This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cirt (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 18 November 2014 (→TFAR notification for John Barbirolli: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:18, 18 November 2014 by Cirt (talk | contribs) (→TFAR notification for John Barbirolli: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Please leave a message; I'll reply here.
 Archives | |
| |
|
|
Wondering where you went
Hi Tim! Great job on the work you've done recently at FAC, particularly the recent Keswick, Cumbria FA. Im writing because I was wondering if you still wanted to bring your many talents to help the Spokane, Washington FAC. They would be much appreciated! You got my hopes up when you expressed an interest in looking into it a while back, and Ive been checking to see if anyone has been posting any feedback on the FAC page, but I havent heard from you in over two weeks lol. I know you keep yourself busy around here and just wanted to know of your plans. Right now the FAC has sort of stalled with no new feedback in over a week and now Ive started to run out of my ideas to improve the article, so if you still can spare the time and are still interested, the time to act is now. Would love to have you onboard. Thanks!G755648 (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- So sorry! I fully intended to look again but got distracted. Put it down to old age and absent-mindedness. I'll put a marker on the FAC page straight away, and look in properly over the next day or two. Tim riley talk 14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking for advice
As a leading Misplaced Pages guru, can you give me a bit of advice. (What do you mean flattery?) I need to create a stub article on Hermeneutic style, but should it be shown in the article title and text in italics or what? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well I wouldn't say so, but it's your area of expertise, not mine. To my layman's understanding it is on par with Baroque or Augustan prose and similar labels that we don't italicise. That's my advice, but caveat emptor! Tim riley talk 14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Anyhow, if we are both wrong and someone who knows better shows that it should be italicised, it will be the work of an instant to effect the change. I look forward to reading the article, despite your disclaimer that it won't make me understand what the word "hermeneutic" means. Tim riley talk 21:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Paris
A perfect example of why it's a bad idea to promote a core high-traffic article. Way more trouble than it's worth. It's gone to the dogs. They're all over it now, before we know it it'll be back to 2005 status. I don't care enough about it to watch it and dispute things. The same feeling I get on the Kubrick article. Long term it's going to be more trouble than it's worth. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I hadn't looked at it for ages, and now I do I am horrified at the ludicrous mess it has become since I promoted it to GA last year. I have initiated a GAR, because to me it plainly fails several GA criteria as it now is. Tim riley talk 14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. There's been too much editing of it to keep track of everything. Way too many conflicting interests to make it worthwhile. The best thing I think would be for somebody to promote it to FA and try to get it protected from editing. It's the perfect example of the pitfalls of being an open wiki and that excessive editing can sometimes be a bad thing. I'm sure Paris isn't the only article. I'm sure @Aymatth2: would agree with me on this. Peter Sellers is one which would have ended up in a similar state if it wasn't for the extreme amount of time Schro and Cass have spent protecting it from the dogs. That's the price to pay for maintaining a quality article on a core topic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'd not thought of it like that, but you're right of course: the more popular the topic the more likely the page is to suffer the well-meaning attentions of POV and OR enthusiasts. I spend quite a bit of time removing good-faith uncited additions from Disraeli and Elgar, but the more obscure pages I've piloted or co-piloted to FA suffer less in that regard. That's not to say we don't get some drive-by amendments that are genuine improvements, but they are few and far between. Tim riley talk 16:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- The page is a victim of that since almost ten years already, Tim riley, and no admin has ever done anything about it, or even really looked enough to see the problem. I came to thank you and apologise for your re-correcting the English that I had already corrected today - all that work was heavy-handedly reverted by someone with their 'own' vision of things. Blofeld knows exactly of what I speak - unfortunately. Thanks, and cheers. THEPROMENADER</span ✎ ✓ 00:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Admins, to be fair, have no authority to wade in unless commanded by a consensus of the rest of us editors to do so. I'm chipping away at the accretions since GA last year. Very pleased indeed to find a thoroughgoing Parisian riding to the rescue. Promenader – any resemblance to Edmund White's Le Flâneur, one of my favourite books? Tim riley talk 00:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, unfortunately not! But I'll look that up for sure. The nom de plume came from a website I ran until my work ran me away from it around five years ago. And I do love to walk ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's my joint-favourite book about Paris, with Alistair Horne's Seven Ages of Paris. Highly recommended. Tim riley talk 00:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- What brought me here was "A Movable Feast" ; ) Thanks! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Promenader is one of the few who seems to have his head screwed on and what is required. And he cares enough about Paris to deal with the idiots.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- And has now been blocked by FP on the somewhat spurious grounds of pointing out that people are edit warring and showing ownership, rather than trying to build a consensus. All rather silly, especially as it seems that we have an admin who has lined up with POV pushers. Such is life - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Promenader is one of the few who seems to have his head screwed on and what is required. And he cares enough about Paris to deal with the idiots.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- What brought me here was "A Movable Feast" ; ) Thanks! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's my joint-favourite book about Paris, with Alistair Horne's Seven Ages of Paris. Highly recommended. Tim riley talk 00:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, unfortunately not! But I'll look that up for sure. The nom de plume came from a website I ran until my work ran me away from it around five years ago. And I do love to walk ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Admins, to be fair, have no authority to wade in unless commanded by a consensus of the rest of us editors to do so. I'm chipping away at the accretions since GA last year. Very pleased indeed to find a thoroughgoing Parisian riding to the rescue. Promenader – any resemblance to Edmund White's Le Flâneur, one of my favourite books? Tim riley talk 00:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- The page is a victim of that since almost ten years already, Tim riley, and no admin has ever done anything about it, or even really looked enough to see the problem. I came to thank you and apologise for your re-correcting the English that I had already corrected today - all that work was heavy-handedly reverted by someone with their 'own' vision of things. Blofeld knows exactly of what I speak - unfortunately. Thanks, and cheers. THEPROMENADER</span ✎ ✓ 00:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'd not thought of it like that, but you're right of course: the more popular the topic the more likely the page is to suffer the well-meaning attentions of POV and OR enthusiasts. I spend quite a bit of time removing good-faith uncited additions from Disraeli and Elgar, but the more obscure pages I've piloted or co-piloted to FA suffer less in that regard. That's not to say we don't get some drive-by amendments that are genuine improvements, but they are few and far between. Tim riley talk 16:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. There's been too much editing of it to keep track of everything. Way too many conflicting interests to make it worthwhile. The best thing I think would be for somebody to promote it to FA and try to get it protected from editing. It's the perfect example of the pitfalls of being an open wiki and that excessive editing can sometimes be a bad thing. I'm sure Paris isn't the only article. I'm sure @Aymatth2: would agree with me on this. Peter Sellers is one which would have ended up in a similar state if it wasn't for the extreme amount of time Schro and Cass have spent protecting it from the dogs. That's the price to pay for maintaining a quality article on a core topic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised Schro if Caden at something to do with that, I see he's been involved with User talk:Metropolitan getting him unblocked. Pathetic really that he sees this as a way to get his own back on Cassianto or whoever. Siefkin is working in good faith but I'm sorry to say he's made a complete hash of the history. It just doesn't flow any more. So many short unsourced paragraphs and that now. The best solution would be to restore to a similar version which passed (including the shortened landmarks section currently) and then for you Promenader to go through and correct errors and improve it. Now that he's blocked it's likely to degrade even further by the POV pushers.There's way too much editing going on by incompetent editors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Ellen Wilkinson
Just a note to thank peer reviewers and let them know that I've now closed the review and opened an FAC page here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Another cracking job. Tim riley talk 15:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments on deletion
Tim, this came across as extremely rude. You're entitled rto your opinion - and it was a valid one - but the way you put it across creates a hostile environment for editors and I really hope you refrain from comments like that in future. Not everyone has thick skin! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 18:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Sorry, but there is nothing remotely rude about the comment, let alone extremely rude. Mildly brusque, maybe, but not rude. – SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- The point is, as always, do your homework before firing off accusations. We are busy people, with finite time for editing, and it is irritating to have it wasted. Tim riley talk 18:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- yet another (talk page stalker) Can you turn down the rude in here, please? I can't hear all the rude going on outside ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- If that's Paris rude, you must be positively deafened. I so admire your perseverance in the face of artillery fire that would have many of us taking cover. Tim riley talk 18:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, you know. It's like the sound of street traffic; you stop noticing it after a while. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Very nice, and I chuckled, but chez the Paris article I see you as Horatius at the bridge, and I'm one of those at the front who cried "back!" (wimp that I am – see award for it here). But I wish more power to your elbow, sir! Tim riley talk 21:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hehe - how flattering of you to make such a comparison, sir. But lately I've been painted The Boy Who Cried Wolf, and penned for it, to boot. ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's quite an award! I'm still chuckling ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- You should see Paris today ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Do you mean the page or the city? I prefer the latter. Tim riley talk 15:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, me too, the latter by far. But according to the article talk-page, I'm now an 'elitist bourgeoise wannabe "intellectual"' (buffing fingernails on shirt, looking around for award). I've been promoted; my dream has finally come true ! (pops champagne ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Do you mean the page or the city? I prefer the latter. Tim riley talk 15:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- You should see Paris today ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Very nice, and I chuckled, but chez the Paris article I see you as Horatius at the bridge, and I'm one of those at the front who cried "back!" (wimp that I am – see award for it here). But I wish more power to your elbow, sir! Tim riley talk 21:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, you know. It's like the sound of street traffic; you stop noticing it after a while. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- If that's Paris rude, you must be positively deafened. I so admire your perseverance in the face of artillery fire that would have many of us taking cover. Tim riley talk 18:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm about to blow my lid with the state of the religion section of the Paris article. It's absolutely disgraceful. The work of a clear moron. Seriously what can we do to maintain a half decent level of quality? Restore it and get it protected? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- That was done only to show Siefkin "who's boss", content had nothing to do with it. I'm about to blow it - yet again - too, only because no-one will do anything, and just by coincidence, Sunshine just somehow turns up... in totally the wrong place (two sections up) asking the wrong questions (not even reading any comment, or even the section, probably, about today's bad behaviour). This is very odd, I'm thinking he was called there... either yesterday, or today... as a distraction? Anyhow, this is painful, both for the article and us. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 November 2014
- In the media: Predicting the flu, MH17 conspiracy theories
- Traffic report: Sweet dreams on Halloween
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
BNA access
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Chris Troutman (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I say! Delighted. Thank you, sir! Tim riley talk 15:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
PR request
Hi Tim, I was wondering if you could take the time to review September Morn, which is up for review at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/September Morn/archive1. As this article has been controversial in the past, I'd understand if you didn't feel up to it. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be glad to do so, though I am to the visual arts what walruses are to roller-skating. For domestic reasons (bouncing between two flats only one of which has internet access at present) my editing is a bit sporadic just now, but I'll look in soonest. I don't give a hoot about controversy, and will just give you my honest and highly inexpert opinion. While we're in French cultural vein, would you care to look in at the peer review of Francis Poulenc, whom I'm aiming to get to FA in due course? No controversy there – just a lovable man who wrote lovable music. – Tim riley talk 15:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Love to, once I go over The Fifth Element (another French article... my, they certainly do get around). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: October 2014
| ||||||
Your GA nomination of London Philharmonic Orchestra
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article London Philharmonic Orchestra you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ilford Hospital Chapel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Communion. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you make a comment about my new project?
Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org?
Henson
I have started to add comments on the article's talk. Brianboulton (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Super stuff! Thank you very much, sir! Tim riley talk 13:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Emile Littler
Hi, as the creator of the Emile Littler article, would you know if he owned racehorses at all? The owner of the winner of the 1971 Irish Derby was Emile Littler, and its too unusual a name to be coincidental I'm sure! I'd like to put a link in if possible but can't find anything to confirm it 100%. Any info gratefully received, thanks. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- I assume so...I found so many references in the Guardian archives to horses owned by "Emile Littler", and so have erred on the side of probability and inserted a reference into the article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- (I said that without moving my lips, did you notice? Tim riley talk 16:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC))
- Thank you, I've linked Littler from the Irish Derby article now. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is, I see, a "Sir Emile Littler Challenge Cup" (Handicap Chase) run at Plumpton, so you can be quite certain he was a man for the horses. Tim riley talk 16:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)...he was also Sir George's brother-in-law don't you know! There are mentions of Littler's equestrian interests in Robey's autobiography I'm sure. Cassianto 18:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks to you all, much appreciated. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)...he was also Sir George's brother-in-law don't you know! There are mentions of Littler's equestrian interests in Robey's autobiography I'm sure. Cassianto 18:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is, I see, a "Sir Emile Littler Challenge Cup" (Handicap Chase) run at Plumpton, so you can be quite certain he was a man for the horses. Tim riley talk 16:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, I've linked Littler from the Irish Derby article now. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- (I said that without moving my lips, did you notice? Tim riley talk 16:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC))
The Signpost: 12 November 2014
- In the media: Amazon Echo; EU freedom of panorama; Bluebeard's Castle
- Traffic report: Holidays, anyone?
- Featured content: Misplaced Pages goes to church in Lithuania
- WikiProject report: Talking hospitals
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
TFAR notification for John Barbirolli
Thanks very much for your high quality WP:FA contributions to Misplaced Pages.
I've nominated a page you helped bring to Featured Article for "Today's Featured Article" consideration, nomination is at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/John Barbirolli.
Awesome bow tie.