User talk:Tim riley/Archive3

9203:. You may know that PumpkinSky and I improved the article, then a rather wild mix by several editors, in August for CORE, it went through GA, PR and FA. I still feel that - no wonder with a hstory like that - the prose is uneven, and I am helpless with changes for facts for which I lack the sources. Perhaps you could have a look and take it on your watchlist. - On referencing: Kafka is well developed. The Requiem is fine as long as you and I are more or less the only editors. But I feel it's better for later editors when the references are listed separately from the body. (I can't tell how much time I spent, trying to modify a reference, to find that within an article, and, trying to change prose, to find where longish refs in the text end.) A first step - no more - was 9988:". I have posted several additional issues with the article to the talk page, which as one of two people who are recorded there as having done the recent rewrite, you might be interested in addressing. I find it sad that any responsible wikipedia editor would not welcome critical comment on flawed articles. It seems to me that arguably there are sufficient omissions from the article that it would not attain the 'completeness' criteria needed for an FA. This is notoriously one of the hardest things for a non-expert FA assessor to judge. Being as my purpose here is to improve wikipedia, and I do think it laudable you are seeking to get this article into shape for the anniversary, it would make a lot more sense to fix it rather than have it de-listed. 6360: 516: 7663:

practices around here. (I've seen other people push the strategy much harder, and for far more trivial things.) But you can't decouple the suitability of an infobox as a summary from the content of an article the way you can reference formatting or accessibility measures or whatnot. They're clearly an excellent fit for a great many articles, not at all suitable for some (usually ones that don't fit well into some hierarchical ontology), and questionable for some in between; but that sort of gradient is exactly where you want to be establishing guidelines for broad categories of articles based on local consensus, since there's no brightline rule you can apply throughout the 'pedia.

9828:: ABEbooks dates the first edition of C-on-C to 1949, pub. by The Sportsman's Book Club. It also shows editions for 1951 (Sportsman's), 1977, 1983 and 2000 (all Souvenir Press). Only the 1977 version is listed by Worldcat (strange, that), so there's no OCLC for the 1949 book, but I think we should list the original. I don't think the republications of prewar books need to be listed - the list is copious enough anyway. As I am rejigging the list slightly (principally, subdividing it into autobiography, cricket and music), I'll redate C-on-C. If there are any aspects of the reformatted list that you don't like, let me know (I'll be posting it soon). 9136:. It is editors like you that the few of us who are truly value as the core of the project. Content and potential is what we are about, what a pity it is so many have their head completely stuck in wikipolitics and are destroying the enjoyment of the website with their nonsense. Unfortunately at present we have to put up with it for supporting the concept of building an encyclopedia of the highest quality and depth... None of us would tolerate it but for content potential. As long as you know that there are others who feel exactly the way you do about it, its wrong, but the world isn't the way we'd like it either... Many cheers to you Sir Riley! ♦ 3756: 3124:

sure all the content is adequately sourced first, and try to do a general clean up. Good teamwork would be an asset, I guess, and I think Connolly has a really good attitude—very professional. I feel that your view that the length is not excessive is encouraging, though presumably we should be looking to compact rather than expand. That sort of overriding editorial consideration is perhaps harder to tackle as a group, than something like unified spelling, which rests on a simple decision. I also noted that you did not raise any major concerns about content (hydraulics apart) or balance. So, some encouragement there, I guess. Many thanks again, —

914: 8465:

editors push their agendas. His value to the project will surely outlive theirs; for the record, he was the main or joint-main editor on 16 featured articles, and provided a significant helping hand on many more. He was a thorough but kind reviewer, rarely ending his assessments of even the least promising material without a word of encouragement. His knowledge of classical music, and his access to sources whereby articles could be given range and depth, were assets the encyclopedia can ill afford to lose. Tim will be hugely missed by his many friends here. As to

9602:

Australia for cricketing, not musical reasons), where I think it would make a much better conclusion than my present rather clumsy ending. The alternative is to reserve all mention of the 1936-37 visit to the Australia section, though that might lead to chronological confusion. What do you think? Another thing bothering me is the reference to a private visit made to Australia in 1938. This is not mentioned in his autobiographical writings, nor in Brooke's biography, nor in Daniels. What is the source for this visit, and is there any information about why he went?

10226: 7391: 6676:'s interventions have not put me off at all. Actually, I think it likely he's improved the referencing although I can't really say. Certainly the things I do understand, namely the content and the verifiability of the article, appear untouched. You might argue his manner of going about it could be more encouraging, and perhaps it would have been better if he'd contributed during, rather than after, the FAR but, by improving the citations, he's made his own contribution to the article, for which I'm grateful. As to 6615:, who has done a grand job of checking the Notes and References, remains concerned by my Vost's catalogue, listed in the References and cited in FN:196. My problem is that I can't find it anywhere on the web. It's a sales catalogue for Burges's Mirrored Sideboard, produced for Vost's sale. Vost's is, or was, in Newmarket, although their website - which used to work - seems to be dead now. The printer was Miro Press, of Bury St. Edmunds. No publication date. Certainly no ISBN. Shall I just leave it blank. 8997: 2579: 2088: 10125: 5704: 5501: 257: 10084: 1509: 7299: 8122: 8040: 5063: 2815: 3493: 10175: 9065: 5666: 7942:

expanded it in the first place. I don't feel happy promoting articles unless they are widely researched in both google books and highbeam as much as is reasonable. Top importance subjects with thousands of potential sources need the most research I think. The idea is to then chisel away at it and leave a highly comprehensive concise article. Anyway that's how I've always written, if that not "elegant" then tough luck eh? William Burges is 125 kb BTW. ♦

6445: 5771: 1838: 5935:

with Fowler's. The thing is, I am no longer commenting on the stylistic matter, on which you may have your own way, but in how your personal comments come across to me. I do take offence at your tone. When others offer you such feedback on your personal style, you are of course free to ignore the feedback or even to escalate it as you have, but the wise course would probably be to take the opportunity to reflect on how you come across to others. --

5861: 9616:(Later): In anticipation of your preferring the second option concerning the Australia section, I have rewritten the ending to the "Cricket correspondent" section so as to leave the Australia section untouched - except that I have removed part of a sentence to avoid Sir Thomas having to die twice in the same article. Please give your views, though they be quite different fom mine; I am amenable to all changes for the better. 8918: 4482: 9344: 7021: 2221:

information comes from that one source. So, I repeat the link every few sentences, or if there is a direct quote. I think that in the case at issue, I agree with Tim's judgment: the two extra cites that you deleted are helpful and do not constitute "over-citing". But reasonable people can draw the line in slightly different places, and that is what the FA comment process is for. All the best, --

767:. The chief mystery is that Daisy appears to vanish, not once, but twice. None of the standard references give a date for her death, although the odds on her having died are now quite short. It seems likely that she put her career behind her and is remembered (if at all) under another name. I wonder if you know of any published or unpublished sources which might throw some light on the matter? 9751: 3193:. Use "homosexual" and attach a note about it being an official term despite the connotation seen by some? Use "gay" plus a note about it being considered the currently acceptable term, though an informal one in some circles? I'm open to options and to deciding between the two of us on this—there seems to be an aversion to the usual suspects' hashing things out on the Talk page. 9810:

not mentioned that in the 1940s and 50s Hart-Davis republished several of the pre-war collections originally put out by other publishers. I don't think this information would add much of value to the readers of the article, but will put it in for completeness if you prefer. I'm so pleased you're doing the lead. It's a hugely important job that I am rather bad at and hate doing.

2664:

would have liked to see the basic shape of the article altered to something a little more workable first. Very little point in finding references for a lot of stuff we might well end up deleting anyway, referenced or not. If the division into classical, folk, jazz and other popular music could be organised to replace the current attempt at a chronological history, with a new

1063:

adding info from the other authority files (VIAF, PND, etc.; well in the case of PND it looks like it was a bot...); I will say I found one or two incorrectly coded LC records for people with the same name or similar names which I have fixed. Basically, I guess I am saying if you want to help, I am most appreciative. And if you further questions, let me know. Happy to help.--

7217: 6878:

waste of time and most work is done between a handful of individuals. WHat I do want however is to obtain as full a list as possible of country houses in England. One editor says he has a database on it, which I'm desperate to see. If not I could do with being emailed some index page scans of books by Pevsner to improve the lists by county.♦

5237:, a rather unpleasant former England cricket captain who was a fascist in the 1920s, but was MCC president in 1968. I just wondered if your ADH sources have any mention of Gilligan and anything about his rather unfortunate political leanings which cannot have done much for his credibility in this case? Any information gratefully received! 3949:. By middle age, he had ceased to be regarded as a modernist, and some of his compositions of the 1950s were criticised as old-fashioned. In his last years, his works came back into critical fashion; his later compositions, dismissed by critics at the time of their premieres, were revalued and regarded alongside his earlier works. ( 9259:'s 100th birthday earlier this month got me back to classical music articles and working on the one linked in the title. I've added almost all that I can, content-wise, at this point and am open to any suggestions. Also contacted Brian but, as his usual, he's pretty swamped and might get back to me sometime in the future. 9917:

as it could be. But this is coming from an editor well used to 250 + citations and over 20 books used in articles. Also if you are visiting the British Library any time soon to check out a few of the books I've highlighted maybe and make a judgement call on whether the article has a sound coverage or not would be great.♦

8098:

a few weeks off and then remember how much you loved contributing good content and reviewing. It sometimes takes a long break to regain it and refocus on why we are here and to be passionate again about content. I'm afraid you can't completely avoid what you are concerned with but the reason I'm still here is because its

3578:. As much as I like it, I have suggested doing away with the Burges image gallery and moving all the pictures in that section to commons, if the article is to progress through FAC smoothly. I have trawled the FA architects category but cannot find a recent FA article which actually has one. I could be wrong though. -- 4267: 8672:

to make Wikimedia projects a safer and more fun place in which to contribute. I appreciate all the time you spent on the site and wish that you could reconsider visiting the community again if you ever felt that we made sufficient changes to reform response to problems which good editors have. Thanks.

10288:

I'm looking for someone who might be standing guard over the article. I read a newspaper columnist who claimed King George II stood and therefore all had to stand. His source was apparently unaware this may be a myth (I should probably pass this along to him), but it brings up an important point: the

9916:

Hi Tim. I'd greatly appreciate if you could give this a read and scrutinize and leave some comments on the talk page. Please be completely honest with your review, my concerns may be unfounded. I suppose my main concern is the sourcing and that it isn't as a comprehensive and well researched analysis

9298:

Hah! You know jolly well that I am a great fan of Levin. His journalism was very different in style and form from Cardus's: it's the fox and hedgehog thing – the fox knows many things; the hedgehog knows one big thing (or two in Cardus's case). One thing they have in common is a tendency to get drunk

8745:

Tim, you were a valuable contributor and it is extremely sad news that you have stopped editing. You have made so many invaluable and positive contributions here, especially with regards to the composers and classical music-related articles. This is truly a profound loss to the Knowledge community as

8671:

I regret that social and organizational infrastructure on this project ever allowed anyone else to bring you anything except thanks and gratitude for your contributions. If it is any consolation, the increase in popularity of Knowledge over time is attracting the attention of various activist efforts

8572:

Tim, I am sorry to see you leave wikipedia. You have contributed so much over the last several years, and it's sad to think those contributions have come to an end. I hope you eventually change your mind and return, in whatever capacity feels right for you, as there's a lot of work to be done here,

8504:

I hope Tim will read this page at some point in the future and realise just how many people adore the chap. Perhaps sometime in the future Tim you will remember why you came to the project, the enjoyment and pleasure of writing your "classy" articles and the people you genuinely appreciated which was

8134:

For generally being one of wikipedia's most eminent editors and your efforts to promote high quality articles on here on classy subjects. I have tremendous respect for you Tim and what you do here, in fact I wish most other wikipedians were as focused and able-minded as you are. You're a class act! I

8069:

Tim Riley is no longer active on Knowledge. Warmest thanks and best wishes to the many editors with whom it has been a pleasure and a privilege to collaborate. No thanks, but good wishes all the same, to the minority of editors who carped, sniped, arrogated a monopoly of wisdom, and ultimately killed

8052:

5963:

resistance to your personal obsession about "however"; I think the chorus of disapproval arose from people's watch-lists. Be that as it may, I really do recommend your reading Fowler, as it may disabuse you of some of your illusions about the proper use of the word that so agitates you. With the very

4462:, you'll be in a good position to write a brilliant account of the Paris premiere. I'm quite prepared to do most of the research and writing but it would be good to have more hands to the wheel. No serious writing from me for a few months, but I shall be gathering sources. Let me know what you think. 4122:

Thank you both for these kind remarks. I haven't got a baseball bat, but I have blown 30 years' dust off my old cricket bat just in case. Nothing too outrageous by way of vandalism so far; it's the well-meaning but ill-considered (I almost wrote "half-baked") drive-by edits that really get one down.

3319:

wrote that the subjunctive "is moribund except in a few easily specified uses"; where US English would say "It was vital that everything be done quickly", in modern English usage we'd say "It was vital that everything was done quickly". An Englishman would certainly write "provided that she protected

3266:

Okay, I can see where you're coming from; the lead was indeed very poorly written. To be quite honest, I have been influenced by the engaging writing style in many FAs (including your Fred Delius), and thought it appropriate with a bit of editorial comment to jazz up the prose. For the moment though,

3141:

Gosh, what a fauringly long process... Yes, of course I will! If nothing else, to try to make up a little for my unhelpful, wide of the mark comments. Btw, I'm sorry your very helpful iti review didn't get the attention it deserved. I found that surprising and felt a bit bad about it, but was wary of

2663:

Thank you for your helpfulness, and sorry not to get back to you earlier. To be honest I am getting a little fed up with the negative attitude of certain people (see above) - it is perfectly true that (like a fairly large slice of wikipedia, alas) we need a lot more references here - but I personally

2549:

Ssilvers is largely responsible for getting the article up to the substantial B class article that now exists. I haven't had much to do with it, being, in truth, pretty lukewarm about German's music. German always strikes me as more in Eric Coates's camp than in Sullivan's. I have got it inked in on

2001:

Yes. Maybe he considered it to be an over use of a source, which of course it's not! I suppose I too could be accused of being a little over zealous with references, such as Leno, where I found myself referencing after every full stop. Rightly so, I was quickly sent into the corner by SS and was made

9674:

describes it as a "health visit". I suggest that the present cryptic comment be expanded into a couple of sentences, to give the gist of the visit. I've answered about the image question on my own talkpage. I've also added a short "unsettled" section to the article, covering the 1947-51 years, which

8097:

Nooooo..... Please no, you're one linchpins in good article promotion around here. As they say "don't let the bastards get you down". Yes, the sniping can get annoying at times but on such occasions its best to take a wiki break. You're letting them get the better of you. I strongly hope you'll take

7453:

in London in 1961. In 1969 Solti was appointed music director of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, a post he held for 22 years. He restored the orchestra's reputation after it had been in decline for most of the previous decade. Known in his early years for the intensity of his music making, Solti was

5182:

Salvē! I took a few days off Knowledge to concentrate on my Latin studies, and did the unforgivable misdeed to forget the task I had promised that I would do. I hope you can forgive me & am very inclined to do a source review for another article of yours in the near future. Obprōbrium meum vīvet

4639:

Another couple of suggestions for the diagram. Could Alfred be acknowledged as the 11th baronet? And could we add a box from Alfred indicating that his infant son, Henry Alfred, was the 12th baronet? His dates are 1866–1910. I don't propose we take the chart further than that, but I am investigating

3768:

Recently there was some anti-gay hate here on wikipedia and you worked to unhate. Because we need to show our overwhelming support of what people hate on to create unhate whenever it shows up. I compel everyone that supports unhate to repost this on their user page or talk page and especially on any

3414:

Excellent, but can you put your name and reserve the review and state you'll review in a few days? I just want to ensure it is given a professional review by a good reviewer that's all as I feel the article will be much better off afterwards! Yah, its a biggy alright but I'm sure the subject will be

2751:

You've done a splendid job, imo. Thank you for the reply to my vague query: I see you've highlighted the 'specialist' usage of the term in the lede, which I think is helpful. I guess others—way more knowledgeable than I am—will determine exactly to what that term should refer (ie how restrictive the

1690:

For some unaccountable reason I missed Fred's 150th birthday on 29 January. What a bugger - I've been meaning for months to nominate it for TFA, wrote a note to myself, etc, and still forgot. Too late now, but if you agree I will nominate it anyway, later in the year. I see Jimmy Edwards, above, is

1038:

I am aware of the blank page problem with the OCLC link; it is supposed to link to a page on OCLC WorldCat Identities which shows a graph and some other information related to what the person has published or has been a subject of. I think it is a problem with the template, which I don't know how to

607:

You will need to prove that the Mother Goose picture was first published before 1923. ... Maybe the 1946 magazine says that it is a reproduction of a postcard or something? Otherwise, you have three options: 1. do the research to find out where/when it was first published; 2. find another image that

9870:

I have drafted and posted an extended lead. My next task will be prose trimming, which I always do when a draft is complete and which normally brings about a useful and welcome loss of verbiage and unnecessary detail. I'm not hurrying with this, since we have agreed not to seek a peer review until

9809:

Dear brian riley, the reputation section is spot-on, I'd say. When rejigging the list of NC's books please note my concealed comment about "Cardus on Cricket", which Brookes dates to 1951 but is, I think, even earlier. At all events I've got it in the wrong place now and I'll adjust shortly. I have

9318:

Daniels's book is a great browser. Wouldn't the aforementioned beloved reward you with it as a Christmas gift, if you did pretty-please? I have managed to squeeze my own beloved for a bookcase, which gives me housing for another 150 books (or 200 paperbacks) – less the 130 or so that currently live

6877:

Mmm OK. Its just very poor that we only have one section at GA for "architecture". We should have thousands of good articles all organized by things like as "Country houses" and such. If a project existed it would only be a loose organization anyway, experience has told me wikiprojects are mostly a

5916:

among other of your supercilious comments there. In trying to improve that dreadful clunky lead sentence I did not expect to encounter such organised resistance. I wish you well in your future career in FAC; I will certainly not comment again in that particular discussion, but I will perhaps try to

4842:

I'm back in harness. First, thanks for monitoring Kathleen after her TFA mauling; it looks as though most of the necessary work was done on the spot by the anti-vandal squad and that no lasting damage was done. What fun some wikimorons must have had defacing an article like that. Cancer - hilarious

4408:

Hi Tim, I prefer succinct alt text that describes important aspects of an image that are readily apparent to sighted users. But because of the way images work on Knowledge, we often need to add alt text to images where *describing* them isn't that important to an article, so in some cases, even alt

3104:

Well, knowing your lithe wit, and remembering that certain types of dancing can give you the giggles... but I guess that has something to do with tutus! Seriously, thank you. Any tips based on your long GA experience would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure. I think hints on which way to go for honey

1667:

Thank you for the GA review, I will definitely take yours and User:Brianboulton advice, and try the article for peer review and FA. My idea for the splitting of the article is to retain the History and Roles section and break off the officers section and create a another article called 'Officers of

1558:

and four valses-caprices. These sets display the change in his style, over the decades, from uncomplicated youthful charm to a final enigmatic but sometimes fiery introspection, by way of a turbulent period in his middle years. His other notable piano pieces, including shorter works, or collections

1428:

That's a great story! I can see you'd have a good line in OR. The one time I found myself on Ischia, I was sorry it was closed season for the house and garden. It must be an amazing place. Sadly, Lady Walton is no longer around. Happily though, her legacy looks good, including that music programme.

1125:

As far as I know, this is NOT an article you have ever edited, or have any particular interest in (although it does, naturally, mention Sir Arthur Sullivan). Some one wants to hijack it for academic musical theory as opposed to general interest (at least that is my impression) and s/he and I have a

817:

Not at all. I claim no proprietary rights – fiddle away! A piece of OR: when I was a lad in the 1960s I was sometimes allowed to slip into rehearsals. Little lingers in the memory, but I do smile to recall that in the finale of the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto, when the big tune arrived JB turned to

10026:

for taking the time to contribute to the peer review for this article. I believe I have addressed your concerns, apart from still needing to expand the RVW paragraph in the program section (which I knew was incomplete) and reducing the number of citations when possible. I am happy to address these

7849:

I have to go to the BL next week (Brianboulton is masterminding a revision of the Rite of Spring article) and will make a point of ordering Starr's book. (Of course I'm still speaking to you! Your amiable kick on the shin was well within the rules of engagement. I was away for most of July (France

7836:

Would be great Tim if you are visiting the British Library anytime next week to see if you can get hold of a copy of Michael Starr's 1991 biography and see if it has anything of value. Google book researching I'd rate it as one of the very best books on him, second only to the Lewis one unless I'm

5934:

Thank you for your reply. It is possible to disagree with people without sounding patronising or supercilious. I am afraid I find your comment somewhat unsatisfactory; the most obvious examples are your use of the word "obsession" to describe my comments, and your assumption that I am not familiar

4624:

The family tree is terrific! There was a messy, extended tree as an appendix to the original version, poorly drawn and over-detailed, which I tried to adapt but gave up on. Yours does the job perfectly. I have added sourcing details (the two main books have family trees). You could if you wish add

3445:

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were the peer review LOL. Yes if you look at the top you'll see it has already been requested for peer review. What I meant is that I know you are capable of most thorough reviews which definitely improve the quality of the article by the time the review is

2712:

I consider the person in question a mentor and friend too, just quietly - which is exactly why his (or her??) stubborness and "brisk" tone gets up my nose so much at times! Back on topic - I think your draft - while it does of course still need more work - should really replace the current article

1326:

I am sorry I haven’t responded to your request for comments a while back. As I think I wrote before Fauré is not really my cup of tea (outside the songs), so there’s not much for me to say (I only bought the Howat book for the other three composers...). I have now read through the article and it's

90:

I can't believe you find the article so good. Thanks. I worked on it after it failed its FAC thrice (taken by a friend of mine). I think I will change dueling to conflicting. Actually the singers third album was a double one. The first disc contains ballads and shows the artist underneath her make

9601:

A point to consider, re "Australia". I had conceived this section as dealing with Cardus's 1940–47 sojourn rather than encompassing his earlier visits. By this reckoning, the second paragraph of the remodelled Australia section (Bradman etc) would be transferred to the cricket section (he went to

3184:

Thanks for leaving the message about this on my talk page. It seems like the conundrum over the Sexuality section will not go away, between the wording issue and the one over content (including a threat on my talk page to remove some content or else). Now you know why I skipped ahead to the Music

3123:

Thank you very much for taking the time to sift through the article. I'm sure your helpfully couched remarks will be useful. Preparing for Knowledge PR can be a daunting task for guys like us with little experience of the process. At least, that's how I feel... My own inclination would be to make

2928:

being delighted at what I took to be the vast and impressive monument dedicated by France to a great composer, with the single word "Faure" on it. In fact, as I was crestfallen to discover, Gabriel is buried in a very modest grave elsewhere in Paris, and the great pile in Père Lachaise is for the

2668:

general lead, that would at least allow different people to have a go at their own sections. My own background is probably too "generalist" and my own music library too limited to do much serious work on anything else. The very fact that parody in music means so many different things to different

1177:

prose! That's really helpful because I get thoroughly confused about WP practices in general. So far I've found just two small "factual" queries (family/chronology) which I erroneously tried to address in the same ways that I would have done had the article not been put up for PR. I'd be happy to

9953:

which I think ought to be checked out to just verify that this is the case. I think they may be right that a lot of material on Nostradamus is pure speculation, and credibility of sources may range wildly, but I have a feeling that it could be made more comprehensive and improved, aside from the

8080:

Tim, I find it extremely sad that you seem to have decided to leave – practically, a bolt from the blue. It has been a real honour to have the chance to collaborate with you and receive the benefit of your advice, wit and warm humanity. You will be sorely missed by many here, I suspect. All good

7941:

down to 114kb now, I'm thinking somewhere between 100 and 110kb. I don't want it to get down to a point where important information or quotes which reveal a great insight into his personality are removed. So far I've managed to condense without really affecting its comprehension, which was why I

6976:

The articles are arriving by email, many thanks. I've not been able to read them yet, but some look intriguing. Could you let me know what book sources you intend to use for your part of the project? From the list on the workpage I have the Peter Hill, the T. F. Kelly and the Grout & Palisca

6587:

Tim, thank you so very much. I'm very pleased you're happy with it now and your support, and the huge efforts you've made to improve the article, are valued and much appreciated. It strikes me that I may be able to return the favour one day. I know next to nothing about music but 20th century

6200:

It is greatly to be hoped that you have viewed Ozu's film, as you would then not only understand what I mean by its musical rhythm, but also its cinematic significance. (I have never read an unfavorable review of the film by any critic.) Of course, I am here to answer any questions you may have.

4753:

in March 1944? Google searches return empty. Any article dealinw with any of the early performances of this work would be most welcome. Also, anything on the Israel premiere in 1962, which Tippett briefly mentions in his autobiography but says nothing about, would be marvellous. In your own good

10150:

I shall be off-wiki until 28th, holed up in deepest Camberwell. I doubt I shall be online during that time, so Cardus and other current issues will be on hold for a few days. I have made a couple of small edits to the "Australia" section, merely to improve continuity with the previous sections;

7662:

Well, I'm glad to have restored someone's spirit, anyway. I actually have a lot of sympathy for BR: he's a big-picture, technical-type guy, and the kind of sharp practice I described is pretty much the only way to get anything to happen in that field, given the general ossification of community

6753:

system is better; it's really just an optimisation of harvnb. I think that would be an excellent next step. It works the same way, but with a shortened syntax. It would reduce the amount of non-prose in the article body by at least several kilobytes, making things easier to read in the editbox.

6640:

Tim, I really appreciate your support, and your efforts with checking the sources. I have to say I was disappointed by the number of errors you found, and the process of correcting them was painful. I think the root of the problem lies in the fact that I didn't understand how to cite properly

6086: 6053:

Hi Tim. Thank you for the hilarity. Which reached me just after brute of a dental extraction, so I'm still trying to get my teeth into some of them... (btw, I just assumed as common knowledge the fact that Lewis then had to be referred to in Italian by a Popeye name). As regards your work on my

5323:

which is now sitting in Peer Review, and would be grateful if, when you have caught up on the doings of Alec, you could give it a glance and maybe a comment or two. In January 1975 this penniless student saved up for a Royal Festival Hall ticket for a performance of Child in honour of MT's 70th

1647:

No problem at all, I anticipated this and already have a solution of how the article could be split. But I am obviously biased and would not want to separate a thing from it! The article have low editor traffic, maybe it is best we approach some instead of waiting for them? And yes I saw the FA

1062:

about redirecting the link; I imagine there is a bot that could do it... In re: your other question, I am a librarian and am conversant with the structure of the LC authorities database, which can be quirky at times; however, I am not the only one doing this work because I know other people are

8464:

Tim's problem was that he expected all editors to behave with the same grace and good manners that he displayed in his dealings with the community. He generally avoided conflict, but in the end could not escape from the harsh, contemptuous style that is increasingly the method whereby certain

8447:

I can't remember how much direct contact we've had in the past, Tim, but I've been a quiet fan of your invaluable work on Gilbert and Sullivan related material and other topics. I was sad to learn just now from a mutual friend that you're going. I can certainly understand being frustrated with

8232:

I am gutted. Tim: an excellent editor, a great mentor, a charismatic wit and a thoroughly nice chap. You helped me with so many articles and often replied to my spontaneous private emails at silly o'clock in the morning in the interests of the articles upon which I contributed too. You were

6757:

As I said to Tim on my talk, I'd have helped earlier if I'd been aware of this article. The point of the longish post on my talk and on Graham's was to improve the calibre of the reviewing of articles. The process should have identified the issues I saw, but didn't. I'm seeking to change that.

4969:

currently seems rather rudimentary and I wonder whether it would be regarded as suitable for listing on the Main page - any thoughts? I'm more or less back in action here after various alarums and excursions so could probably spend a bit of time on beefing it up if I can track down my Book of

2533:

Having missed Fred Delius's 150th birthday a couple of weeks back, we have also overlooked German's 150th which is today. German is presumably well regarded in Brit light opera circles, and probably deserves a better article than he's got. I daresay Ssilvers has it on his "to-do" list. Or you?

2431:

It was already greatly cut down for GAN and we decided that it really can't get much shorter without jeopardising some of the important information. Cutting it by a third would damage its level of comprehension. It would be possible to shorten it a bit but not by a third I don't think without

4702:) whose article you have greatly developed. All three were taken in 1933. At least one of them ought to be usable, but I thought it best to let you decide. Regarding the image showing Monteux with his wife and daughter, the original caption identifies his wife as a former American vocalist ( 608:

you like just as much; or 3. convert it into a "fair use" description: if you discuss the subject of the image in your text adequately, using the image to exemplify what is being talked about in the text, it should pass the overbroad NFCC#8. Let me know if you have questions about that." --

2220:

George, it's a question of line drawing. I think we all agree that you don't need to repeat the same cite for 10 consecutive sentences in a row. On the other hand, I think that only using it once in those 10 sentences is not enough to reassure the readers (and FA reviewers) that *all* the

7454:

widely considered to have mellowed as a conductor in later years. He recorded many works two or three times at various stages of his career, and was a prolific recording artist, making more than 250 recordings, including 45 complete opera sets. The most famous of his recordings is probably

2241:, referencing after every sentence is, of course, unnecessary. However a lot of information will require a certain number of references after, say, three or four periods, as some would question the verifiability of the text. I dont know about yourself, but SS, Tim and I have all sat the 7779:

Good. I have the BL and Walsh and others on my schedule for tomorrow. I propose to ignore the 3 vols of corresp with Ansermet. My French isn't up to it and I don't know that Ansermet was on the inside track in any case. I'll rummage and gather material and then report back to you as GOC.

1986:

Probably, I think, assuming that a reference applies to all the assertions between it and the one before it - with which I have some sympathy - but I know from experience at FAC etc that such a liberal view won't wash in WP, and you have to put in a ref after more or less any assertion.

6848:

I was wondering if you or you know anybody who'd be interested in such a project. One of my chief loves is British country houses and I don't at present see a project set up to help coordinate it and to collaborate over. If interested let me know and I'll consider making a proposal.♦

6054:

childhood hero, Pietro Monti, I apologise for partially duplicating an issue about the RAI orchestrathat had already been raised elsewhere at PR and have now moved it elsewhere (the comment, not the orchestra). I'll postpone posting any other wry remarks until you're ready. Best, —

4796:

Hi Tim, When you have a moment can you take a look at the above as a drive-by editor has kindly visited. The edits look like minor grammatical errors but I thought I'd check before doing any reverts. They have only four edits in their contributions all of which are for JO. --

3797:. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Knowledge, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator. 9282:

review of Daniels's book: "With the possible exception of Bernard Levin, Cardus helped to educate more readers than any journalist who has written for an English newspaper". Isn't that promoting little Bernard and his prejudices somewhat beyond his station? (discuss).

6197:, about a recent Asian (specifically, Indonesian) film, which has since passed its Featured Article candidacy; and 2) your specialty is music, and Ozu's films strike me as very musical and abstract in their rhythm and structure (see the Style section of the article). 10027:

concerns as I continue expanding the article. If there are any concerns still needing to be addressed, or if you have any responses to my replies, feel free to let me know. Thanks so much! Looking forward to taking this article to GAN, then FAC in the near future. --

2686:

Playing around? Looks absolutely brilliant to me! Just exactly what we want. I think we could easily do worse than just plug that straight into the article. I'm sure there are people who will want to change things here and there, but for one I am deeply impressed.

2249:

and not about one-upmanship. If your deletions had of been discussed on the talk page of that article, then this could have been resolved there and then. I encourage you to keep a beady eye on "over-citing" and look forward to working with you in the future. --

9637:

The way you've recast the article seems to me spot-on. I'd have no strong objection to moving the 1936/37 Ashes tour stuff up if you prefer, but I think it eases the way into the wartime Australian section. As to his private visit in 1938, he arrived in January

9484:, as almost all of the sources are books and Google preview doesn't appear to be of much help. You've been of great assistance in such cases before (see how our good deeds of the past come back to haunt us!) so if you've time it'd be much appreciated... Cheers, 10320:

Naturally, if Her Majesty stood up all the audience would do so too. Unnecessary to mention that. I daresay she might do so at Messiah, out of tradition, but the point is that the old tales about King George starting the tradition have long been discredited.

5432:

I don't think, on the strength of research to date, that Cosima is going to emerge unfrightful, even with due observance of encyclopedic neutrality. For what it's worth, the sources accumulated to date are listed in my sandboxes 7 and 8 (links on my userpage)

6861:

It really isn't my strong suit. I'll happily pay my entrance fee and wander round Chatsworth or Rufford Old Hall, but I'm really rather ignorant. At your service for copy edits, peer review or research, but I don't think I'd be a useful member of a project.

6594:, if you've plans for any others in the pipeline, I'd be delighted to help if I can. My real focus is pre-WWII, Asquith, L-G, Baldwin etc. but I can cover more modern figures too. Just call on me anytime if you think I may be able to help. Best regards. 5389:

Will do, of course. I bought a remaindered biog of her weird daughter in law Winifred a year or two ago, but didn't get very far into it before deciding to read elsewhere. But I'll enjoy rummaging for Cosima stuff. More shortly, probably by off-Wiki email.

2713:

without further ado. The "holes" may be best sorted out by the various parties, most of whom have (or had) a much more restricted idea of the scope of the article - along the "my kind of music is the only kind" trail. Let them each fix up their own "bit". --

850:, I was looking forward to reaching a detail in Smiley's observation and reasoning which for some reason had stuck in my mind over the years — so interesting to compare the memory with the original... Which turned out to be even better than I remembered it!) 9303:

us in, as opposed to entertaining us or politicking at us, I can't imagine. I must get hold of Daniels's book forthwith. As blood (mine) will be spilled if I attempt to smuggle more books into Riley Towers I'd better go and read it at the British Library.

9948:

Thanks Tim. The editors dispute that the article doesn't contain a comprehensive coverage of him. They may be right at least in regards to that, maybe not much is known about his life as such, but there are a few biographical books on Nostradamus such as

3042:

Hi Tim. You have contributed greatly to featured articles, and therefore know what content meets class A standards. Charles Dickens article has been of a low standard for a long period and edits unvetted, and the one issue that needs to be dealt with in

4608:

PS: I am very pleased you've decided to take a look at Tichborne. I had thought, in view of your services beyond the call of duty re Claudio the Inestimable, that you deserved a rest from my witterings, but any help you can give is more than welcome!

4541:

Yes, I'm sure Pyotr Ilyich thought the music of Gabriel Toussaint-Honorévich "tres adorablé" but I'm having a challenge reading through the occasional rough spots in his article. Mind if I do some tinkering? I'll try not to ruin things too horribly.

493:

It's just that I can't be doing with Monteverdi, and both the Bold Sir Brian and I therefore find a certain piquancy in my regular rummaging in the archives for Monteverdian material. The Rinuccini the Craftsman article is now safely on its way, BB.

9929:

I'll look at this thoroughly over the next few days. At first glance it seems very slim for a Featured Article of 2012 standard, yet some of the comments I briefly skimmed through on the article talk page showed serious grasp, I thought. More anon.

8531:

Tim - extremely sad news. Your contribution just to my little bit of the wikiworld was immense, and your wider contribution much greater still. It was an absolute pleasure to work with you and I deeply regret that I won't be able to do so again.

1387:

Sir John - Gosh, good thing you didn't do much more than pass the time of day with her, or you would have been had up for OR! I've borrowed the book from the public library, and I agree it's a charmer (I also greatly enjoyed reading Susana Walton's

4573:

Could you tell me more about the scandal over the Pris de Rome? The date you give it 1905 and mention Ravel but, according to the Wiki article on Ravel, he was denied the Pris for the third time and expelled from the Conservatoire in 1895. Thanks.

2669:

people I find more interesting than confusing - but I seem to be in a minority of one. Perhaps I just need to take this one - and anything else that has ever been edited by a certain person - off my watch list, and concentrate on something else. --

6224:

I do indeed consider it an honour to be invited, and will certainly contribute to the peer review. I have added my first lot of comments but I have a bit of a backlog on PRs and FACs, and so may be a few days in completing my work on Late Spring.

1525: 8448:

Knowledge attitudes--the 2 after my name is on there because I once deliberately scrambled and destroyed the password to my account, so great was my irritation--but I hope you'll also consider some day returning. We'll leave a light on for you.

7569:

Anybody have any estimates of how many men have been made a Sir in British history? Would be interesting to see a full list since 1100 or whenever. I wonder if it would be possible. Might uncover many missing notable medieval personalities.♦

1619:. Much of the ambidextrous Fauré's piano music is difficult to play, but it is rarely virtuoso in style. The composer disliked showy display, and the predominant characteristic of his piano music is a classical restraint and understatement. ( 10100:

The image is thought to show the monster "ARBCOM" (arm raised, with firebrand) about to deliver retribution to a cowering Wikipedian (on the right). An alternative theory says it depicts Raul in the process of appointing a new TFA delegate.

312:"...disentangles every knot". This, I am fairly sure, is from one of the G&S operas. I want to quote it on the FAC talkpage. Can you confirm its accuracy and say where it comes from? Better still, do you know what comes just before it? 8102:

encyclopedia as much as anybody's and content easily makes it worthwhile above the heartache in my opinion. Yes you should be thicker skinned than this but if it is affecting you take a long break, but I do so hope it won't be permanent.♦

8361:

As above, I can only say I'm desperately sorry to see you go, and I wish you all the best for your next project! You've been one of the best writers and most helpful editors I've seen on-wiki in recent years, and you'll be sorely missed.

3314:

It depends whether you ask an American or an Englishman. I believe the American would say "provided that she protect her neutrality", but British writers have been less keen on the subjunctive for most of the past two centuries: in 1926

1363:

Thank you very much both for the comments on the prose and for your kind words. By the way, Ms Knowles is married now. She just had a baby. :D Hey, thank you again. You are too good. I will reply to your comments on my talk-page. Okay?

4769:

Tippett goodies received with many thanks. I am not a big fan of Michael's; in particular his operas leave me stone cold. But early in his career he wrote, I believe, two works of some quality. One is his Double Concerto, the other is

2313:

Unfortunately, I am not nearly as active in editing as I used to be and I'm sure I'm far behind the current standards and practices. I wouldn't be much help. Although I'm thinking, with your FA as motivation, to get back into editing.

4088:

I don't know whether you nominated this article for TFA but noticed in the FAR archive that you nominated it for FA. In any case, congratulations and well done! (Now all you need is a baseball bat to beat away the potential vandals.)

7699:

The whole "Performance history and reception" section: Premiere, Early revivals, Later performances. I would like to contribute to the discussion of more recent performances, in particular the efforts to recreate Nijinsky's original

2191:

That's a very nice and obviously well-researched piece of work, although I'd say that the lead is inadequate. I don't see that it supports your basic contention though, but as you've opted to pull rank then so be it, do as you will.

7713:

When you have your breath back, please give me a ping and we can decide how to tackle the outstanding work. There is some interest shown in our expansion on the article's talkpage. I hope you enjoyed your break - I am very envious.

4706:), so I presume she must be Doris Hodgkins Monteux. The dates also concur. I thought at first that her daughter's name, Nancie, was a misspelling of Nancy (just as Monteux is consistently misspelled Montoux), but according to this 3047:

was one editors sweeping allegations. This subject in particular, has been in dire need of a collaboration and discussion among editors, and not one editors POV, so that consensus on the material is reached on talkpage, and the

6588:

British politics is another abiding interst of mine and I have a fairly large collection of diaries/autobiographies/letters etc. of many of the participants. I noticed your great work on Alec Douglas-Home too late to assist -

3188:

It seems like no matter where we fall on the language issue, someone, somewhere is going to have an issue about it. Therefore, the bottom line seem to be how to minimize the potential damage. In other words, what we need is a

5232:

I stumbled across your Douglas-Home article a few days ago through his cricket connection, and noticed in the peer review a mention of the D'Oliveria affair. Through a different route, I've also found some decent sources on

6742:

Hi, Tim, KJP. I'm quite sure I fixed technical issues in the article. I'm pretty sure I didn't touch the content other than the odd bit of punctuation and formatting. And a spelling fix. The harvnb system is good, but the

3334:

Stiff and formal, riley? I concur exactly with your explanation of the US/UK usage, but to me the subjunctive feels like a sweet, strong cup of coffee - very satisfying; precise and delicious. :-) -- The Brisk American

2443:

Depending on what the kb of readable prose is at the moment it should be possible to whittle it down to around 100 kb but I did shrink it down a great deal for the GAN and actually I ended up restoring a lot of it because

7684:

I've made progress; basically, I have written a "Creation" section (Concept, Composition and Realisation), replaced the "Music" section with something more readable, and added a short summary on the published editions of

4818:

I think the minor changes to the text are OK, but I've left a comment on the article talk page that you might like to add to. Having posted it, I see that Ssilvers is ahead of me and and made a similar comment yesterday.

4593:

I remembered to nominate for TFA, but the responses on the request page has been, well, underwhelming. If you could kickstart a little enthusiasm there, that would be great. I have left my Faure comments on the PR page.

3446:

over because you tend to spot a lot of things most GA reviewers won't but will be spotted should it ever be nominated for FA. It was intended as a compliment, I hope you are not offended or thought it inappropriate. ♦

6645:

found the article and, in correcting the mess that was there before he did, I cut-and-pasted heavily. In doing so, it's clear I got some wrong. I'm very grateful for your help in putting them right. Best regards.

3769:

page that has been the location of LGBT harassment or ignorance, that way the haters will know the only consequence of their hate will be more gayness and education and community. Congratulations on being an unhater!

8272:

A many-month wikibreak did wonders for buoying my spirits, I hope it can do the same for you. Maybe we'll even have some new practical-solutions for the facepalmery by then. (If you think of anything, drop a note at

4173:

Point taken! Well, that was all surprisingly painless. No need to hit anybody with my cricket bat; a few forward defensive prods were all I needed. Solicitous Wiki-colleagues saw off the smutty schoolboys, and the

7961:

Just to let you know I've finally sorted out the music MS we discussed back in June and should be able to start uploading images quite soon - I'll let you know when they're up on Commons and send a list through.

9695:

Thank you so much for uploading the image of the four composers -- it looks great! Also, I just wrote a question for you on the review page. Thanks for your assistance, again, for both the review and the image.

9120:

Welcome back Tim, your return is one of the main reasons I'm also back. Please let's work together as a team to focus on content and eradicate the self-important assholes from interfering with what we do best.♦

604:, which was uploaded by the late User:kbThompson. Tim, this was a PeoplePlay image - It says Theatre museum. Where have the PeoplPlay images gone? As for the mother goose image, what I said to Cassianto was: 8009:

No intention to canvas here about infoboxes, involved individuals, or anything else. Rather, to use this concrete example to raise an issue which goes beyond individual personalities or any particular dispute.

2629:

I agree that all that stuff doesn't go in the Lead, but it's at least as good as the unreferenced crap that's currently in the body, so I wove it into the body. But this entire article is utter unreferenced

957:

Congratulations, but, ah! I knew it would come sooner or later. You have abandoned Victoriana and classical music to devote yourself heart and soul to The Beyoncé Knowles WikiProject. Woe be unto us. --

6255:

Thank you, Mr. Riley, for your judicious comments. In almost all the passages you mentioned, I will make the suggested correction, or try to find another way to work around the problem. A thousand thanks!

8006:

This is to let you know that I've begun a thread on Jimbo's talk page which takes as an example the content of an interaction in which we were involved. As I've written in a prominent disclaimer, there's

990:

Your kind words are greatly appreciated, Jivesh. Pray ignore Ssilvers, above, who is my friend and regular collaborator on Knowledge projects and who is enjoying himself at catching me ski-ing off-piste.

10151:

otherwise I still have a little trimming to do on my own prose. Please feel free to polish up the loose ends I leave in my wake. I do hope that you have a thoroughly satisfactory and restful Christmas.

7865:

Excellent, how was Cumbria? I've done a bit of work on it recently, beautiful the Lake district! What are you working on at the moment? KJP and I are due to begin on Cardiff Castle sometime, to GA...♦

6796:

Thanks for the excellent sources spot-check, the issue you raised is now resolved. I hope you can find the time to look over the article, maybe make some comments if needed and !vote, thanks again. ~

1523: 7938: 9647:

Curious that neither of his biographers mentions the trip. I find the Australian Trove site, whence the three cuttings above come, a useful resource for all sorts of things. I've just been using it

7731:

I am, as I type, in the music reading room of the British Library with Peter Hill's and Pieter van den Toorn's Rite of Spring books before me. I scribe away diligently and will report back shortly.

1648:

nomination for Swedish heraldry, it's a wonderful article and should pass with no problem at all. My expertise is restricted to just Gallo-British heraldry (more precisely English and Scottish) and

2901:, you questioned why Bizet should seek the support of the then 26-year-old unknown Fauré in his efforts to get work staged at L'Opéra? I said "That's what the sources say" and the matter was left. 7491:

One of the best, conductor and article, thank you! I grew up with his Ring. Did you know that my user page has a reference to a recent Walküre at the Frankfurt Opera? Did you know that you are an

5747:

Hi, Tim. That was three hours of useful work you discarded. I did it because my friend Gerda had it listed as her FA-credit. She thanked me on her talk. You see the issue with the duplicate refs?

585:, the mother goose image has been identified as having a sourcing problem. SS believes you may know of the origin. If you do could you let me know so I can update its rational. All the best! -- 5287:

template was showing up as numbers... I've added a bit of information in response to your comments as well; I had forgotten to note that they were married in both a mosque and church. BTW, I've

8717:

Tim. Thanks again for your kind words about my starter articles on musicians. I had hoped to collaborate with you more in the future. Hope you will re-consider leaving. All the very best

5108:

What a pleasing surprise! Thank you so much. At your service if you ever need a proof-reader's eye over other articles. The congrats are mutual with the Batavia massacre also being promoted.

4458:

for attention this autumn (it's about 4th or 5th on my priority list, though that changes quite often). Would you like to join this project as a conom? It occurs to me that, if you are doing

8168:

You know what's best for you. But there are people who are trying to improve the atmosphere, especially in the FA realm. Please look in and dip your toe in the water from time to time.--

10018: 8220:

Ditto Wehwalt and Br'er Rabbit. I only crossed paths with you briefly but it was lovely and productive. Thanks for your contributions, and we will welcome you back if you choose to return.

1524: 5404:

Sent, with five other articles that may be of use. I look forward to an article purporting to prove that she wasn't frightful, and I am stockpiling hand grenades to lob in at peer review.

5015:. Actually, I read the (as usual for WP, convoluted) rules and think that I did put my Lear one-liner in the right place, but confirmation from your learned friends would be welcome. -- 2280:

Just passing along some kudos for TFA. The article looks fantastic. Congrats and hope to see more of your work in the future. We need to see more classical music representation! Cheers.

2016:

Well, it's a matter of proportion, no doubt. And we all have our different outlook thereon. This is why PR (as well as on-the-hoof prodding by one's WP colleagues) is such a good thing.

3929:. On leaving the university, he was taken up by the literary Sitwell siblings, who provided him with a home and a cultural education. His earliest work of note was a collaboration with 3239:

Hello Tim riley. I have nominated the above article for Good Article status and would be very obliged if you could review it for me. I think you might find it interesting. Best wishes,

2162:

I have to disagree. My view is neither liberal nor deprecated at FAC. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that over-citing is just as likely to lead to problems at FAC as under-citing.

8731:

As someone whom you may well have classed with the "less than perfect" editors - PLEASE reconsider. You (and editors with your qualities) are what Knowledge needs more of, not less. --

6821:

Cosima: my expansion is done. Later today I will submit it for peer review and will be very grateful if you can find time to look at it. I really must find nicer people to write about.

6372:

Thank you, Tim riley, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of

9986:

It is sad that a single user thinks it legitimate to overturn the work of knowledgable editors and the many reviewers who have peer reviewed this article and later approved it for FA

6917:

My impression is that your edit was based upon an earlier version of the article and so, besides making your change, you also inadvertently reverted the other subsequent edits. See

5418:

I think I have a book or two on the history of Bayreuth around the place; I will be home Wednesday or Thursday and will look around for any sources I have that Brian hasn't listed.--

5324:

birthday. Sitting modestly, two rows in front of us, was... Tippett. I don't think he recognised me, though. My girlfriend thought he looked "dishy"; I said, you just try your luck.

4625:

Katherine Doughty's birth year, which was 1834. I have put the chart into the article, and can only offer my awed gratitude. I will of course be dealing with your PR points shortly.

1331:

2nd para: 'sets' implies to me that these groups of works were written intentionally linked, rather than just sharing the same title over time; I don’t have a quick solution to this.

1446: 9791:

I have made some significant changes to the "Reputations" section, which perhaps you could look over. I am currently doing some work on "Books by Cardus" and also drafting a lead.

7094: 7086: 2177:

By chance, a Featured Article almost entirely written by me is on today's front page, so I may perhaps be forgiven for flattering myself that my views might not be without merit.

711:. (Daily Express, 8 November 1956, p. 6) In the BBC series, Sir Michael Redgrave read out extracts each week with a poker-faced gravity and ceremony that were irresistibly funny. 4044:. Since you participated in the Peer Review of the article, I thought you might like to comment there, and we would welcome your comments, if you have time. Happy editing! -- 9481: 9398: 650:

I am very much obliged for the Arianna article. I doubt I'll use it much in the lost operas article, but it is providing a wealth of useful information for the expansion of the

7385:. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below: 3902:(1902–1983) was an English composer. During a sixty-year career, he wrote music in several classical genres and styles, from film scores to opera. His best-known works include 3893:. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below: 1499:. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below: 386: 9507: 7545:

better? - Thanks for your heart-warming words, Tim! Go emulate, it's easy. I was inspired by those who spread peace and awesome Wikipedian stars before me and emulate them, --

5710: 5703: 5507: 5500: 9732:- basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :). 8855:

Good to see the composer featured! We didn't get Requiem as far as I hoped but had a good start, "I paradisum deducant angelis" - we will sing it once more on 10 November --

7026: 6402:

is getting a GAN review now from Casliber, but I'd love a peer review once he's done, if you'd like. I'd lve to review something of yours too, if you need it! Thanks again,

5959:, which I strongly recommend. I prefer the second (Gowers) edition, but even the third, rather quirky, edition by Burchfield is worth reading. As far as I know there was no 3710:

Straight off I usually claim 15 — a couple of months back, that is... My friends south of the Alps are usually happy to play along, and some of the girls are quite polite. —

890:... oops! I'm afraid the edits I've been making may be more of a hindrance than a help. If so, please accept my apologies. And, of course, feel free to revert or whatever. 382: 6961:

is where I am stacking lists of sources for the Rite project. I will add your JSTOR contributions as they come through. Feel free to add things that you think desirable.

4873:

Can you, or one of your watchers, identify from their initials a couple of music critics who were active in the 1940s and probably later? The first is "E.E." who wrote in

679:, a TV programme inspired by Beachcomber. I'm not sure they were invented by Beachcomber? It seems much more like a Milligan invention to me, but I could be wrong though. 7098: 6611:

Dear Tim, I've gone through my "No ISBN" references replacing with the appropriate OCLCs. Very helpful, thank you. I'm wondering if you can help with one other issue.

2511:

Hi Tim, thanks for doing assessment. I've yielded to all of your suggestions so far. Hopefully this can all be dealt with before I face any blowback from the Fae RFC/U.--

10042: 7080: 6153:

You deserve another of these for your great efforts today in visiting the British Library to which KJP and I owe you for! Thankyou! BTW I and a few others intend to get

4854:. It is almost completely incomprehensible, even to the likes of me who read music articles regularly. Almost, though not quite, enough to drive me into the Riley camp! 9968:

Thanks. Yes I think the best thing would be to concentrate on improving it with sources and sorting out the ref system. At least then it'll technically be more sound.♦

9728:. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of 7985:, who has wandered somewhat bemusedly into the FAC cauldron. I think you were away when this was peer reviewed, but I'd welcome any comment you might care to add now. 3560:. I've requested a citation for quite a strong claim about its peak but the article writer believes it is unnecessary. Can you offer some input as to what you think?♦ 49: 9871:

the New Year. I won't touch the Australia section - you can do your own tinkering here. Any tidying up of my often wayward prose and punc will always be appreciated.

9537: 7382: 7112: 5288: 3979:

Finding you had somehow managed to get Sir Georg to FA without the benefit of my proof reading skills, I created the above by way of thanking you for your review of

3890: 3746: 2859: 1496: 45: 37: 9842:

I have grave doubts if The Essential NC should be in biographical. I'll order it at the British Library (probably stored offsite, so a 48-hour delivery) and check.

8296:

Solti, Messiah together - I returned from a unique concert and wanted to write about it, but am not in the mood, reading this. - You watched my user, changing from

4067:

The lady has arrived at FAC and I hope you will visit her there. If you do, beware her warning: "Si tu me n'aime pas, je t'aime; Si je t'aime, prends garde à toi!"

2873: 9979: 2892: 2865: 8414:

I had also looked forward to that one... In fact, I had promised to do a source review of one of his articles as a token of thanks for his brilliant copy-edit of

220: 167: 8820:

It was a great experience! Only afterwards I heard that Henze died. - Congrats to Pierre Monteux, FA before I even found time to support, well deserved again ;)

7093:

because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the

4312: 4192:

One registered user was serially replacing the article with SOS messages asking to be blocked permanently. I trundled off to the Help desk to pass the potato. —

3972: 656:

article on which I am working spasmodically. On an unrelated matter, was it Beaachcomber who produced the List of the Huntingdonshire Cabmen? And wasn't this a

44:

because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the

8979: 5731: 5528: 5488: 4178:

good faith edits were few, innocuous, and easily remedied. And, of course, there were a couple of genuine improvements, which I have gratefully left in place.

3179: 1691:

getting his day in the TFA sun, so music is not altogether forgotten. (It's Kathleen Ferrier's centenary in April; for God's sake don't let me overlook that).

6100:

For exemplary performance in tome-diving research, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. –

3786: 1637: 216: 163: 31: 3732:

Hi Tim, thanks for the message and kind words. I am 'dipping my toe' in Knowledge again after recent events. Likewise, if you need help you know where I am.

1460: 7134: 3297:

And may I kindly ask for some assistance with the English grammar in another Norwegian's article? Am I right in thinking that the subjunctive is called for

307: 8802: 8780: 6677: 10057: 9765: 9446: 3835: 3778: 3472:

Eesh things are hectic a the moment, I'm struggling to remember everything I need to attend to as it is. Can you re-remind me in two or three days time?♦

2696: 2649:

Where are we with this article after your recent appeal for comments. If I can be of any help in revising the page, please don't hesitate to let me know.

7107: 2887: 285: 7130: 6176:

I would like to ask, if it's not too late, if you would take the time to peer review an article to which I have given a great deal of loving attention:

4338: 2918: 2370: 686: 125: 8442: 7823: 5981:

I prefer to keep conversations about the same topic threaded in one place rather than distribute them. Quite a lot of editors have similar policies. --

3854: 3801: 3793: 2512: 8740: 8726: 8213: 7164: 5461:

If you would care for another frightful person, I have dropped this one off at peer review. I'm actually rather surprised that I kept it under 90K.--

5026: 5002: 3840: 2500: 2469: 707:). (Daily Express, 2 September 1958, p. 6) The original English version was in five volumes, but a single-volume selection existed under the title of 9997: 8974: 7378: 7346: 6168: 5726: 5523: 5483: 3886: 2968: 2878:

to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

2215: 2201: 2186: 1739: 1492: 1247: 720: 321: 9880: 9582: 9573:? If so, can I refer you to p. 139 of Brookes, and ask you to check out the quote on that page concerning Delius, and also provide the page number? 9564: 8864: 8850: 8832: 8602: 8352: 8335: 6986: 6292:

I promise I haven't forgotten to complete my review, but I am unusually snowed under and I can only beg your patience. I'll be there, I assure you.

4931: 4913: 4785: 4649: 4634: 2678: 326: 202: 9891: 9536:

NC refers to a book he edited after Langford's death, comprising a selection of Langford's music writings. I have tracked it down; the details are

9080: 8687: 8517:

I know the feeling, and everybody needs a break; however please rejoin this nuthouse when the time is right; sooner than later; enjoy your break...

8496: 8478: 8313: 8197: 2799: 2743: 1017: 1000: 64: 10393: 9416: 8945:. This award is given to a few people who are regarded experts in one or several particular fields. Congrats and keep up your excellent work :)!-- 8405: 8371: 7646: 6279: 6218: 5955:

Good gracious! If those are your very best wishes I should be reluctant to meet your worst. You seem to have overlooked my steer towards Fowler's

5300: 3202: 1072: 985: 10335:

I see you didn't take it out. I'm not so sure it's common knowledge that if the king stands, you do too. Some of us didn't grow up with a king.—

9865: 9851: 9837: 9819: 9684: 9625: 9611: 9596: 9386: 9356: 9332: 9313: 8630: 7916: 7885:; following up my task from the recent WWI Wiki-bash at the BL; and The Rite of Spring. Happy to help if I can with Cardiff Castle: let me know. 7789: 7762: 7740: 7554: 7536: 7522: 7504: 6484: 5549: 5399: 4351: 4333: 2942: 2618: 2563: 1872: 738: 488: 474: 456: 10360: 10330: 9960: 9939: 9034: 8692:

Just got back, to receive the sad news. Yes, too many morons on Knowledge. It's like the world. They should be leaving, not you. Do reconsider.

8621:

I am very surprised and sorry you have stopped, as you made so many positive contributions to many different articles. Thanks, and best wishes!

8582: 8526: 8426: 8251: 8157: 7894: 7859: 6871: 6570: 6556: 6315: 6301: 6265: 6248: 6234: 5685: 5659: 5641: 5627: 5374:, which could conceivably be useful? If your eye lights on anything else specific to Cosima, perhaps pick that up too (if not too much bother). 5131: 5117: 4683: 3992: 3967: 3804:, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on 3587: 1795: 1771: 1733: 1265: 564: 149: 9587:

I haven't got it, but I've ordered it from the British Library. It's stored offsite, alas, so I have to wait till 11th inst. I'll report back.

9114: 8759: 8701: 8616: 8286: 8267: 7999: 7332: 6542: 5809: 5600: 5565: 5442: 4390: 4370: 10012: 9412: 9157: 8457: 8385: 8225: 8177: 6837: 6145: 6131: 6063: 5413: 5219: 5206: 5167: 5147: 4890: 4828: 4536: 4237: 4219: 4201: 4154: 4140: 3719: 3705: 3663: 3329: 3309: 3292: 3275: 3261: 3133: 3118: 2986: 2039: 2025: 2011: 1996: 1438: 1215: 860: 839: 791: 503: 358: 10138: 9054: 8712: 8666: 7485: 6163: 5717: 5514: 4551: 4187: 4168: 4117: 3376: 3358: 3344: 2960: 2658: 2259: 2230: 2140: 2069: 2053: 1950: 637: 617: 79: 8025: 6767: 5427: 4868: 4567: 3364: 3221: 3016: 1823: 1791: 1767: 1295: 1261: 414: 250: 10365:

I took the point. (Mind you, if your excellent Mr. Obama stood up in mid-performance wouldn't you all rise out of respect for his office?)

9181: 8640: 8541: 6812: 6109: 6076: 4640:

the later Tichborne line, which appears to have become extinct in 1968. I will this look up in Burke later today when I visit the library.

3320:

her neutrality". So you may take your choice! Both are correct, though I find the first version stiff and formal compared with the second.

3031: 1048: 9711: 9167: 2982: 2327: 2308: 1677: 1027: 354: 197: 9461:

Fantastic work Tim, congrats to you and Gerda so far. Its great to see you back, producing consistently solid and impressive work. Best.

6005: 5152:

Congratulations on Fauré! I think we are now at the stage of assuming a TR article is an FA article. I blinked and it had vanished! --

4025: 3061: 1090: 6977:(last-named gives very little). I don't have the Stravinsky autobiog. Are there other basic titles that ought to be used, do you think? 6905: 6890: 6855: 4707: 3478: 3467: 3452: 3440: 3425: 3409: 3037: 2405:

Thanks! Yes, Ericoides kindly took those recent photographs and hopes to get more. I'll await now and see what sources the editor has.♦

8791: 7441:

he found refuge in Switzerland, where he remained during the Second World War. After the war, he was appointed musical director of the

6157:

up to FA to celebrate the centenary of Indian cinema. Your comments and ideas for improvement would be most welcome on the talk page!♦

5246: 5227: 3545:

Thanks for the barnstar!! Well it seems the three of share an interest in such articles so its a win-win situation! Great review BTW!♦

2756:

on the Parody page; you might conceivably wish to edit ruthlessly.... Given the presence of the sub-article, I limited the sourcing to

2171: 1401:

should take... There's no lack of good source material, but somehow I would see it so much better in the context of a Timbo special on

1316: 549: 6828:. Are you still up for this? If so we need to agree things like division of labour, sharing sources etc. Please ping me when you can. 5846: 5039:

Tim, you've maybe not completed the nom process. At any rate, the article doesn't appear to be listed on the FAC page - check it out.

4850:

at FAC (a week later than intended but better late... etc). While I was away I attempted to read Julian Gloag's analysis of Tippett's

3674:

Hi Tim - Sorry I've been a bit absent of late. Great to see the great Monteux getting the Timbo treatment (no screaming skulls there).

3504: 1300: 1226:

Hi Tim. I hope you are enjoying good health. Will you please be able to spare some of your free time and have a look at the prose of "

9426: 8505:

reciprocated. We've all had sour experiences with "the community" but what keeps us here is content which is always more important.♦

7144: 6680:, I'm afraid I don't understand what he's saying at all, so if it's critical, or insulting, it's quite passed me by. Best regards. 6336:) just this afternoon! I'll be delighted to take a look time permitting. I am in the middle of the exam marking cycle at the moment! 2996: 1755: 1275: 342: 230: 177: 8563: 7831: 7202: 6727: 6689: 6655: 5944: 5587: 4321: 4011: 3521: 8059: 7710:

We also need to consider the question of images, e.g. there are potential poblems with the Roerich designs - for discussion later.

5371: 4618: 4603: 3973: 3601: 3566: 3551: 2634:. One could easily argue for deleting 90% of it. If you are interested in this article, I strongly advise hitting the books. -- 1724:...and amid all this birthday stuff I also forgot to acknowledge Barbirolli's elevation, so please accept belated congratulations. 8770: 5333: 3396: 2483: 536: 441: 9954:

obvious referencing problems or lack of references. I believe that such a major article should have far more than 44 citations.♦

9268: 8805:- Gabriel Fauré, we sing his Requiem on 27 October in the Bruges Cathedral and on 10 November Wiesbaden, music of consolation, -- 8511: 8141: 8109: 7815: 7723: 6843: 5898: 4962: 4471: 3648: 2837: 10209: 9510:

which I have just listed. I would be most grateful for any comments or criticisms you may have to offer. Hope all is well! --

7275: 7182:

I see you were working on the Butterworth article as part of the WWI Editathon. Some time ago I ordered up his service file at

6527: 6385: 4981: 4738: 3174: 2722: 2543: 2118: 1980: 1113: 10160: 9690: 9522: 8092: 7284: 7183: 4863: 4304: 2854: 1700: 531: 136:

In his own words, "I like it, my boy!" Bloody good job. I've made just a few tweakettes, nothing major at all. Cheers. --

10314: 10276: 10069: 9419:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 8814: 8000: 7324: 7137:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3483: 2989:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2352: 2245:

process so we do have first hand experience. As for the "pull rank" comment, this discussion is all within the interests of

1931: 1353: 1268:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1200: 1178:

post the queries on the PR page. Should I try to undo the related edits which I so clumsily introduced? Btw, glad you enjoyed

1135: 757:? I have been writing an article on her, and in my search for sources it has struck me that I may be the first to do so since 223:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 170:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 9422: 9246: 9199:, would appreciate your copy-edit for English, musical terms and links. - In case you have more time: I feel left alone with 9095: 8958: 8755: 7624: 7601: 7140: 7075: 6503:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

5828:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

3634: 3629: 3165:, kindly drawn to my attention by Carcharoth, I have added a few words to Fred's article. Note Kathleen F was also included. 2992: 1891:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

1751: 1748:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1271: 948: 594: 338: 335:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 226: 173: 9493: 6930: 5996:

Duly noted. I am, in the circumstances, rather hoping I shall not need to avail myself of this offer. See Attlee to Lasky.

5356: 5191: 5098: 4668: 3540: 3247: 669: 10259: 9725: 9549: 9228: 9016: 7576: 6896: 6807: 6791: 5578:

To let you know, I've nominated this at FAC (I was most pleased with your friend's kind comments, please convey my thanks)

4588: 2591:

Thank you for the London opera, another great article with dedication to details about the people behind an institution, --

1718: 419: 107: 9781: 9142: 9127: 5990: 5612: 2773: 1376: 1126:

dispute going. I would especially appreciate your opinion. Perhaps you will see in his argument something I am missing. --

899: 881: 811: 776: 479:

I'm not sure I fully understand the background to all these in-jokes about old Monty Greens, but they make me chuckle :)

10047: 9974: 9923: 9319:

on the floor. On a more pressing issue, do you have any thoughts as to where we can get a free image of C.P. Scott? They

8030: 7446: 7342: 7266: 6204:

The article is rapidly approaching the two-week limit after which I understand the peer review request will be archived.

6119: 5534: 5494: 5122:

I'll keep that in mind, thanks. (Fauré must have set some record... it was nominated barely three days before promotion)

4521: 4159:

Careful on the term "drive-by," Tim. Where I live, it's a very ... ah, "loaded" term with potentially fatal results. :-)

4098: 3850: 3805: 3212:'s note to them requesting FAR. That weasel (to put it extraordinarily nicely and to make a long story extremely short). 2643: 1956: 1661: 1456: 934:", which is now an FA. May God bless both you and the day I came across a kind and helpful person like you on Knowledge. 10267:

Support! I thought of you when I placed a reference to Messiah on top of my talk, in fond memory of working together, --

10110: 9664: 9204: 8985: 8898: 7994: 7349:. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director 6710:

I should be delighted. Although, are you sure you shouldn't be devoting your attentions to his grand-father? From the

6048: 5470: 5048: 4763: 4583: 4257: 3857:. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director 3741: 3526: 1844: 1463:. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director 1242: 578:

Hi Tim, could you take a look at the above and more specifically the two pantomime images in the centre of the article.

9800: 9498: 9241: 9099: 8908: 7877:

Wet! As usual. Working on so much! New music project suggested by British Library; Not yet done with PR suggestions to

7672: 7289: 7058: 6970: 6630: 6603: 6435: 6020: 5269: 4498: 4420: 2805: 2600: 2520: 2458: 2438: 2426: 2411: 2400: 2389: 1911: 1182:. I used to be fascinated by chess, but I nearly always made terrible blunders. Same difference over here, I'm afraid. 967: 601: 302: 7971: 6948: 5756: 5571: 4662:

Hi Tim. We think this is nearing FAC, but I mentioned to KJP I think it should be peer reviewed first. Do you agree?♦

10385: 10352: 10306: 10053: 9292: 8075: 7948: 7933: 7871: 7843: 7492: 6345: 6270:

Crisco 1492 - I haven't looked over your comments yet, but when I do, I will respond on your talk page. Thanks also.

5737: 4987:

You sound as if you aren't a Lear fan, much to my surprise. I can quote reams of his stuff and just now I looked up

4812: 4076: 2463: 2293: 1168: 9001: 8293: 7615:

article as a Featured Article. (I have indicated this on the Peer Review archive page.) Thanks for your great help!

7542: 5761: 5383: 4749:

Do you know of any journal or newspaper articles that give an account of the first performance of Michael Tippett's

3690: 3267:

I am withdrawing it, but I will perhaps renominate it when I have incorporated your invaluable suggestions. Cheers.

3208:

You may have a point. As for WP editors, I was about to leave an inquiring note on the LGBT Group Talk page and saw

1419: 1158: 579: 9475: 9195:. I stopped "mourning" (no dedication this time, the ones I miss are well and alive) and went forward to uplifting 7811: 7677: 7062: 6451: 6407: 5777: 4719: 4490: 4053: 3156: 3151: 3098: 2845:

Why, thank you, dear Dr. B. (And I hardly need say to you, the help of Wiki-colleagues makes a crucial difference.

2525: 2124: 1321: 1059: 144: 8874: 6430: 5972: 5913: 5851: 5308: 4447: 1095: 570: 10281: 10145: 7174: 7090: 6773: 6350: 4699: 2609:

Thank you so much, Gerda! The article has been much improved by the attentions of reviewers, including yourself.

1683: 41: 6036: 6016:

Thank you for the kind invitation, Tim, which I shall enjoy taking up (though I'm rather glad there's no hurry).

5197:

Ego te absolvo! But I shall remorselessly take up your offer for a later FAC review in due course. Best wishes.

4314: 3557: 1620: 1538: 1452: 1032:

Hi: thanks for your message. Basically, I am adding authority control information to various biographies; see:

10165: 8706:

Don't let them get to you Tim riley, we need more editors like you. Don't let the negativity drive you away. ~

7374: 6940:

Sorry my email just crashed. Ignore my last mail. You archived it. I thought these were just from today! --

6523: 6359: 4442: 3882: 3820: 3606: 1642: 1488: 8796: 8340: 7927:. It says it explores each of his films one by one. I picked up a lot of notable info in the snippets alone.♦ 7390: 7258: 6193:

I am selecting you for this honor (if you would consider it so) for two reasons: 1) you critiqued the article

5926: 5075:

Hi Tim (or would you prefer Mr. Riley?), thanks a lot for the prose review at the recent (successful) FAC for

4834: 3654:

Constable! Someone has just stolen a paragraph from this page. Do not approach this man: he may be dangerous.

3232: 1340:

Perhaps more about his use of form, but maybe this isn’t available in reliable sources or simply not relevant.

931: 9470: 9403:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

7360: 6580: 6481:

remarks he needs "a thin moustache on the top lip and a pointed beard on the bottom" to pass for a Frenchman?

4379: 3868: 2624: 1474: 1039:

fix. I will leave a message on the talk page for the above link to see if it can be fixed. Hope this helps.--

378: 10131: 10124: 8433:

I would like to join the other editors here in wishing you well – and in hoping for a return. All the best,

5338: 5319:; quite understandable (though he had his moments). However, I have laboured to produce this account of his 5177: 4956: 4904:, so I think that is probably conclusive. That leaves the question of E.B. - I'm sure we'll track him down. 2933:, who took Clintonian goings-on to a fatal level, died a happy man, and is buried near the vast monument. – 2909:, L'Opéra's star baritone. OH my oh my oh my. I've corrected the text, but my shame will live for evermore. 797: 748: 695:. The List of Huntingdonshire Cabmen was his creation, and according to Beachcomber also existed in French ( 9856:

Daniels (whose subheadings I have adopted) lists it as autobiographical, but I'll abide by your judgement.

9133: 8658: 7657: 7606: 3913: 2869: 2335: 2275: 9760:

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an

7611:

Tim: I have addressed all your objections and concerns to my knowledge. Soon I'm be ready to nominate the

7527:

Lol, sounds familar... They may only give out bronze stars for FA, but your contributions are pure gold! —

4689: 4674:

Definitely. I think it's making a rod for one's own back going to FAC without first having a peer review.

4657: 4281:

I don't care if it was a coincidence, that is, by far, the quickest anyone has ever responded to on of my

4081: 645: 279: 9527: 8990: 7634: 7422: 7037: 6992: 4939: 2128: 1334:

I would delete the Prelude to Penelope or move to very end (appendix) - same with Masques et Bergamasques

1055: 555:

Happy to look next week when back in regular web access (away in rural e-inaccessibility at the moment.)

9480:

Hi Tim, hope you're settled in again...! I wonder if I could prevail upon you to run a spotcheck on the

5454: 5053: 4503: 3755: 3727: 3298: 1508: 1118: 904: 10035: 9909: 9716: 9704: 8966: 8588: 8438: 8323: 8274: 7904: 7746: 7703:

Rewrite the inadequate stuff on "Adaptations and arrangements", much of which looks ready for the chop.

7581: 7564: 7414: 7315: 6958: 6779: 6715: 6504: 6490: 6418: 5829: 5815: 3815: 3416: 3397: 2449: 2197: 2167: 1922:

that I can take some time off and give RO-L my full attention). Will do so on my earliest opportunity.

1892: 1878: 683: 7924: 7696:

A Background section summarising Stravinsky's early career and his involvement with the Ballets Russes

7590:

which you might wish to insert in the Later years section of the article. Hope you had a good hol. --

5879:. The article has passed FAC, making it the first Indonesian film FA. Hope to see Monteux there soon! 4881:

that same month. I wasn't around at the time, alas, so I'd be grateful for any suggestions on these.

4403: 3983:. I'm only sorry that I can't find a picture but will try to rectify that later. With warm regards. 272: 8880: 8776: 8736: 8722: 8469:, I will do what I can to complete this project; such work deserves bringing to a worthy conclusion. 8209: 7198: 6926: 5842: 3831: 2718: 2692: 2674: 1301: 1131: 537: 462: 10003:

By the way, the name mixup was a complete accident, but I see from the above that you answer to it.

8258:

I also am very sad to see you go, Tim, and I will miss your valuable and valued contributions here.

7586:

Just back from Sussex and have laboriously managed to photograph and, even more laboriously, upload

7191: 6011: 5592: 5475: 2925: 1918:

Thanks for the invite. I'd love to look over the article (and have gotten to the point in revamping

85: 10289:

article should say, if a better source can confirm this, that if the king stands, you should too.—

10205: 10074: 9950: 8662: 8554:

in your honour. An interesting architect, and I think that elements of his life might amuse you.

5260:

a copyedit like you offered above before I bring it to FAC. If so it would be much appreciated. —

4900:(see his WP article). And Tippett mentions Edwin Evans as having criticised the composer's earlier 3774: 2795: 2506: 2472:, which I've fiddled around with. Comments welcome. I have some refs up my sleeve if required. -- 2448:

and I believed it wasn't as good. I dare say you're right though that people would want it shrunk.

2376: 2366: 2348: 2299:

Thank you, Alton. May I knock on your door to look at future articles before I put them up for FA?

1919: 1745: 1372: 1358: 1238: 1013: 981: 944: 676: 332: 121: 103: 8241:

and invaluable in the classical music and composers arena. This is truly, truly terrible news. --

4476: 3403:

Hi Tim. I've nominated this for GA but its needs a thorough GA review. Can you review it for me?♦

3080: 1828: 1179: 9786: 8597: 8193: 7976: 7807: 7596: 7463: 6935: 6910: 6763: 6327: 5752: 5021: 4997: 4976: 3942: 3918: 3512:

How very nice! I shall go and make myself a little pot of coffee to turn the will into the deed.

3057: 2569: 2495: 2478: 1381: 1337:

A word about Fauré’s piano(s) would be nice, along with any witness accounts of his playing style

4791: 4744: 4558:

I should have my peer review done by the end of the week. My time has been limited by travel.--

2734:

Splendid work, Tim riley. I have no idea how you do these things so quickly (and so well)! --

1140: 1081:

Gosh! I thought from the title this section was going to be about his "benign dictatorship"...

1054:

Hi Tim: thanks for your response. I agree that the current link in the template should point to

131: 10272: 10156: 10106: 9876: 9861: 9833: 9796: 9777: 9680: 9621: 9607: 9578: 9560: 9545: 9382: 9328: 9288: 9247: 9224: 9012: 8860: 8846: 8828: 8810: 8680: 8474: 8348: 8331: 8309: 7990: 7953: 7912: 7758: 7719: 7550: 7500: 7054: 6982: 6966: 6833: 6393: 5583: 5438: 5379: 5329: 5211:

Excūsō prō rēspōnsiōne tardā; studia latīna mea tempus Vicipaediam recēnsēns meum extenuant. --

5044: 4927: 4909: 4886: 4859: 4781: 4759: 4645: 4630: 4614: 4599: 4467: 4266: 4072: 3625: 3170: 3066: 2914: 2883: 2596: 2539: 1901: 1729: 1696: 1312: 1221: 1109: 734: 665: 470: 437: 317: 208: 155: 8841:? It's "of the angels" - to use a phrase you coined - hard to reduce to reliable sources ;) -- 6444: 5912:

Hi Tim. I don't think we have met before. I just wanted to let you know how very rude I found

5770: 5343:

Just that he lived there for half a century. And quaffed some fine wine, I'd guess. How about

5251: 5034: 4033: 3669: 1869:

made her career on the London stage, giving each English line "a sparkle seven times its own"?

1837: 913: 10377: 10344: 10326: 10298: 10028: 9969: 9955: 9935: 9918: 9886: 9847: 9815: 9737: 9697: 9660: 9655:(above), but will postpone till tomorrow afternoon, my schedule having gone haywire today. – 9592: 9518: 9451: 9352: 9309: 9273: 9253:

Well, welcome back. Had no idea you'd left but then again, I'd been away quite a bit myself.

9137: 9122: 9110: 9076: 9050: 8903: 8787: 8645:

Always sad to see great editors leave. We who are Knowledge need to make this place better.

8506: 8492: 8434: 8401: 8367: 8248: 8152: 8136: 8104: 8087: 8054: 8018: 7967: 7943: 7928: 7890: 7866: 7855: 7838: 7801: 7785: 7753:

update. I suggest we check the page regularly. I am leaving a note now, relating to sources.

7736: 7642: 7620: 7571: 6953: 6900: 6885: 6879: 6867: 6850: 6778:

The article is much improved since your last comment, and your input would be appreciated at

6566: 6552: 6538: 6456: 6412: 6399: 6381: 6311: 6297: 6275: 6261: 6244: 6230: 6214: 6158: 6141: 6001: 5978: 5894: 5782: 5681: 5655: 5637: 5623: 5608: 5561: 5545: 5409: 5395: 5296: 5265: 5202: 5127: 5113: 5094: 5076: 5012: 4824: 4679: 4663: 4215: 4210:

bad surely? What could have caused the poor unfortunate to have suffered anaphylactic shock?

4183: 4136: 4021: 3926: 3659: 3596: 3561: 3546: 3517: 3499: 3473: 3462: 3447: 3435: 3420: 3404: 3354: 3325: 2938: 2850: 2832: 2614: 2559: 2516: 2453: 2433: 2421: 2406: 2395: 2384: 2304: 2211: 2193: 2182: 2163: 2114: 2021: 1992: 1962: 1849: 1398: 1163: 1068: 1044: 996: 887: 869: 835: 716: 680: 560: 544: 499: 452: 447:

Will do, with pleasure, but not till Wednesday, when I return from dial-up exile in Cumbria.

6118:

I actually wanted to create a new award in your honor, using a cropped section of the image

5697: 5079:; glad you caught those Americanisms that I missed. In thanks, I'm giving you a collectible 3162: 705:

Die Mitschuldigen Ausgeschöpkopf im Teufelsglocke Wahlwehrwandschutz Gesellschaft Veislangen

264: 256: 9456: 9239: 8765: 8732: 8718: 8626: 8205: 7442: 7207: 7194: 6922: 5838: 4494: 4366: 3827: 3415:

of great interest. Will look at your article peer review tomorrow most likely. Regards. Oh

3044: 2924:

The French only use accents to confuse the English. I fell for the same trick years ago in

2714: 2688: 2670: 2340:

Greetings Tim. Hope everything is fine for you. I have already nominated the song article.

1349: 1185:

Your starter for ten... Which famous composer won a game against a future world champion? (

1127: 522:. And maybe Sir Tony too? (Oh, and apologies to Sir Brian for intruding on his section.) 142: 26: 9761: 7381:. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at 5907: 5742: 4430:

Greetings. After your message on my talk page in February, I finally got round to reading

4058: 3889:. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at 3084: 2780: 1495:. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at 872:

started as a copyedit. Feel free to edit mercilessly, as and when the company takes you.

8: 10249: 10198: 10008: 9993: 8578: 8522: 7652: 7532: 7518: 7481: 7450: 7118: 6376:. Don't be afraid to let me know when Monteaux is up for FA; I'll be glad to weigh in! — 6373: 6127: 6105: 6059: 6044: 5572: 5352: 5309: 5277:

Glad you liked it (and yes, quite off the beaten path for you). I haven't a clue why the

5242: 5160: 5143: 4805: 4772: 4532: 4517: 4233: 4197: 4150: 4113: 3963: 3770: 3715: 3701: 3686: 3644: 3583: 3147: 3129: 3114: 3094: 2906: 2828: 2788: 2769: 2654: 2359: 2341: 2255: 2065: 2035: 2007: 1976: 1946: 1912: 1668:

arms of the College of Arms', anyway hope that doesn't have to happen now. Thanks again,

1633: 1434: 1415: 1365: 1231: 1227: 1211: 1196: 1154: 1101: 1086: 1006: 974: 937: 895: 877: 856: 807: 787: 772: 633: 590: 527: 484: 114: 96: 17: 10192:

May the good times and treasures of the present become the golden memories of tomorrow,

5650:

and though it was more than fifty years ago I still chuckle when I remember some of it.

4425: 4041: 2708:(Again - sticking this here as well as my talk page just in case you otherwise miss it) 9724:

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the

9489: 9264: 9177: 9091: 9030: 8751: 8697: 8612: 8592: 8282: 8263: 8189: 7678: 7591: 7368: 7102: 6918: 6825: 6759: 6673: 6517: 6500: 6341: 5825: 5748: 5016: 4992: 4971: 4579: 4547: 4454: 4415: 4398: 4164: 4094: 4049: 3941:, but later became a popular ballet score. Other early works that made his name were a 3876: 3737: 3372: 3340: 3227: 3217: 3198: 3053: 3027: 2956: 2739: 2639: 2490: 2473: 2246: 2226: 2136: 2049: 1938: 1927: 1888: 1714: 1482: 963: 613: 75: 10225: 9192: 8838: 6824:

As I am largely done with Her, it's a good time for me to start getting serious about

5361: 930:

I, Jivesh, thank you wholeheartedly for your much appreciated help and copy-edits on "

10268: 10152: 10102: 10065: 9872: 9857: 9829: 9792: 9773: 9676: 9617: 9603: 9574: 9556: 9541: 9442: 9433: