User talk:Tim riley

Shortcut WP:SCAM SCAM WARNING! If you have been contacted by anyone using my name to write a Wikipedia article for you, it has not come from me, it is not legitimate, and possibly a scam. Please report what information you have to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org.

Archives

2005–2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between October and December 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your cooking/food articles absolutely could not be lovelier. Thank you for bringing this beauty to Wikipedia. jengod (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a delightful message to get! Thank you so much, jengod. I love cooking and I love eating, and it is always a pleasure to write little articles about minor culinary topics. Tim riley talk 16:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You recently reverted my edit at Randall Davidson which mentioned the Housing and Town Planning Act 1909. Would you mind explaining why you thought it was disproportionate? At WP:Proportion, it says that undue weight should not be given to minor aspects, but this was a short sentence in a section regarding Randall's role in domestic political affairs during the time - I would have thought this would not amount to undue weight. Additionally it might be worth noting that the act was contested in the House of Lords, though I didn't make that clear in my edit. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Gazamp (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Among the other matters on which Davidson spoke in the Lords at about the time of the Housing and Town Planning Act were colonial marriages, election meetings in school rooms, House of Lords reform, inspection of laundries, prevention of corruption, liquor traffic in Nigeria, merchant vessels and first aid, outrages on Jews in Russia, Sunday trading, small holdings and allotments, street traffic in London and women in county and borough councils. In an article of a few thousand words we cannot give every single detail of a person's life: it is our job to concentrate on what is notable so far as the subject is concerned. The Housing and Town Planning Act is not mentioned in the Times obituary (1930), the Dictionary of National Biography (1937) or the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2011), and does not even merit so much as a passing mention in Bishop Bell's two-volume biography of Davidson (1935).

Discussions of this sort should be on an article talk page, where any interested editor can spot them, rather than on a user's talk page, visited by few. Tim riley talk 08:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for explaining! Gazamp (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you, Gazamp, for your gracious response. Tim riley talk 19:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tim Riley, I see you reverted my edit on W. Somerset Maugham. I would like to share my reasoning so that this does not result in an edit war. I changed the wording because the phrase "achieved national celebrity" could be confusing to many readers. I disagree with your reasoning for the revert for the following reasons:

• "is prioritized in the OED" - The first meaning for a word listed in the dictionary is not always the most common one.
• "is more appropriate for the time period" - It makes no sense to base wording of an article on the time period its topic is about. The meaning of "celebrity" referring to a person is more appropriate for the time period we are in right now.

As an editor that reads casually, I am concerned with the experience of casual readers. I think that this wording is problematic because it may make many readers, especially those born more recently, do a double-take since it uses a fairly frequently used word in an uncommon way and thus may confuse people. I would like to understand your perspective on this issue as I do not want an edit war, and I hope we can resolve this while keeping Wikipedia accessible to the general public.

Best regards, TypoEater (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of discussion belongs on an article talk page where it can be seen by any interested editor, rather than on a user talk page where it will be seen by few. If you like to raise your proposal on the article talk page we can see what the consensus is. Tim riley talk 17:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tim riley, I wanted to let you know that I nominated the article Knowledge for featured article status, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knowledge/archive1. There has been little to no response so far and I was wondering whether you might be interested in taking a look. If you have the time, I would appreciate your comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phlsph7 − Dear me! I'm not good at abstract concepts, but will make a point of looking in and offering any comments that seem to me to be sensible and useful. Tim riley talk 20:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tim (and your friendly s/talkers :-),

Really good to see you around!

Fwiw, I'm seeking some editorial guidance (and opinions) on issues regarding a copyvio concern at Symphonie fantastique#Movements, where there has been massive block citation of Berlioz's programme notes in English translation. Rapid googling suggests that the English-language text may have been lifted wholesale from the Hector Berlioz website, where (at the foot of the page) it appears to be covered as: © Michel Austin for the English translation. All rights of reproduction reserved. So, presumably, the translation needs to be removed (or possibly substituted by a permissable [public domain?] translation).

Personally, I have to wonder whether reproducing the entire text is suitable anyway, although removing it will require major restructuring of the section at least. What think you? Any editorial thoughts or suggestions? Or even active fixes? (Btw, I think the Hector Berlioz FA page is a wonderful achievement. I'm not at all possessive about this particular page, which I'd just like to see improved.)

Best wishes as ever from a misty old wp-friend, now going on 64. 86.180.70.111 (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this tomorrow and report back. Tim riley talk 18:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And is my elderly memory failing me when I remember the excellent "Mistymorn"? Happy days! Tim riley talk 18:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Tim riley talk 18:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Shhh young man, the ip is not for outing ;-) 86.180.70.111 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to quoting Berlioz's programme note in full – he's reasonably terse – and Microsoft and Google both offer decent attempts at an English translation.

Microsoft

The author supposes that a young musician, afflicted with that moral disease which a famous writer calls the vagueness of passions, sees for the first time a woman who unites all the charms of the ideal being of which his imagination dreamed, and becomes madly in love with her. By a singular oddity, the cherished image never presents itself to the artist's mind except in connection with a musical thought, in which he finds a certain passionate, but noble and timid character like that which he attributes to the beloved object.

Google:

The author supposes that a young musician, affected by this moral illness that a famous writer calls the vagueness of passions, sees for the first time a woman who combines all the charms of the ideal being that his imagination dreamed of, and in becomes hopelessly in love. By a singular oddity, the cherished image never presents itself to the artist's mind unless linked to a musical thought, in which he finds a certain passionate, but noble and timid character like that which he attributes to the loved object.

A bit of tweaking is needed ("vague des passions") and later in the text: "fixed idea" needs untranslating and leaving as idée fixe (did you know that Asterix's dog, Dogmatix, is Idéfix in the original French?) and both Microsoft and Google are understandably stumped by ranz des vaches: I particularly like Microsoft's: "he hears two shepherds talking to a cow in the distance".

If you concur I'll replace the pilfered translation with a tweaked Googlesoft one. Tim riley talk 09:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to look in at my sandbox you can see work in progress on a potential rewrite, properly sourced and cited. Tim riley talk 15:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Fantastic! 86.132.54.124 (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks so much for that Tim, including the ideal fixes and doggy tidbix (DIK? - no! "... like a bunch of lovesick cattle - weight?). Yes, of course I fully concur (and am lazily relieved that the layout won't need shrinking - I'm rather attached to the manuscript images appearing alongside the relevant content, though I imagine that editorial opinions on that might vary...).

Oof... my excuse for coming to your esteemed talk page, rather than the article talk page was, of course, the particular copyvio aspect. I suppose that in addition to following standard copyvio process, we should really post my OP question (minus the personal effusions :) and your considered response on the article talk page (I'm happy to do that, of course :).

I suppose a residual concern could regard machine translation of idiomatic French phrases such as maladie morale ("moral disease"), where I assume the sense of morale broadly corresponds to the 5th entry here ("spiritual disease malady / ailment", perhaps[?]). Of course, I'd be happy to collaborate on such tweaks, even though my translation skills are notoriously atrocious, haha. 86.132.54.124 (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've finished translating Berlioz's comments via Google and Microsoft. If you care to look in at my sandpit and tweak I shall be pleased. I am now working on a new section for the article covering critical opinion from the 1830s onwards. Suggestions welcome. Tim riley talk 17:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really glad... Strong support! (And I like "emotional affliction" :-) 86.177.202.242 (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: Splendid Tim! (...one minor suggestion). So happy for the page... I believe it's worth it.
(marginal note: please don't feel in any way style-cramped by my "attachment" to manuscript images alongside the text :)
Cheers! 86.177.202.242 (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Prolonged applause and a standing ovation! 86.177.202.213 (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat in the fourth movement

The manuscript score is online and it is clear that Berlioz put a da capo and repeat marking in the Marche au supplice. But I mean, really! "Oh, we're nearly there, chaps, but let's go back to the clink and start the procession all over again!" I'm reluctant to draw attention to this silliness. The repeat isn't mentioned in the article and I'm inclined to leave it like that. Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top DYK stuff... lol (...until it reminded me of this real-world craziness). 86.177.202.139 (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing the GAR on Robert Hooke. I appreciate it.

I have been so immersed in it for the past couple of weeks that I can no longer see the wood for the trees. Did you happen to notice any suitable DYK hooks in passing?

I found a good one, but we can't use it :-^ In researching the aphorism attributed to Clairaut,

"Il ne faut pas croire que cette idée ... de Hook diminue la gloire de M. Newton ["One must not think that this idea ... of Hooke diminishes Newton's glory"], Clairaut wrote; "L'exemple de Hook & celui de Kepler [serve] à faire voir quelle distance il y a entre une vérité entrevue & une vérité démontrée ["The example of Hooke and of Kepler" [serves] "to show what a distance there is between a truth that is glimpsed and a truth that is demonstrated"]

I found that the original claim (Ball, W W R (1893). An essay on Newton's "Principia". London: MacMillan. p. 69.) and the many subsequent citations of it would fail verification if it were in a Wikipedia article!
The original source is Clairaut, Alexis (1759). "Exposition abregée du systême du monde, et explication des principaux phénomenes astronomiques tirée des Principes de M. Newton" [Abridged explanation of the world system and an explanation of the principal astronomical phenomena drawn from the Principia of Mr Newton]. Principes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle. By Newton, Isaac. Rigaud (ed.). Vol. 2. Paris: Desaint et Saillant.
The aphorism is attributed to Clairaut in Ball (1893), but the introduction (Avertissement) in Volume 1 merely says that the Exposition is drawn in the main from the works of Clairaut or from the notebooks that he had previously given in the form of lessons to Madame la Marquise de Chastellet.
Academic standards have gone down the toilet. Something oughter be done! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is the rigorous approach that cheers me greatly. For an easily understood and wholly verifiable hook you might perhaps say that in addition to his scientific discoveries he designed the Monument in London and worked with Wren on the rebuilding after the Great Fire. Tim riley talk 09:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tim riley!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tim riley, My latest FAC article is attracting little attention and is now possibly going to be archived without having received a support. Any chance of you taking a look at the article for me, with a view to helping to keep the nomination afloat? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Tim riley talk 19:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim riley :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with pleasure. Tim riley talk 19:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've put Jacques Offenbach up for FAC and will be very glad to get comments from colleagues who wish to contribute. Tim riley talk 19:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I have replied at my Talk page. If I had only realized that you were the author of the missing comma, I would have been much more reverential in my approach! Um Gottes Willen! I am ashamed.

I am too embarrassed to ask this at the Bliss Talk page (hmmm sounds dodgy) but is there a reason why some of the names of pieces are italicized and others not? Examples: Four Songs for Voice, Violin and Piano; but Music for Strings. I am sure there is some reason for this but, preferably without making the older children laugh at me and throw things, could you please explain how it works?

Thanks so much. Yours, in profound ignorance and with deepest apologies therefore, DBaK (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a dyed-in-the-wool Savoyard I jumped to the wrong conclusion about "Sir Arthur" in your heading, but yes I am the perpetrator of most of Bliss's article. As I understand the MoS, music titles that are generic such as Mass, Gloria, String Quartet and so on are in Romic but titles that are names are italicised. This is rather a grey area it seems to me. I probably wouldn't italicise "Serenade for Strings" as there are several such, but "Music for Strings" doesn't seem to me a generic title, though I don't press the point. If anyone chancing to read these remarks thinks fit to expand on or contradict them I shall be pleased to see their comments.

You were quite right to insert the comma I neglected to add. I try to spot such omissions when I'm writing, but having been guilty of such lapses since the 1960s I doubt if I'm going to reform adequately now. Very pleased you're planning to look in at the Offenbach FAC. You'll be among friends: Gog the Mild is already weighing in, and so will SchroCat if he knows what's good for him. I hope Dudley and Cassianto might look in, too. Tim riley talk 12:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes sorry, wrong knight! I was off down a complete rabbithole because I started with Roy Harris then found to my complete astonishment that Bliss had once taught him.

Thank you very much about the titles. As an area it sounds just perfectly suitable for me to run away screaming. Watch me!

Thanks also re the comma, and the good news regarding friends looking at Offenbach.

All good wishes, DBaK (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]