to teach me proper manners? It might be helpful if you point out where this consensus-building discussion takes place, for I see far more revisions in the history than I see points of discussion in the talk page for this article.

As for my apparent status as a drive-by editor, as you characterize me (a bit ad hominem, but let that pass), it was my intention to add my knowledge to that of the creators of this excellent article and thought it best to start in a small way. My reception has me questioning whether membership is open. I think I might have something to offer. I was a music critic for a major American classical music journal for almost a decade. I am a trustee--albeit recently made--of the Ralph Vaughan Williams Society, and I am currently tasked with creating a critical discography to update the one that was originally produced by Stephen Connock and distributed by the Society to its members. I have studied the life and works of Ralph Vaughan Williams for many decades.

I am more than happy to assist in the further development of this project--which I again emphasize I find admirable--but do not really want to do so if I am to have every word I suggest summarily overridden. I understand the value of collegiality, and I have a better sense of its operation in this context now, but I also know how to identify someone who feels ownership even if he or she does not claim it. I hope we can work together on this, but I have no desire at this point of my life to be treated as a recalcitrant student or unwelcome interloper. Rgrames (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There really is no need to make a production number of this. If you think something needs changing then say so on the article talk page. As in the example given above you will then have access to all the interested editors. Posting lengthy screeds here bewailing ad hominen – or for all I know or care ad feminam – comments is singularly unproductive. I don't know how many people who watch my talk page are interested in RVW, but 161 editors have RVW on their watchlists, and the RVW talk page is the place to air any suggestions. Tim riley talk 20:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Ten pressed men

Good evening Mr riley. I note that I am still very considerably in your debt as regards reviewing, so a gentle reminder that if there are any articles which you would like an ignorant and semi-literate opinion on, you have only to point me in their direction, Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

In my debt, forsooth! A fine fool I made of myself at your current one! Does your kind offer include reviewing nominations by my various disreputable associates? Last time I tried that, you mentioned the Modern Slavery Act. But if you are so minded I commend to your attention an FAC that is so far somewhat under-visited: Elizabeth Raffald. Several Wikipedian luminaries have contributed to the article and I'd be pleased to see it reviewed by someone with a fresh eye (they're always better fresh than frozen or tinned). Tim riley talk 22:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This starts to smack of good old fashioned, proper slavery. I'll get on to it tomorrow, when my eyes should be appropriately pickled. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A fine article. Any more? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Gog, I must admit to being a dilettante reviewer at FAC. Some stalwarts review everything, from astronomy to zoology, but I'm afraid I have to make an effort to dive into articles on subjects that don't appeal to me. I sometimes make that effort, but not often enough, alas. I console myself with the thought that even my pick-and-mix reviewing is better than none, and you may find the same if you let your eye stray over the list of runners. Tim riley talk 19:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Me too Tim, me too; dilettante-wise. I do cast an occasional eye over that list, as you can see. Mostly various non-biographical military history with a smattering of other topics which I know just enough about to bluff my way through, or sometimes not. I try hard to limit my reviewing to articles that I think I will enjoy. {{Poutine]] was a favour called in: interesting, if surprisingly politically sensitive.

Any way, if you do throw another one at the wall, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

PS I also watchlist User:Deckiller/FAC urgents and help out when I can. Leads me into some lesser-travelled avenues of knowledge. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

undoings

Keep my contr. in. They're not vandalistic nor intended as such.

- L.'s recordings of light music were commercially motivated. Readers Digest brought most of these out, and it was their initiative;

- the von thingie was a narcissistic gimmick of Herbert Karajan. This was his real name: ALL references of nobility were illegal in Austria after WW1. They don't exist there anymore and are forbidden to be used - to this day;

- the italics in the Marijuana Variations title do not expand into the opus-nr, surely?

good evening, Leos1968 (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt your bona fides – merely your judgement, grasp of English and understanding of Wikipedia's rules and requirements. Please discuss on the article talk page if you wish to persist. Tim riley talk 15:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

oh another typa grammarnazi in his very own lil' bathtub :) wasn't appealing to yer moral temperament, nor to your mastery of first grade Latin, ye crotty tail of diarrhea. Leos1968 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I imagine that was meant to be rude. Fortunately it is also unintelligible. Tim riley talk 16:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

something wrong w/ the powers of your imagination? or maybe you're linguistically challenged. probably, both. it's so easy to pretend you're stupid when yer a hairball. good night. and don't choke in yer cushions, 'cos tomorrow it's early days for scamming phones again Leos1968 (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

What a very odd message! Happily such gibberish cannot offend, though I imagine it is intended to. Tim riley talk 16:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

you are descending into mindless repetition. probably you contracted some kinda Alzheimer Light from your incompetence in matters musical. you realise that you missed out on Leibo's most extraordinaire recording? what a "ball"! Leos1968 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Leos1968, stop. Now. If you continue to harass other users and maintain this level of incivility, I will happily file a report on you at a suitable venue. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

oh well.didn't start the fire. my contributions are okay, all of them real facts. but read the autistic mick's first reaction? that's harassment in my booklet. i wish you a great evening as well Cat Leos1968 (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"autistic mick"?? Don't say you weren't warned what would happen... - SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the user above was banned for his remarks toward you. Sasquatch t|c 18:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sasquatch, thank you for letting me know. I'm grateful for SchroCat's considerate intervention and for your firm action. Tim riley talk 19:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Tim riley. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

——SerialNumber54129 08:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Orpheus in the Underworld scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Orpheus in the Underworld article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 25, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 25, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)