User talk:Tim riley/Dump

Talk:Musical theatre

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussions in Talk:Musical theatre. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors per WP:FOC, WP:AVOIDYOU, and WP:TPG#YES.

I find it helpful to simply quote sections of others' comments, indicate a specific comment with a diff or reference to a timestamp, or simply ask a question with enough detail to indicate what I find unclear.

When dealing with WP:OWN problems such as those occurring at Musical theatre, I find it best to adhere closely to talk page guidelines in order to de-escalate tensions and disruptive behavior. I hope you'll assist in cooling off the situation. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry that you took my comments as inappropriate somehow. I'm happy to refactor it.

My concerns are exactly what I wrote: Editors are not focusing on improving the article, but rather on the editors involved.

I responded to your request for more details, there's no response in turn. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Tim riley's request at Talk:Musical theatre

Tim riley, I have stated already that I believe that what Ronz is doing is disgraceful. He/she seems to know little or nothing about musical theatre, yet he/she has sought to impose his/her editorial style on the article Musical theatre. She/he has repeatedly deleted useful links and slapped numerous useless tags on the article. Her/his extensive wikilawyering at that article's talk page, and on the talk pages of the editors working on the article is further evidence that he/she has no legitimate interest in working on the article. He/she is a wikibully of the worst kind and it is hard to imagine why he/she is wasting everyone's time. Additionally, the comments of other editors that he/she has attracted to the article are mysterious in that they comment on text that did not exist in the article at the time they commented on it. This makes me suspect that they are meatpuppets, if not sockpuppets. His/her arguments are pure sophistry and terribly offensive. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope editors will work on de-escalating this situation.

I've taken the liberty of restructuring this discussion so it is clear who is responding to what. I was unsure what to title this aside, and hope that someone can give it a better title per WP:TALKNEW. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks [1]! Glad to see we can agree on some matters. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Musical theatre , without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologia pro vita mia [sic]

So your Latin is as good as your punctuation?
"Mia" is Italian; you mean "mea".
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A defence of operatic Latin? [sic] MistyMorn (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Church Latin from mediaeval times, I think, knowing its source. Tim riley (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another one

would be grateful if you could continue the debate on the rites talk page. I have posted your reply to me there.Sandpiper (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Brymer wiki

22:09, 4 June 2013‎ Tim riley (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,651 bytes) (-140)‎ . . (→‎Teaching, recording, broadcasting and later years: rem uncited trivia) (undo)

The uncited trivia is in the wiki link that the uncited trivia links to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.76.83 (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leibowitz ref

sigh. how utter, utter childish. have a tranquillized day, sir

AlterBerg (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image Status Review

We need a new 'Image Status Review' process.

It would also be much appreciated if you would consider reviewing all the PD-UK and PD-UK-Unknown tagged images so that they can if they are actually PD, because of the expiry of a UK "corporate" copyright, be moved to over to Commons.

You say you have far more experience in doing that sort of review.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the above 'Image Status Review' process is set up (and independently of FFD/PUF) I'd have no objection to the current PUF's being moved over to it.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are also about 1000 images here - https://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?categories=All+free+media&negcats=All+non-free+media%0D%0APD+Italy%0D%0AWorks+copyrighted+in+the+U.S.%0D%0AWorks+copyrighted+in+the+United+States%0D%0AWikipedia+files+for+deletion&ns[6]=1&templates_no=protected+generic+image+name%0D%0Aprotected+image%0D%0App-protected%0D%0App-template%0D%0Aexample+files%0D%0Aprotected+sister+project+logo%0D%0ACopy+to+Wikimedia+Commons%0D%0ANow+Commons%0D%0ADeleted+on+Commons%0D%0ADo+not+move+to+Commons%0D%0Anominated+for+deletion+on+Commons%0D%0AAlready+moved+to+Commons%0D%0ANotMovedToCommons%0D%0Adb-nowcommons%0D%0AShadowsCommons%0D%0AKeep+local%0D%0Aesoteric+file%0D%0AConvert+to+SVG+and+copy+to+Wikimedia+Commons%0D%0Am-cropped%0D%0Ac-uploaded%0D%0AUploaded+from+Commons%0D%0Aduplicate%0D%0Affd%0D%0Apuf%0D%0Absr%0D%0AImagewatermark%0D%0Afile+at+CCI%0D%0Adi-no+license%0D%0Adi-no+permission%0D%0Adi-no+source%0D%0Awrong-license%0D%0Aout+of+copyright+in%0D%0AOTRS+pending%0D%0AOTRS+received%0D%0AWikipedia+screenshot%0D%0ANFUR+not+needed%0D%0Adb-reason%0D%0Adb-f9%0D%0Adb-redundantimage%0D%0Asplit+media%0D%0Auserspace+file%0D%0Adi-dw+no+license&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1 that need a definitive determination, it would be nice to get these 'determined' for Commons.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Parisian pierrot.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Parisian pierrot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files 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 file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Ives-adams-rvw-britten.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ives-adams-rvw-britten.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files 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 file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:LPO-first-programme-1932.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:LPO-first-programme-1932.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit commenting about the spelling errors I make on talk pages

I think it is insulting and pointy, even though I'm sure you don't mean it that way. It would be one thing if I frequently introduced spelling errors into article content and then complained about others' spelling, but whether I should get a gold star for editing my talk page comments or not has no bearing on the merit of my statements.