User talk:MistyMorn

Welcome

Hello, MistyMorn! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Rosiestep (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Pro Mem

General:

• The Walrus and the Carpenter
• Quick introductions
• How to structure the content
• The Missing Manual
• Good article criteria
• GA/FA tips (by Yellowdesk)
• Lead section
• Wikify
• Splitting
• Dab cheat
• Wiki markup
• Editor's index to Wikipedia
• Uploading images
• UK Meetups

Classical music:

• Style guidelines
• Categories
• Composers - Article structure
• Composers - Categories
• Composers - Guide to online research
• Composers - Copyright guidelines
• Composers - Watchlist

Toolbox:

• BookSources
• Wikipedia Reference Search—Google custom search (WP:WRS)
• Reference Generator
• RefLinks
• CheckLinks
• Dab solver
• Peer reviewer
• HotCat
• CategoryTree
• CatScan
• Citation needed
• Citation tools
• Cite PMID
• Contributors
• TrafficStats
• WikiStats
• Toolserver page

Signing posts

Hi, Misty Morn. Could you please remember to sign your posts on talk pages, like this one. You do this by typing 4 tildes (~) after your post. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Jack - I just forgot. Cheers MistyMorn (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No big drama. I'm more interested in the apparent fact that, apart from Rosiestep's welcome in April 2008, I'm the very first editor who's ever sent you a message in your almost 5 years here. I see you've had some long gaps in your history, but have become a more frequent visitor this year. It's hard to stay away once you start to discover the riches that are available here. Happy wikipediaing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. Lol, doubtless nobody - except for you and Mirokado - have contacted me because I hadn't even set up a talk page. Now I've started adding a bit of content myself I do have quite a few doubts about when best to include inline citations. I've done a bit of reading around on WP tutorial/style pages etc, but maybe you can help a little... My impression from browsing featured articles is that there's considerable between-article variation in recommendable editorial practice and that a good article will eventually tend to take on its own slightly individual editorial format. Nevertheless, I still find myself getting into a personal 'editorial conflict' (so to speak) between substantiating 'facts' and avoiding clutter by trying mainly to provide pertinent material for the benefit of readers. An example: On the Sibelius page I've put, "Malcolm Arnold acknowledged [Sibelius's] influence, and Arthur Butterworth continues to see Sibelius's music as a source of inspiration in his own work.." I've made sure that both statements are substantiated indirectly through appropriate inline citations on the WP pages for Arnold and Butterworth. However, I decided to inserted an inline citation here only for Butterworth because the one I have on hand for Arnold (an obituary) doesn't really add anything much useful for the reader interested in Sibelius beyond the notable fact that Arnold acknowledged Sibelius's influence. My query is: Do you think that's a reasonable approach, or is it always preferable to include supporting citations directly?MistyMorn (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Yes, that's a reasonable approach; in biographies of world figures whose lives have been subjected to exhaustive scrutiny (Hitler, e.g.), we'll sometimes see virtually every word (I exaggerate, of course) with a citation. That's overkill generally speaking, imo, but may be justified in special cases. As long as any fact that appears in the article can be quickly traced to its source, that's all that's necessary. There is no one right way. Many wrong ways turn out to be right. Have fun. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank's Jack - That's really helpful. I feel I'm getting there... gradually... Though poor old Benjamin Dale currently risks coming under almost Hitlerian scrutiny, I'm afraid — at least in terms of citation density. Cheers anyway! MistyMorn (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Dale

I scrutinized it but, I hope, not in a Hitlerian way! A very good start; I gave it a once-over. Here are a few comments that I hope will be helpful to you: The citation density seems to be fine. In citations, author names should go last name first, and book titles should be in italics. When a person referred to is blue-linked, you don't need to give much detail about them, unless it is relevant to the story you are telling about your subject. You can learn more about Wikipedia style guidelines here: WP:MOS. You should check out this guideline: WP:PEACOCK. You might like to introduce yourself to User:Tim riley, another British music-lover who writes about composers and conductors. He is an excellent researcher and editor. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the spruce up. More than a once-over, it looks to me like a brand new suit of clothes. I'm sure it would have done him proud! I'd held back from introducing section divisions because I felt it's important to get them right first time so as to prevent the risk of third-party link rot. Thank you also for the very useful tutorial which should encourage me in my giddy attempts to strike the right balance (not always easy for a relative newbie). I've now continued with some further "depuffing" edits. Regarding blue-linked persons, I'm aware that the sentence summarizing his brother's scientific achievements would doubtless be more appropriate in the lead for Henry Dale: I'd like to relocate it there, except that I found that much of what I'd been trying to summarise isn't actually picked up on in the rest of the article, which currently addresses just one of his several lines of research... Would it perhaps be possible to insert some sort of a tag acknowledging that the 'Research' section needs expanding? I'll certainly take up your advice and contact User:Tim riley. Cheers again! MistyMorn (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I just saw this. I don't watch your talk page, so if you need to reach me, feel free to do so at my talk page. I put an "expandsect" tag at Henry Dale, but if you have an idea what ought to go there, you can either do it yourself, or give more detailed suggestions on the article's talk page. The first would be the most effective.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Emergency!

Good to meet you on Sunday. As well as commenting on the talk page, please express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Long Emergency Plan. Wikipedia frowns on canvassing, so I am careful not to give any lead as to what you should say! But I find it really strange that no-one has yet expressed any opinion either way. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 13:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Was that a leading question...? Anyway, my assessment was independent. Cheers.--MistyMorn (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Mikado

Permit me to say how gracious I found your contribution to the talk page after I and others outvoted you. If I may say so, your comment was in the best possible spirit of Wikipedian consensus. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that Tim. I'm just penning a reply on the Mikado discussion page to thank all you folk for engaging in the debate, which I've found genuinely stimulating. I'm honestly not sure which view is right. If I were asked to debate the issue I'd certainly feel more comfortable speaking on the 'inclusion' side. But I'm clearly biased by my own personal investment in the Benjamin Dale article, which got me interested in the Ruhleben event enough to chance my arm on the Mikado page. I think these sorts of questions are often not nearly as clear cut as they may seem, because—as humans—we're all inevitably subject to our own cognitive biases. So I feel it's good to discuss such issues openly and consider others' views. Thank you. And best wishes. MistyMorn (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tim, and please let me apologize for my rather brusque initial edit summary, where I could have been more diplomatic and descriptive. I also think you made an eloquent case for your position in the discussion. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all, Ssilvers... It gave me the chance to try to be a bit bolder perhaps than hitherto. And thank you both for the very kind words. You Never Walk Alone! --MistyMorn (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Grainger

By coincidence, the next person to leave a note on my talk page after yours was Brianboulton, who is the editor responsible for getting Grainger his star. You may like to note his comment, and follow it up on the article talk page. Tim riley (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. I spotted that and have already left a brief message on Brian's page. I wanted to mull a few things over a bit before joining in on the Grainger Discussion page. --MistyMorn (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

English Musical Renaissance

I was tickled to see your correction of a typo in an article that I began this morning and finished this afternoon. Very quick off the mark (and thank you for the amendment)! If Joseph Bennett is on your radar, perhaps you might like to have a look at English Musical Renaissance, which was a stub that I gave a thorough overhaul and expansion yesterday and today. Any amendments or comments gratefully received. And while I'm at it, I have the Royal Opera, London at peer review, if you would care to add any comments to the peer review page, but only if you're interested, naturally. Tim riley (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK

DYKs have always been an arcane mystery to me, and I know literally nothing about the present nomination procedure. Any DYKs in which articles I've written have featured have been entirely down to the ministrations of my Wikipedia Guardian Angel imperfectly disguised as Ssilvers. Do you need a signature somewhere from me as a supporter? Happy to look at that if so. I note an outbreak of Latin on my talk page: beware – I can retaliate in Attic Greek (albeit somewhat rustily) – 17:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Tim riley (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Historic Masters

Orlady (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Richard D'Oyly Carte

Hi. I saw your message on the talk page of this article. Just to provide crystal clarity, would you kindly weigh in with either a Keep or an Oppose with respect to the infobox, together with your reasoning here, in this section? This will help demonstrate which way the consensus is going. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. I spotted the initial demands earlier on today and was struck by their authoritarian tone.--MistyMorn (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There's an interesting parallel discussion here [1]. An arbitrator comes right out and says "I've no idea where you've got the idea that 'there is consensus on wikipedia [in favor of infoboxes]'; they're widely disliked and any attempt to get consensus for such a policy would be laughed out." Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

good move

Thanks for breaking up that Notability section and starting a new one - more obvious now. I hope some of these other guys will jump in. The pop fans have no clue about classical, and they're dominating the whole debate. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that our voice must be listened to on conceptual grounds. At the same time, it would be good if others joined in the RfC discussion here since it affects us all. I feel the signal flare needs to be more prominent still. And I'm wondering if there's anyone we can ask individually...--MistyMorn (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Down at the end of the Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Uninvolved_editors section I've finally tried to articulate just what the problem is, in responses to two oppose change posts from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and from A Quest For Knowledge. See what you think. But we're fighting the tide. I had thought someone else might speak up, but no one seems to want to. Melodia has done her part; Michael Bednarek just created confusion, talking about compositions rather than recordings.

What I've done is where I've had a question on something, I look to see who has edited the page that sounds like they know what they're talking about, and go post on their talk page. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Here is something that I do not want to do, but it's doable, if you might be so bold, and in the mood.

• Here is a list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Participants. It's a huge list, and surely a lot of these editors are no longer current. [EDIT: No, it's 200 names, and includes only current active members; and several you can guess even before looking.]
• You could go back to review the various arguments we've posted concerning classical music, including my most recent, and put together one or two brief paragraphs mentioning the most convincing points.
• Then a section title ("Are all classical CDs "notable" and get their own separate articles?" should be an attention-getter), and another paragraph, yet more brief, notifying them of the currently ongoing discussion and pointing them to the "uninvolved" section, and asking whether they might care to participate. ("Hi - I just want to bring to your attention ... [etc]. ¶ Here's why we're concerned ... [etc]")
• Then take this two- or three-paragraph script and just start posting it at people's talk pages wherever it appears the person is active, possibly sympathetic, and responsive.

Ha! Bet you won't do it. I sure won't. :-) Milkunderwood (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I think the request for opinions would have to be more neutral. But perhaps a brief (2-line) "Here's why we're concerned ..." plus a "What do you think?" could be acceptable. If we were going to contact a whole raft of people, I think it might be questionable practice to select just those we expect to be sympathetic.--MistyMorn (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, and better. But do look at my 2 responses noted above - I think these go further in clarifying the problem. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

RE "Ha!": Erm, maybe we should let time take its course, since its seems to me that the decision wouldn't bring irreversible consequences.--MistyMorn (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What I'm thinking I might do is to contact a few people whose opinions I respect, without prior knowledge of their views on this particular question.--MistyMorn (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Good for you! Do it! ("Plagiarize" me all you want - everything I've said is up for grabs.) Milkunderwood (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Also see new post from User:Ravpapa: Calling all eggheads: not our issue. (I've edited my earlier posts here a bit, removing some unnecessary stuff.) Milkunderwood (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - replied.--MistyMorn (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw a copy of the note you posted to a talk page - excellent wording, much clearer than I could have come up with. Thank you. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'll contact Tim riley too when he gets back on site. Cheers.--MistyMorn (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the most recent posts at the RfC, I'm not sure whether Robert.Allen is being amazingly obtuse, or perhaps whether I am. Can you think of any way to clarify his issue in a way that he might understand (or perhaps mine, that I can understand)? This going around in circles with everyone arguing past each other is getting to be absurd. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Alun Hoddinott

Hi MistyMorn-

I have a general impression that you may have an interest in, or knowledge of, 20th C British composers. If so, I wonder if you'd mind looking at the talk page for Hoddinott where a few months ago I needed to look him up, and posted a query about his article. I know nothing at all about Hoddinott, and would never have heard of him except that I needed to verify one of his compositions. "View history" will show what I've now done. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, a quote of perhaps some interest from JK's talk page, in my question to him about OCLC: I don't think there should be any arguments about notability of classical recordings. They are all notable, and every single blessed one of them should have a very long Wikipedia article written about it ;-) —Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2011. In that case I'm glad he has stayed aloof. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Returning to Alun Hoddinott, I've reworded the sentence to make the claim supportable and have supplied two refs (with the help of a quick Google search using the terms 'Hoddinott' 'modernist' 'romantic'). Cheers--MistyMorn (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Italian question

Leggierezza o Leggerezza? Looking at discs of Chopin Prelude Op. posth. in A-b, most include the i, as does Glossary of musical terminology#L; but I have here a CD of Nikita Magaloff: Fryderyk Chopin Preludi & Improvvisi, on the Philips "Amadeus" label, with all text in Italian. This says Preludio in la bemolle maggiore op. postuma (Presto con leggerezza). Just a typo? -- (Thanks for fixing Hoddinott - that was fast work.) Milkunderwood (talk) 09:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Prego. I presume "leggierezza" is one of the many misspellings or odd usages introduced by non-Italian composers (perhaps Liszt trying to impart a poetic resonance, or even deliberately echoing Chopin's mistake?). Some Italians feel uncomfortable with such storpiature, which might explain why the word has been edited back in this case to the usual spelling of leggerezza. Btw, we seem to have the same edition of the Nikita Magaloff CD: any chance of working together on a lengthy article dedicated solely to this glorious Amadeus reissue? Just scherzando...--MistyMorn (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

:-) More seriously, do you suppose it would be worthwhile changing WP's terminology spelling, adding "(sometimes but incorrectly spelled Leggierezza by, e.g., Chopin)? Milkunderwood (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've added this to leggiero: "(The different forms of this word, including leggierezza, "lightness", are properly spelled in Italian as legger- without the i.)" Milkunderwood (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Intriguing question. One I wouldn't know how to answer. Musical terminology is often a bit of an Italian unto itself. Some say markings like allegro ma non troppo are absurdly Germanic: how is it possible to be "happy, but not too happy"? I was once told that composers are a load of whoremongers who don't know how to write or spell. Evidently a clear advantage in some quarters...--MistyMorn (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

More seriously, I believe the generally accepted convention is to report the markings as the composer wrote them, neologisms and spelling mistakes included. Clearly, some native speakers may feel the need to make certain corrections.--MistyMorn (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat in this same context, see my query to Jerome Kohl and his response concerning Chopin's marking Impromptu No. 2, Op. 36 as "Allegretto. (Andantino.)", which I (edit:) found had found very confusing.

Actually, I find Jerome's reply here genuinely helpful. As he says, these terms shifted meaning considerably over time [haha] and, I would add, even between one composer and another. Thus, the indications became a sort of technical vocabulary, often communicating information on mood as well as tempo in a sort of composerly shorthand (explaining why many Italians find the whole thing a bit of a joke). Indeed, one finds musicologists and scholarly performers sometimes claiming to know fairly precisely what terms like allegretto and andantino meant to a particular composer. It is possible that by adding andantino here Chopin may be providing a little extra hint about the mood of the piece (though I'm in no position to say). Hope this helps a little--MistyMorn (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that JK's reply did clear up my question. My wording above was very clumsy - what I had meant to say was that I found the apparently contradictory tempo directions confusing only before he replied. Jerome has invariably responded not only to me but seemingly to everything posted at his talk page with clear and helpful replies - as have you as well. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, FYI, I've finally posted "who I am and why I'm here" at my user page, if you might be interested. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I saw your brief personal intro. I agree that doing something like this helps provide a little background to let others know where one's coming from. Like you I've preferred not to make my own one personally identifiable. Cheers--MistyMorn (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:-) Is 86.161.252.216 you, or is someone else editing your post? Milkunderwood (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I just forgot I was on my e-mail browser where I wasn't signed in.--MistyMorn (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Salt-Water Ballads

Hi Misty, I have replied to your comment on the Masefield talk page. I would encourage you to make the edits, with cites. Go for it! Happy editing. Span (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Spangle. Nice to get some encouragement, and I enjoyed perusing your user page. I genuinely don't know where to jump in though. Maybe a small new section would be good - I find it interesting how successful some of these settings are... So, maybe something like this from the Housman page, only rather shorter. (There are actually loads of Masefield settings - 65 listed here, as compared with a cool 185 for Housman.) Cheers--MistyMorn (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The Housman looks lovely. I would say, just try something ( sourced). I am happy to help tweak or make suggestions. If you want to sandbox first or try out a paragraph here, I'm happy to give feedback or try and find extra refs. It would be great to post a little audio clip on his page of a setting. (Not sure how you do that but it's a good thought. Always good to learn something new). I think John needs all the help and TLC he can get at the moment. But, y'know, what ever works for you. Best wishes Span (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again Span - I'm a slow navigator and will have to give some thought to this particular whaleway. Btw, I've already linked elsewhere to three songs by Frederick Keel, who wrote several Salt Water Ballad settings. However, I'm afraid I don't have the know how to provide a suitable John Ireland soundtrack for your Sea Fever box. Best wishes--MistyMorn (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've replied on my page. Span (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm Arnold chamber music

Hi MistyMorn-

I've just now added the detailed contents of the Nash Ensemble's recordings on Hyperion of much of Arnold's chamber music, to Malcolm Arnold#Selected recordings, and also a note at the Talk page explaining why. If you get a chance to look at it, I'd just like to make sure this was not inappropriate. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've inserted links to the excellent Hyperion pages, and... er... removed the work lists - hope you don't mind... Btw, I don't know about you, but I'm always a little concerned about lists like this on Wikipedia of "Selected recordings" (although the selections themselves seem to be good ones).--MistyMorn (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw that - it's fine, I wasn't emotionally invested in that list, and knew at the time it looked weird. But it would be a good idea for you to go back to my post on the Arnold talkpage and respond there as well. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Done.--MistyMorn (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're not familiar with that set, it's thoroughly delightful. I can't listen, especially to Vol 2, without chuckling at his wittiness. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy--MistyMorn (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Alan Hovhaness - a penny for your thoughts

Hi MistyMorn-

If you might be at all familiar with the work of Alan Hovhaness, I'm presently engaged in a humongous project of trying to expand and organize his Alan Hovhaness#Partial list of compositions, with constant help and guidance from Jerome Kohl in an extremely long back-and-forth discussion, q.v. (It's a lot of reading, but the best place to start.)

Jerome is indeed being very helpful (and patient with me). I just wondered if you might also care to take a look at my sandbox, and give either me, or both of us, a fresh perspective. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I have any useful perspective at all on this one. Sorry--MistyMorn (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite all right - thanks for taking the time to look. Milkunderwood (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I guess I'm the one who's likely to be seeking your advice on cataloguing...--MistyMorn (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello MistyMorn -- I have a lot to learn about using Wikipedia so I am grateful for any help you can provide as I attempt to revamp the Gurney entry. The problem with the entry to start with is that it has become something of a mishmash with too many different contributors adding to it and subtracting from it. It needs consistency. I don't know who wrote the original but I know that I and several others have tinkered with it over time. I don't know who supplied the listing of his music either but it was much needed just as a section devoted to the poetry is a necessity and more needs to be written about his work in both arts. I am not sure when I will be able to sit down and write this entry, soon I hope, but right now I've just come off a rather intensive period of writing so I'm taking a much needed break from words. What I would like to do is write the whole piece out complete with footnotes, references and sources and then have someone post it according to all the Wiki technical requirements which tend to cause me to glaze over when I attempt to read through them. I guess that patience is not my strong point! However, I am going to do a some collaborating on this with another Gurney person to be sure that we are both satisfied with the content and its balance as an entry. Thank you for your interest in this. Also please let me know when you've completed your entry on Ward Marston. We know him and he was a key person in a recording project of ours for Naxos and another recording project in the 1980s. He is extraordinary and an absolute fountain of knowledge.OwenBrooke (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've left a brief response regarding the Ward Marston draft on your user page. I feel the points you raise about the Gurney article necessitate a more considered reply, which I'll attempt sometime soon. In brief: No rush. And no need to restart from scratch - probably better to make a series of specific edits, which can then be discussed individually if necessary. Take it easy--MistyMorn (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

would

Hi Misty Morn,

Nothing personal or Dale-related meant by my alteration, just a general and private mission to eradicate that particular construction of words! In general I think an encyclopedia is better off without it. But if it is your preference I'm not one to insist. This is what I think:

'He would become a famous pianist' (example). 'He became a famous pianist'. The first adds two things to the second: (a) the person writing it is drawing attention to his/her own hindsight of the matter (e.g. 'I know this because it happened afterwards, and I can see back over the whole story'); and (b) rather perniciously, it introduces an un-historical element suggesting that 'with our hindsight we see that this was what was happened afterwards, so we describe what happened previously as if the outcome had even then been inevitable'. So, in historiography it's an undesirable construction.

What's more it is not very good grammar, because 'he would...' really ought to mean 'he wished to...', or even 'he used to...': its use in the sense of 'he was to...', as a conditional form of the verb 'will' as an auxiliary verb, is unsatisfactory because the futurity of the event described by it is not conditional to us the writers, but known. This formula of words confuses what we now know, with what they then knew, and places the conditionality in the wrong part of the syntax. It's just a bad expression, stylistically. 'He was to...' is a much better expression because it is just the future in the past, without that attempted subjunctive implying a conditional or destined futurity, when speaking of perfectly plain known events. 'He was to become a famous pianist' merely indicates that that is what happened later.

I expect this sounds insanely pedantic, and please write whatever you like in the Dale article. I don't normally bother but I just change this when I'm reading something and it particularly annoys me. When there is a series of them, it's as if the entire life had been spent in anticipation of something which never actually happened, whereas the problem is disposed of simply by writing about past facts in the simple past tense.

About 30 years ago I was good friends with a former pupil of Benjamin Dale's, and we had many happy conversations about Harold Samuel, Isolde Menges, etc.

All the best, Eebahgum (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't really learn much about Dale. I think I had a printing of his sonata and was trying to get a sense of it. I am just going through some sheet-music which belonged to his first wife, of standard composers, and am impressed by her thoughtful fingerings, odd notes on phrasing,and so on. There are personal touches: 'from B to K', and so on, and evidently around 1918-1923 they were enjoying Scriabine, Grieg, Hugo Wolf. She admired Elena Gerhardt, Walter Gieseking, Bruno Walter. I don't know anything about Kathleen Richards as a composer. You made a good job of Keel. Could one have a short listing of best-known titles? And Tim Riley has made a good job of Fuller Maitland. I once thought of maybe a WP article for Clifton Hellewell, who played for long hours at Maitland's home. All the best, Eebahgum (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In reply to last, don't take my word for it! I thought you had gathered a good lot of information on an interesting composer, and anything lacking or wrong, time may amend. Articles grow by parts, thanks to the zen of Wikipedia.Eebahgum (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Piano music of Gabriel Fauré

I don't know if Fauré appeals to you, but if perchance you are minded to look in I have this new article up for peer review. But I shall quite understand if you haven't got the time or inclination.

(En passant, I noticed the previous section about "would", and, if I may, I register a strong vote in support of Eebahgum's point of view.) Tim riley (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now added a short and scrappy article about Germaine Thyssens-Valentin, which I hope to improve after a few hours in the music reading room of the British Library. By all means look in and add or amend ad lib. Tim riley (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Fauré piano music article is now a candidate for featured article if you care to look in and comment, support or oppose at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Piano music of Gabriel Fauré/archive1. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Strongly support!--MistyMorn (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Strong indeed. Thank you so much. Tim riley (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not as strong as Ssilver's, I fear. Though I fully concur with him on this. Nice one!--MistyMorn (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Note about Berlusconi

With respect, I was defending Wikipedia from what was effectively vandalism by editors who refused to provide reasons why they were making erroneous edits. If I have inadvertently broken the 3-revert rule, as explained above, I apologise. My understanding of the details of the rule was evidently incomplete: thank you for pointing that out to me. Had I known, I would have asked for page protection. I have requested The Rambling Man to consider removing this good-faith warning from my user page. Regards,--MistyMorn (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I responded at my talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And so have I--MistyMorn (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the warning. It was probably way OTT and I ought to have talked to you first to ensure you understood what you were doing, albeit inadvertantly. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You can always drop me a line if you need anyone to talk Wikithings over with. From a loyal Tractor Boy. COYB. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you--MistyMorn (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Monti

There's nothing unidiomatic about it. I'm providing the date because that formulation gives the reader the key information and chronological context from the outset. "Currently" is not very informative by comparison. Everyking (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the Cameron lede is inadequate because it provides no real chronological context—it just says "currently". Yes, the information can be found easily by looking around the page, but it seems like poor form for an encyclopedia. I think the writing should be less fixated on the present and establish things in the historical sequence of events. Everyking (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:Default meaning?

Dear User:MistyMorn, thanks for the message on my talk page! I'll try to look at the situation when I have the opportunity as I have been somewhat busy lately. I hope you have a Merry Christmas! With regards, Anupam^Talk 10:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, for some reason, I thought the comment was on my talk page. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Charles Villiers Stanford

A bit off-piste perhaps, but if you have the time and inclination I'd be most grateful for any suggestions, queries, redraftings etc on the peer review page for this article. His music hasn't conquered the world, but he was one of the more colourful composers I've written about for Wikipedia. Tim riley (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

reverting

Thanks for the advice. Please look at the "Moonlighting" section on my user talkpage immediately below where you just now posted, about editing the article lede while the discussion is underway. What he's doing is moving the "Moonlight" up to the top of the lede. And he sounds so innocent. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't see that [2] but of course I may be missing something. Having been in his position of having gf edits summarily reversed, I can report that it can feel rather frustrating. I also know how difficult it can be to back off a little from a dispute once one's got involved. Just my 2c. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Respect for All, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Hall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Orfeocookie

Hello Misty Morn. I just added the Welcome template to Orfeocookie as you requested. Glad to help out. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

AHA! Goodness me, you really were paying attention. And thanks again. Orfeocookie (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

moonlight

I looked at the history of Talk:Moonlight Sonata and fail to see where I changed your edit. I left a lousy edit summary, not specifically saying that I meant MY limited knowledge, and I am sorry for that. I only changed my own former entry from "concieved" to "conceived". I left it wrong now, my English is limited, may it show. The question is if Beethoven (himself) wrote "Sonata quasi una fantasia" or "Quasi una fantasia". Whatever he wrote I don't think THAT is a nickname, rather that it shows the intention of the composer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that now. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine! For nice words from PumpkinSky see my archive, and yes, I got the DYK nomination in the last second. Btw I didn't create that redirect, just found it and used it, but will change now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. A good DYK, imo. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing comments of others

For your entertainment: once I broke the etiquette not to touch others' edits, deliberately. for emphasis. Someone noticed and informed me and the other editor - who gave his blessing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I used just to correct a few very obvious typos. But, after yesterday I think I'll stop even that. I'm still amazed by the grossness of my misreading. My brain evidently just hooked onto the "to my knowledge" phrase (a standard disclaimer) and repeatedly economised on reading everything else that surrounded it. I must have been more tired than I thought. Or, at least, I hope that's the explanation. Anyway, thank you very much for your understanding! MistyMorn (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's forget that, it's fine. I really wanted to mention the other. - Just now I broke the rule again, adding a missing bracket to the "Moonlight"-talk without explanation, thought that it simply helps to have a link actually working, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! MistyMorn (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Native Americans in the United States

Note the use of a 1906 source sandwiched between some more recent sources. The IPs edits seem to be in good faith. But looking at some other articles, it seems to be using recent sources as a cover for also adding some rather dated racist material. I don't know enough to be sure, but it has been doing on multiple articles. Other editors seem to be reverting it on the more active articles. It also somehow mysteriously breaks other references and templates situated well away from the part of the article it is editing. I don't think the latter is accidental any more than the former. Yworo (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Now showing at an FAC near you

I have put Stanford up for FAC. If you have time and inclination to look in and comment I shall be most grateful. – Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Top class. Joining the queue for tickets... MistyMorn (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ti ringrazio tanto (have I got that right?) Tim riley (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Di nulla, Tim! Scrivi davvero bene. MistyMorn (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I shall walk a little taller for that! Tim riley (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Walk on..., MistyMorn (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Good grief! I've just caught up with this. You must never, never, ever do this to an Everton supporter, of whom I am ancestrally one. Tim riley (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Self-selection and the naming convention

Just seen your comments over at the naming convention debate. I'm not sure whose comment you may have found insulting — I've been trying to keep up with the discussions but I may well have missed something. Do please try not to take things personally, even if that involves turning an occasional blind eye in the effort to assume good faith. For what it's worth, I thought the issue of self-selection bias was a good point well made, and deserved more discussion. --Deskford (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful message and for your moral support. In the comment clearly aimed at me "I'm beginning to think this talk page is being used for some kind of social experiment, which would be contrary to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia", I found the choice of wikilink unnecessarily aggressive. I was unsure whether to mention my feelings on this, since I too am anxious to avoid flame. On reconsideration, I felt it better to make my feelings known to the person who wrote it. However, I was not at all sure this was the right decision. Now, following your advice I've removed the remark I inserted. Cheers, MistyMorn (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers to you, MistyMorn! I haven't read, and am not aware of, the insult problem mentioned here, but I certainly agree with Deskford that you have indeed raised an important issue of self-selection bias. I have no idea where the best venue for that discussion might be. But to me the specific issue of "Moonlight" as opposed to "No. 14" revolves instead around the distinction between "common name" vs "nickname". That, and the problem of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again" which we've had to deal with in all of these move requests for the Beethoven sonatas - see my remarks (unknowingly posted an hour after the fact) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RM_closed_by_involved_party. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, thank you for the moral support, MilkUnderwood. As Deskford gently pointed out, I was doubtless overreacting to the implicit message in that bolded link. Anyway, I feel safe in the knowledge that my points are all on topic and made by logical reasoning in the context of a specific discussion. The section on the Classical Music Project Talk pointing us to the discussion was titled "Important theoretical discussion in progress". Well, I've raised a "theoretical" point which is highly relevant to that particular discussion. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Deskford is very helpful in gently advising calm - he posted similar advice to me when I was being angry and upset. :-) Milkunderwood (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't follow through that bolded link. I can see that it might have appeared aggressive, but that doesn't mean it was intended aggressively. That's the classic problem with online discussion: with only the words we lack the signals that face-to-face interaction provides, and it's all to easy to misinterpret. --Deskford (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes... thank you. Though I'm afraid the overall message was rather clear. I really appreciate your advice and moral support, MistyMorn (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Re Fly Fishing Bibliography

Misty, At one time, all the entries were in a single list. It was split into three when it got too big. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Misty, please feel free to make the neccesary improvements to the lead to help readers find all the potential titles. -Mike Cline (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

John Barbirolli

If, per impossibile, I can interest you in an article about an Italian-French-Englishman, you might like to look in at JB's article which I have put up for FAC. I am just old enough to have been to a Hallé concert in JB's day, and I hope I have done the beloved maestro some justice. Tim riley (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Respect for All

Does that Respect extend to Evertonians like me? Liverpool FC, forsooth! Be that as it may, if you want to rename the article click on the triangle next to the search box at the top left of the page and enter the new title and a brief reason for the change, and voila! Tim riley (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, will do (I can see it's too technical for a bear of so little brain). MistyMorn (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you prefer, tell me the correct title and I'll do the deed. Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's all gone through ok... I don't know what I was expecting... something complicated... but this time it didn't happen... Thanks again! MistyMorn (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

'Vantage number two, said the bi-coloured python rock-snake: the old page has automatically become a redirect page for anyone who, very reasonably searches for "Respect for All" rather than "Respect 4 All". Tim riley (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually noted that chameleon switch. I wish I could have been more helpful with Sir John... MistyMorn (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

All contributions, however small, are most welcome, as your tweaks to JB's article are. If you feel like adding a "support" or "oppose" at the FAC page it will help the authorities decide its fate. Tim riley (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Tim, in cases like this I'm never quite sure whether it's best to make the copyedits directly or to list them as suggestions/queries on the review page. The latter seems to me cumbersome and differs from my usual concept of peer review as primarily comprising a critical appraisal, including a list of substantial concerns/details.* Anyway, if you'd like to let me know what you feel is best for the submission, I'll certainly try to follow your indications. MistyMorn (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

*Erm... a slither of Viagra for your impact factor, Milord? (Get Peered, aka How to be Topp, Part 2). MistyMorn (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I always lose at board games (except Scrabble, of course) but I enjoyed this one. As to changes to my prose, I'd suggest you go ahead and make any minor stylistic ones that come to mind, but raise any factual queries or more substantial drafting points on the FAC page. Tim riley (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I should emphasise that the Barbirolli article isn't at peer review – it was there two years or so ago – but is a Featured Article Candidate. So not only are any comments welcome on the FAC page: your support or oppose will help determine whether the article is promoted to FA. Tim riley (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

a small suggestion

Hi- Just wanted to let you know I saw and appreciated your kind nod to me. If you don't mind my offering a suggestion, my impression is that your recent smalling probably accomplishes the opposite of your actual intention, if I'm interpreting that correctly. It stands out and draws attention, almost as much as bolding might. I think you could even go back still now, and normalize all those, if you don't disagree. (Just my 2¢). Best, Milkunderwood (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, as ever. I made a mistake with the tagging, which someone has kindly corrected. I guess you may have been referring to that issue. Otherwise, although I can see your point I would prefer to leave the "personal" bits in small, to facilitate (or at least not hinder too much!) readability of the stuff that's actually on topic, about titling, consensus etc. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I leave your decision up to you of course, and that explanation helps explain your thinking. My worry was that it appears churchmousy, but petulantly so. Anyway, that was the way it comes across to me, and I was positive that hadn't been your motivation. No idea how others might view it. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, I certainly don't want to be seen as churchmousy (eek!)... Nor petulant. I just felt the page was hard enough to navigate anyway, but I needed to defend myself. Btw, the thanks to Ravpapa and the nod to you are heartfelt. I don't see why one can't disagree civilly. Or back down and admit one's made a mistake, as he did. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, and others aren't seeing it the same way - but that has definitely been my own interpretation, unfortunately, until you explained. Still, if it was me, I would go back and change them, because I really do see them as distracting.

The page is horrible to try to navigate, as you say. I had posted that specific warning myself somewhere on it. But in all honesty my own impression is that your intended tactic doesn't help.

Yeah, he had jumped to an incorrect conclusion, but he's an upstanding guy in my experience, and I have a lot of respect for him. I disagree with his post about "power", though. I don't think that's what it's about at all. Some time when you get a chance check out all the brouhaha about the capitalization of names of birds. This isn't about "power", though it can seem to devolve into that. It's really more a problem of WP naming policy being a Procrustean bed for specialties like ornithology or classical music, where a field of study has developed guidelines that best suit their specific needs, and then here they get pushed and pulled to fit into schemes that are not just foreign to them, but by their lights simply don't work as well. That's how I see it anyway. But then I also have my own bete noir concerning encyclopedic tone as someone tried to describe it. I truly believe that if we are attempting to be authoritative we should also try to sound authoritative, and not "dumb down" to the lowest common denominator of readers. Redirects do all the work, and the wording at the start of an article's lede assures immediate easy access to any and every wanted article. More properly formal article titles are noticed by most users, and do serve a valuable purpose in at least offering to a reader a concept of how the topic fits into a more general scheme, rather than reinforcing his/her limited view of the article in isolation. So that's where I'm coming from. Oh well. (Maybe I should post this last in response to the "power" post?) Milkunderwood (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Barbirolli

I'm so glad you leaned on me to consult Evelyn Rothwell's book. It's a delight, and I have added two particularly ripe plums from it to the JB article. I lived near Lady B in the early 1970s and she was always a charming neighbour, though I was never on more than "Good morning" terms. JB, alas, had died the year before I moved there. Tim riley (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Recognizability poll

MistyMorn, since you participated in a previous poll on the wording of the "recognizability" provision in WT:TITLE, your perspective would be valued in this new poll that asks a somewhat different question: WT:TITLE#Poll to plan for future discussion on Recognizability. – Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Original Research

Your mention of Lady Walton reminds me of a story passed on by a friend who was present when Ursula Vaughan Williams was talking to the Prince of Wales at some RCM bash. Was it she, he enquired, who had asked him to sponsor a music foundation on Ischia? "No, no, sir," she replied. "You must be thinking of Susana Walton." "I see," said the prince. "Will it be any good?" There was a long pause before Ursula's answer: "Well, sir, she's an excellent gardener." I longed to put this in the William Walton article, but for obvious reasons I couldn't. – Tim riley (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Royal Opera, London

I have put this article up for FAC, and if you care to add your thoughts to the FAC page here I should consider it a favour. I don't know if you've encountered User:GuillaumeTell, but if notI suggest you keep him in your sights for any operatic articles, as he's a mine of superb information and stimulating suggestion. (Several other of the usual suspects have also helped me greatly with this article, but I need hardly say that.) Tim riley (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we've met before :o)

We just "met" on Jimbo's talk page, so I popped over to take a look and say Hi! I approve of your string of userboxes, you look like an interesting sort. :o) Pesky (talk…stalk!) 13:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Blackout

No problem - I imagined there was an innocent explanation ;) Connolly15 (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Bryden Thomson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gramophone and Daniel Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Parody music

If you have a moment, please look in at the article talk page, where I have posted a link to a suggested recasting of the article which I hope may meet with approval from interested editors. Tim riley (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Gurney

Thanks for your note. Please see my reply to Owen. Thanks. Span (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Charles Dickens' article.

Hi MistyMorn. The Charles Dickens article has been of a low standard for a long period and edits unvetted. The one issue that needs to be dealt with in Talk:Charles_Dickens 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 addition and wording scholarly. You've been combating bias, so your input so this gets resolved would be most helpful. Thanks. Harrison 1979 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, which I've tried to respond to in a constructive spirit.

Excellent suggestion with the subarticle MistyMorn.. one that i had never considered. That way, the biography stays encyclopedic, and Dickens social opinions and influence covers the issue indepth. 100% behind this.Harrison 1979 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Misty, Thank you for your intelligent and balanced suggestions. Span (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on my page. Span (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Italy

Having recovered from your surprising young man in tight trousers, I shall of course be pleased to accept your invitation to PR the Italy article. More in the next 48 hours when I've done my homework. Tim riley (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Now done. I haven't minced words, and I hope I haven't upset any contributor, but hier stehe ich: ich kann nicht anders, to borrow from Italy's northern neighbour. I must say I boggled at the idea of an Italian lake flowing down the Rhine into the North Sea. – Tim riley (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Occupational health psychology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Workplace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Georg Solti

I have this article up for peer review, and would welcome any comments you cared to post on the PR page. Tim riley (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tim - Hope to get there next week. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh

Yogesh is a well-known pov pusher and an activist connected to the Hindutva-oriented BJP. He has even organised protests against Wikipedia. The edits most likely were deliberately misrepresenting things. - Sitush (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that by expressly assuming good faith my remarks were in harmony with Wikipedia policy. Thank you, —MistyMorn (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

True enough and do as you please, but plenty of people would tell you that you are wasting your time. His only support comes from topic banned people such as Zuggernaut. A quick check of the archives would show you that, especially their own talk page, ANI, DRN and WT:INB, plus the block log. - Sitush (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If Yogesh does have explicit connection the BJP and has not declared his interests it would count as a hidden conflict of interest, would it not? I have backed out of Dickens. Wikilawyering, bickering and mudslinging rows are not a way I choose to spend my time here. I think the only way to stick with WP long term is do what one finds satisfying. Fighting is not that, for me. Where you see terribly written articles of very prominent people, you usually find entrenched, POV editors blocking development. Good luck to you both. Span (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Just spotted this - Thank you Span. I trust my efforts have not blocked development even further: I was trying to suggest pragmatic solutions, as I'm sure you gathered. Interesting point about COI... Best,—MistyMorn (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I think you have made sensible suggestions. I had meant to say that, in my experience, when I come across the article of a high profile subject in a terrible state I generally find there to be a strong POV gate keeper behind it fending off all comers. Enjoy your weekend. Span (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Have fun yourself! Auguri, —MistyMorn (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. When you recently edited International Classical Music Awards, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James Gilchrist and Tibor Varga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar from Span

		The Original Barnstar
		For the generosity of spirit you bring to the editing community. Thank you for all your work on arts-based articles. You make a great contribution. Span (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the lovely mimosa. It lights up my talk page. Are you currently based in Britain? I'm in London on an entirely glorious Thursday afternoon. Best wishes Span (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Span - I've replied via email. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replied on my page. Span (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Spooky!

I was just thinking "haven't spotted anything from young MistyMorn lately" and at that precise moment in popped your (unsigned - smack handies!) message about Highbeam. I shall follow it up tomorrow when I am sober. Meanwhile, et toi? (if I may be so informal) Tim riley (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Young? Well, by how many years plus or minus do you calibrate to my 1952? If 1953 or later you are young, and I shall expect due deference to one of my venerability. Tim riley (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

re Western betrayal

Hi MistyMorn-- It's great to run across you again.

With regard to this particular problem you might also care to look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Western betrayal. I first stumbled upon that article out of curiosity about the use of [sic] in a quote of a quote, nothing to do with the article itself. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Saw your note - thanks. I had no idea anyone at all was bothering to watch my talk page. :-) Milkunderwood (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In case you didn't know...

I'm sending this notice to all folks that have contributed to Talk:Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism.

ON 28 March 2012, an ANI case was opened proposing a ban of User:Yogesh Khandke from topic editing on Wikipedia. You can read my own contribution (neutral comment, neither support nor oppose) here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=485193968&oldid=485193212

The top of the discussion (quite long) is here. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_indefinite_topic_ban_for_Yogesh_Khandke--WickerGuy (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Addendum

Until I tried to put in a link to your user-page in the comments above, I had always thought you were MistyMoM. I now realize you are MistyMoRN, which makes a bit more sense. :) --WickerGuy (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel Fauré

I've put Gabriel Fauré up for a second peer review, but I'll be more or less Wiki-less until 12 April as I'm off to the countryside tomorrow, with little access to the internet. If, despite my abandoning my post, you could find time and disposition to look at the much-expanded article and add such comments as occur to you, I'd be most appreciative. – Tim riley (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's most kind. Please add any comments here. Tim riley (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

thanks

I sometimes leave tpyos in essays - thanks for the fix. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"What Must Be Said"

Hi Misty, I'd appreciate your eyes over at "What Must Be Said". The article was only created yesterday but tempers are running high. I guess it's good to see poetry making waves but I don't get why people have to shout. I've been finally been outed as an agent of Mossad. Dang. Span (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ciao

Ciao MistyMorn, ho visto dal tuo babel che sai piuttosto bene l'italiano, così mi scuserai se non comunico con te in inglese (se però preferisci che lo faccia, basta dirlo ^^). Mi intendo relativamente poco di en.wiki, visto che da italiano trascorro molto più tempo su it.wiki. Vorrei fare la mia parte per il progetto inglese per quanto concerne le voci sull'Italia. Visto che mi pare di capire che te ne intendi, essendo tu italofilo, mi faresti un buon favore se mi indicassi tutte quelle voci riguardanti l'Italia che hanno bisogno di essere sistemate o controllate o comunque riviste per qualsiasi motivo. Grazie e scusa il disturbo! --Apollineo! (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Infatti ho trovato tutto ciò che poteva interessarmi. Grazie! Provvederò presto a fare qualche edit conformemente alle esigenze del progetto. Spero di poter ancora lavorare con te. E' proprio vero che su en.wiki c'è molta più collaborazione che nel progetto italiano. A presto :-) --Apollineo! (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Che te ne pare di questa? --Apollineo! (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Uterine fibroids

Thank you for your work on this article. Im afraid I didnt have the time then to work it into a shape I was entirely happy with. It looks much better now.DrMicro (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. A warning. There are a small number of editors who spend it seems all their lives on WP looking at Medicine related material. They are markedly opinionated and tend to agree among themselves. Disagreeing with one will rapidly attract the other. Seems to be a small bunch. I wont list any names. If you do any work in medicine I'm sure you will run into them. Overall I do have to say that the standard of article isnt too bad so they clearly do keep the standard up. But if they dont like what you have written you *will* find out about it.

They tend not to hang around the rare disease articles which is where I probably do most of my writing in the medical area. I do most of my writing on micro (as the name suggests) subjects. It would be good to have a second opinion on some of the rare disease material as they tend to be under edited (IMHO). Hopefully we can work on a few together. DrMicro (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry...

For the trouble at the MDD article. I'm the same as you; I prefer to avoid drama, but this particular problem is infuriating. Hope you don't hold it against me if you come across me again. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing to apologise about! I agree it's quite infuriating. See you around, —MistyMorn (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

As you've been there from start to finish, I'd appreciate your input at this ANI discussion. Thanks Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. When you recently edited Lady for a Day, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Maltby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Beevsbud

Hiya! Done! And if there's ever an article that you'd like to collaborate on, just let me know. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Hi, MistyMorn. I am hoping to alter WP:MEDRS. Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Fauré at FAC

Following the peer review – from which I have followed up your very helpful suggestions – I now have the Gabriel Fauré article as a candidate for Featured Article. If you care to add support, opposition, or comment at the FAC it will help the process. Tim riley (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Randomised controlled trials

Thanks for your help on the intro of the RCT article, you did it much more competently than I did. Best regards Tkenna (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

A plaque on both your houses

May I trouble you to have a look at the wording on this plaque and help me out with "mezzo secolo"? I can manage the rest, I think, and indeed I know what both mezzo and secolo mean, but I can't work out what they mean together here. Tim riley (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Good! Thank you for that. Tim riley (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Linguistic relativity

Hello, MistyMorn. You (briefly) asked what I think is not at all a silly question: whether suggesting improvements to Linguistic relativity might disqualify from reviewing the page for GAN. Speaking only for myself, I would suggest that either of two courses of action would be helpful and completely appropriate. Either suggest away, and make bold changes where you think them necessary, or undertake the GAN review, during the course of which you can suggest away and make bold changes where you think them necessary. I've only done a couple of GAN myself, but my understanding is that in addition to File:Oppose.png ratings, reviewers are encouraged to change minor problems where the see them, or point out more serious ones. Cnilep (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

yeah, definitely not a silly question. Comments ahead of time doesn't disqualify you from anything - it just means that we'd have a chance to take them into account before the reviewprocess begins (which could be awhile given the GA backlog). Alternatively you could decide oreview the article yourself! The youd just evaluae how well it fits the criteria and provide suggestions to fit them better. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Gosh! Two kind replies to a non-query... Thank you both indeed. I'll certainly muck in. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you help me?

ho letto che parli italiano, potresti aiutarmi con un utente qui su en.wiki a spiegargli una cosa che o non mi capisce o non mi so far capire io! se puoi aiutarmi nello scrivergli o se hai letto il messaggio contattami su it.wiki che qui ci passo di rado! bye!--AccendiLaLuce (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Monteux

Cg2p0B0u8m and I have put the old boy up for peer review, if you have time and disposition to look in we shall be grateful. There is not the slightest urgency about this. We hope to get the article up to FAC at some time in the future, but we have set no deadlines for ourselves. Any suggestions you like to add on the PR review page will be gladly received. Tim riley (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Retaliation

Oh, now, look that's monstrously unfair! I fight back with Narrow Channel, Welcome Cellini, Leonard from You Win, and, less famous but spectacularly named, I Guide Kidneys? Could we, like our French neighbours, have nurtured the great tragedians, John Root and Peter Crow, or the composer Peter Swell? Other international composers are Charles Weaver, Joseph Fields (cheating a bit, perhaps), Augustus Painter, Richard Bunch, Arnold Belmont and, which I’m hoping will have you on the back foot, Frederic Cream. Yours Godfearing [Greek] Descendent of the Valiant [Irish]. Tim riley (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Chatting off campus

To avoid bloating the New Forest Pony review, a couple thoughts about genetic disorders here. These things totally freak out horse breeders, and their first reaction is to dive headfirst into a sand dune. (And Pesky is not a head in the sand type, but she breeds them, so it's a scary thing to contemplate in a breed that already has genetic diversity problems, and so I sympathize with her worries) I ran into a lot of "political" flak IRL dealing with cerebellar abiotrophy CA in the Arabian horse. (I still own the horse in the photo at the CA article, she's sort of the poster child) Basically, whenever a genetic disease crops up in a horse breed (I hear similar behavior occurs in dog breeds), the factions break into 1) The whole breed is terribly defective, stop buying them; 2) Remove (kill) all the carriers, or 3) Ignore it and bury a few dead foals out in the back. The breeders usually pick 3) and this is often because it first shows up in the offspring of a "major" stallion, (who has enough babies that defects can't be put down to mere chance) and thus the whole thing gets perpetuated until it's a huge problem. My favorite was in the Appaloosa when they blamed the increased risk of developing a congenital blindness (which is directly linked to the gene that creates the pretty spots) on a worming medication! :-P Basically, the more responsible folks in all breeds, after an initial period of denial and infighting with the "cull them all" crowd, usually push to get a genetic test perfected so they can at least figure out who has what. Then, in Europe, usually strict guidelines are imposed, while in the USA, there is usually some sort of voluntary reporting program. The AQHA did ban HYPP-positive horses from registration, after a phase-in period, but that was probably because HYPP is a dominant. Anyway, that's my tale. Montanabw^(talk) 23:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate where you're coming from and will continue the dialogue at FAC (I'm not altogether comfortable about discussing content issues here). I agree it's important to get both the content and tone right without bloat. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I just wanted my snarky comments about other breeds to not bloat the New Forest FAC, which is bloated enough! (grin). Just added to malignant hyperthermia, found in Quarter Horses, that makes at least three different genetic muscular diseases in that breed (dang but they have to quit breeding those critters to look like beef cattle, they are supposed to HERD beef cattle!). Montanabw^(talk) 18:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Understand. Btw, you're absolutely right about that "benign" consideration... —MistyMorn (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I managed to score the COMPLETE article in a pdf via a University computer. Can I email it to you? Montanabw^(talk) 19:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Thank you!

I'm afraid my last edit summary probably seemed rude. Please accept my apologies. I was engrossed in a football match and accidentally referenced a WP Essay in place of a guideline I seemed to remember saying it's not necessary to source a self-explanatory statement such as "Paris is a city" (though my memory seems to have played me a trick on that one). The second sentence on the CLCN1 page reads "The protein encoded by this gene regulates the electric excitability of the skeletal muscle membrane." In the Wikipedia article, this information is automatically transcluded by a Bot from Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM): CLCN1 - 118425. On the New Forest Pony page, I felt it was important to provide the general reader with some indication of the protein's function to avoid inadvertently giving the false impression that the mutation somehow magics up the disease.

As regards the account in The Horse of Wijnberg's first-person role in spotting the clinical issue in the field (literally!), I'd actually have been rather surprised if he'd had his team of laboratory co-workers with him in the New Forest at the time. So I don't think we need be too worried about doing anybody down, and I say that as a stickler for authorship rights and duties. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I just emailed you the complete article. On the CLCN issue, I know squat about genetic sequencing, so I'd have no clue it's self-evident, and having survived too damn many "Paris is a city" stupid wiki-wars, I've found putting in a wee cite spares the drama.  ;-P From what Pesky said, the foal wasn't on the New Forest, it must have been in the Netherlands (?) The whole point for me is to walk that fine line between going "one case, no big whoop, probably a fluke" and "GENETIC DISEASE! PANIC!" (grin) Bottom line, though, is that these recessives usually pop up when breeders start "linebreeding" (the nice word for inbreeding, and have implications when genetic diversity is a simultaneous concern. Montanabw^(talk) 20:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding! I've just glanced through the full article. That helps a lot. Basically, there's nothing much wrong with what we've got in either of our two latest versions: they just tell the story from different viewpoints. Personally, I tried to prioritise the points you made above to try to indicate how the ongoing line of research is ultimately aimed at a sensible prevention strategy (I'm in no doubt that that's the goal). The problem I find is that communicating like this, especially at FAC/talk pages etc gets incredibly frustrating. Simple misunderstandings which could easily be settled verbally tend to drag on and on and become enervating. Please give me a day or so off to get back into this. Maybe too we could communicate off wiki so that we understand better where we're coming from? Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem, and I agree, sometimes the only thing worse than talk page conversations is text messaging! :-P So feel free to drop me an email. Montanabw^(talk) 16:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As for goals, the "prevention strategy" problem in animal breeding is a very thorny one, especially for these small breeds where every animal is needed to prevent things like inbreeding depression, yet a deleterious mutation can also wreak havoc. The preferred approach most responsible promoters of breeds like to see is the rapid development of a DNA test occur, so that carriers of mutated recessive disorders aren't bred to one another. But that presents a new problem, which is that some people then feel they have carte blanche to breed carriers to non-carriers, but in the case of a carrier stallion, that can actually INCREASE the prevalence of the allele in the population. In a perfect world, they'd "breed to replace" -- meaning to breed the carrier only until he produces a clear-tested offspring of comparable quality to himself, then retire the carrier from the breeding pool. Except nobody does it. :-P I'd be glad to discuss this further, off-wiki, as you will note from my User Page, this topic is sort of my "cause." Have many tales of woe. Montanabw^(talk) 16:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys! I've added some stuff in the article there about the recent(ish) mutation and the likely founder stallion. This was definitely a Netherlands foal, not a UK foal, so it wasn't spotted on the Forest, lol! I've gone into a (tiny bit) of detail on the FAC talk page. The Netherlands foundation breeding stock were exported (from the UK) / imported (to the Netherlands) back in the 1950's. Genetically, having looked at the various figures, the history, the etc., I'd tend to agree wholeheartedly with their opinion on the founder stallion candidate. But the main point is that this was definitely a Netherlands-bred foal, not a Forest-bred foal.

Adding: going on the pedigrees / histories of my own animals, grandsires / great-grandsires are predominantly 1970's and 1980's-born animals. Pesky (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've just checked the myotonia test results: all the animals listed as carriers are Dutch-registered.

Aaaaand ... they all have Watershof Pretendent (Dutch bred, and by a Dutch-bred stallion) as a common ancestor at the relevant generation(s)...

Adding more: Justice HR and Kantje's Armando are both confirmed as carriers; Watershof Pretendent is a grandsire of both, and they descend from Pretendent through their sire Kantje's Ronaldo, which doesn't appear on the published list of tested animals. Without knowing the actual breeding (RS!) of the affected foal, we don't know whether it had Ronaldo twice, or Pretendent twice. At the moment, either could be the possible founder stallion. I haven't been able (yet) to trace a 2009 colt by Ronaldo. (Just dropping in bit of expansion for explanation of why I put this in: With no 2009 Ronaldo colts, and with Ronaldo (reportedly) dead, it's likely-on-paper that R is the grandsire / great-grandsire candidate here, rather than Pretendent. Confirmation, of course, isn't in the public domain ;P - 16-06-2102 @ 22:59)) The third published-confirmed-carrier is Orchids Floris, which traces back to Ronaldo through his dam, Orchid's Christa, via Justice HR. A check on the allbreedpedigree record for Ronaldo, looking at the progeny report, shows an awful lot of progeny. Very popular stallion. Pesky (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting stuff, Pesky, and overall I'd guess rather encouraging for the breed. On WP (and FA) grounds, I think we have to take care how we treat our primary sources in this fast moving case (in the broad sense of the term). Clearly, some sources are more primary than others. Formally, WP:MEDRS requires secondary sources in the form review articles,as distinct from peer-reviewed studies such as Wijnberg 2012). Here, I don't think that would be practical or desirable, but we have to be careful to avoid OR etc.

@MTBW: Thanks. When I tried to reply to your email, mine got clobbered by your spam blocker. I'll try again via the Wikipedia page and see what happens. If we manage to find a way of talking directly, I think it would make things easier for both of us.

I feel happier with the current state of the text and have just made a series of copy edits. I am very open to criticisms of such edits and to technical queries or suggestions: I really would be happier to respond in that way rather than continually redoing/undoing technical edits. Thanks for the understanding, —MistyMorn (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Umm, yes; as far as the article itself is concerned, at this stage it's strictly a "no names, no pack drill" situation ;P Nothing on the actual identity of the affected line can go in, as yet (nor until there's public RS confirmation of it). I've put in what can go in, as per the wording in the study itself. Pesky (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I think the current version could be a good working basis and am currently pasting it to the FAC talk page. —MistyMorn (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I used underline and strikeout on the talk page version to note some refinements I'd like to see. Pesky, I agree that until a founder is named in Second Coming type across multiple sources (as in HYPP or HERDA, but not most other conditions) "no names" is the way we must go. Misty, I'll tell the spam catcher to let you in, I have it set pretty high, for various reasons. And Pesky, it's ALWAYS a popular stallion with a lot of get who wind up behind these genetic mutation boogers, they are the only ones with a zillion foals on the ground and enough people who start thinking that linebreeding back to grandpa to "fix" his traits is the thing to do. And it's seldom perpetuated within the hardcore practical breeders, it's the people who want a competition ideal who cause all the trouble. In fact, don't even get me started on THAT topic! Montanabw^(talk) 19:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tweaked it in line with your suggestions, Montana. And as far as names go, it doesn't matter what we know, it only matters what we can safely say is "known" ;P Though I don't expect it will be too long before we have a RS on this. Unless, of course, there's an almighty hush-up on it, though in all fairness I don't think my locals would approve of such a hush-up (they have more sense than that). The sheer possible numbers of Ronaldo's grandfoals and great-grandfoals is a bit scary. Pesky (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It IS scary, but the sooner they can test and replace, the better! I have evidence that cerebellar abiotrophy traces to a founder stallion named Zobeyni, foaled about 1840. When I traced the pedigree of my affected filly that far back, I found she crossed to him at least 93 times -- and that was when my eyes boggled and I stopped counting! Impossible to remove his influence. Montanabw^(talk) 21:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Eeeek! At least in more modern times we do have the nouse (and the facilities) to track these things down before (hopefully!) that many generations have gone through! And more people do have at least a rudimentary knowledge of genetics. One day breeders will be able to insure against any of their high-income stock being discovered to have any nasties lurking in their DNA, without breaking the bank to pay the premiums. Breeders' compensation schemes to cover the cost of getting affected and carrier animals neutered, and to cover the costs of DNA testing, and the costs of buying-in replacement breeding stock if they have affected animals, would be a good forward-looking move. Pesky (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sequencing of the horse genome has been well worth it! Back when they needed a test for SCID, it took about 15 years. When I started shaking the trees on CA in about 2005, I was told it was down to $250,000 and about five years." Now, it seems that it's just a matter of a much smaller sum and much less time once they find the gene. The problem is the hush-hush problem now. See How They Run when a dominant gene is suspected: ahem! and AHEM!!! Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Into the home straight?

Well I think we're getting there... Into the home turn now, and it's Pony pushing all the way...
Erm, actually I've rather shifted from commentator to runner, which predictably hasn't turned out to be the simplest of moves to make. If we need another commentator, I suggest we might politely ask Tim riley -- a master of bringing pages up to peak condition for FA -- whether he has a pair of field glasses to hand. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll put what I think we have agreed on into the article, revert or trout slap me if I got it wrong. Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we move on now? —MistyMorn (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Hugz all around. Pesky (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanx Pesky. Any objections to adding Putman 1986, chapter 3 to the Bibliography (per suggestion cleverly camouflaged somewhere in the FAC forest)? Hugz, —MistyMorn (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll let Pesky answer on the ref, but I'm good with the article as it sits today. Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As article sits now, can you still vote on it after all the direct input you had? If so, can you vote support yet? ;-) Be nice to give Pesky a pretty gold star after all the recent stuff she's had to deal with IRL. Montanabw^(talk) 21:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been offline and was also waiting to hear from Pesky. But will certainly support now. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been offline mostly, too; done some little fixes per Nikkimaria's comments. Ian Rose would like a spot-check on sources unless someone else has already checked for plagiarism, etc. ;P I don't think I made any goofs there. Pesky (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pesky! I didn't stumble on anything remotely amiss while reviewing, but I didn't look systematically. I'm new to spot kicking, but I found this as guidance. If you'd like me to check some spots tomorrow, I'll certainly give them a whirl. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Telepathy

Hi, MistyMorn. Thanks for your good edits to the lead of Telepathy. I should mention that I spoke of one of them here. AndyTheGrump is currently blocked, that's why we were discussing the article on his talkpage. Bishonen | talk 12:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC).

"I suspect you may already have registered a Wikipedia account ..."

Technically yes, I have registered a wikipedia account in the past. It was a throwaway account, used quite briefly, that I registered in order to be able to upload an image (although I don't think I actually ended up uploading an image for some reason). I'm not sure what the username was, if I recall correctly I just used whatever the captcha was on the registration form, as I had no intention of actually being a registered user. This was some time ago. I did recently do the same with a wikimedia account in order to be able to replace the image on Covering space, I think the username was something like wordslaugh (again from the captcha on the registration form). By the way what does the FM bit mean from "92.4 FM"? --92.4.177.142 (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

92.4 FM sounded to me like a radio station - great contributions! —MistyMorn (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Causal connection

Hi MistyMorn - thanks so much for looking over and contributing to the History of astrology article. I just want to make you aware that I don't think the change to 'causal connections' is correct and I've made a comment on the talk page about this. It contracticts with the content of the article - for example where astrology is described in the 17th century as not being science, or magic, etc, but pulling from many related studies. So I'm not sure the change works, but would love to get your input on the talk page. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Monteux

Sorry, I was a bit hasty. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem! —MistyMorn (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/MistyMorn

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Advance health-care directive. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Damn!

I was just about to do this when the phone rang. pablo 22:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A deletion

Hi. You today deleted the section "Comparison of meta-analysis to the scientific method" from meta-analysis, partly on the basis of the discussion of the talk page, to which I had contributed. After that discussion, the section (having been deleted) was replaced (not by me) with a rather different content that seemed much better to me. Would you please reconsider this deletion, looking afresh at the most recent version. I won't replace it myself as you may have strong opinions about the content and I don't. Melcombe (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Melcombe, thank you for your comment and genuine concern. Yes, it seems to me to have been someone's personal whim, built in a sandbox but unfortunately quite inappropriate for Wikipedia. The entire section really is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH based on misuse of WP:PRIMARY. If the author can produce a reliable secondary source, per WP:BURDEN fair enough. But I wouldn't set odds on that. And I feel the current content is still seriously misleading and WP:UNDUE. Cheers, —MistyMorn (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :)

G'day! Thanks for the welcoming message! Hildabast (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User:ChrisLaarman

Hi MistyMorn. I delivered some cookies and an invitation to tea to our new user ChrisLaarman. BTW, we need to work collaborate on an article; pick one! :) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Howdy

I'm fairly sure this is trolling. Either way, it's all grossly and gratuitously offensive for an encyclopedia. It's way past bed time here so I can't take it on just now, but will check back tomorrow. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I really wouldn't know how... seeking advice from AndytheGrump. Cheers, —MistyMorn (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell it like it is

My impression is that, around and about on Wikipedia, there's currently an unfortunate emphasis on discipline above culture.

It's been this way from day one, and there happens to be a lot of active editors who either have a military background, are currently in the military, or are veterans. Make of that what you will. But, don't get me wrong. Discipline is good; we should all strive to be disciplined editors, disciplined writers, and disciplined reviewers. But discipline for the sake of discipline is unnecessary bureaucracy, which is what this amounts to in the end. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Podia

Thank you for your encouraging note on the Riley talk page. Harold Schonberg's book The Great Conductors has a page heading, "Muck on the podium", which sounds to me as though the Boston cleaners were getting slack. Tim riley (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Idea to consider

Hey Misty! As a result of recent discussions, etc., I'm mulling over the idea of a possible Wikiproject: Plain English for Policies. What do you and your stalkers think about having a team working on a kind of Design for All goal on policy-writing? Maybe including (some of) the good regulars over at FAN/FAR? Check over my talk page; we have people elsewhere saying it's "impossible" to do what I want, but I'm darned sure that it's not! FAs manage it, after all ... Pesky (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ishin-denshin

I think it's a splendid article. Good job! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ettore Petrolini. Great job too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Some very impressive contributions coming from you. Wonderful! Keep it up! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks, and how nice it is that you are an equally nice and positive person as you are contributor! Ciao!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Deconstruction

Hi MistyMorn--

Here's an article that I just happened upon, and finding myself boggle-headed by it, I looked at the talkpage, where I found myself with considerable company. I always rely on your good common sense. Tell me frankly: am I entirely talking out my arse in the "Is this article a joke?" section? Milkunderwood (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi MU - You evoke sense and Derrida in the same breath? My cynical take is that someone "conversant" with Derrida and deconstructionism is unlikely to discourse comprehensibly anyway... So I guess I'd be better off keeping my big common mouth out of this. Good luck anyway, —MistyMorn (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

:-) Milkunderwood (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

for being slow in getting back to you. I'm still thinking / waiting to see if others chime in. (Mmmm. Deconstruction. If only I had the time.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Anthony. (Hmmm. This post will self-deconstruct in 5 seconds.) —MistyMorn (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ettore Petrolini

Orlady (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm pretty sure I credited you, or could it have been that I had already nominated it by the time you edited it? Sorry about that anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all doc! I was just trying to figure out the mechanism. But I should have guessed it's not stuff for a bear of very little brain... —Misty_(MORN) 17:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Giulietta Guicciardi

With thanks for your outstanding and unforgotten effort regarding the lady, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh thanks Gerda, bless you! Actually, we both had the same idea quite independently. Best, —Misty_(MORN) 20:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And a very good idea it was ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Pony

I looked at the FA nom, see only one nominator, - watch her page and you will see when it comes up, it may take years, though, others come after a few days. Suggestions are possible, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much yet again, Gerda. Yes, I was a bit surprised it was taking so long to show up... (though not years, as yet!) Especially since it seems to me like an attractive topic for the main page. Thanks also for the "Suggestions". I'll get in contact with Pesky to see if we can work something out. Thanks again for all your help. Even now, I'm finding the more technical aspects of Wikipedia somewhat confusing. Cheers, —Misty_(MORN) 21:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See the following as confusing or clarifying. Once a DYK nomination is promoted, the info on the "makers" is no longer in it (I just found out myself.) But if you look at open ones, or this older version, in edit mode (!) you see how a DYKmake is coded (in this case 3 authors for 3 articles). I trust that you can do it yourself next time ;) - FA: this year, a 2007 (!) FA was shown on the Main page but didn't stay long, quality standards are different now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks Gerda! Incredible about the 5-year erm... . I'll try maybe to get my head around some of the more technical stuff sometime, but not tonight. My stomach rumbles -- a bit like the thunder! —Misty_(MORN) 21:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Italian

Hi MistyMorn, I took the freedom of making some fixes on your message, have a nice day! --Vituzzu (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, that makes me seem almost italiano, rather than anglo-bulgnaiṡ! —Misty_(MORN) 22:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for reviewing the medical aspects of barefoot running and for your timely and helpful response. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A pleasure! Thank you for the wholesome thought. Must run now... —Misty_(MORN) 22:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, that a nice pie. Hey if you are interested we could transwiki User:Ipigott/Neoclassical architecture in Milan into english.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It'll look great in English! Anyway, its in the sandbox so translate whenever you feel like it! Regards♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Definitely, google translate would save a lot of time and can be proof read then in comparison to the Italian!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, it is a daunting task to translate such a big article! We'll get round to it sometime maybe!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ave atque vale

I am sending this note to Wikipedians with whom I have most closely collaborated over the last six years or so. After pondering hard during a month's wiki-break in July I have sadly decided to withdraw fully from contributing. I have been worn down by continual carping, sniping and belittling from a wearisome few (you know the sort of people I refer to); the joy has gone out of taking part in this wonderful enterprise. I should be more resilient, but alas it's finally got to me.

Working with you has been a pleasure and a privilege: I count myself fortunate to have had such colleagues. My warmest wishes go with you for the future. I shall be happy to do any research, copy-editing, fact-checking etc you may ever feel inclined to ask me to do – but safely offline.

With my very best wishes,
Tim. (Tim riley (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC))