User talk:Antiquary

Talk of many things

Shoes and ships and sealing-wax Cabbages and kings Why the sea is boiling hot Whether pigs have wings

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. The discussion on its continued use concluded with consensus in favour of its removal, without prejudice against future reinstatement based on consensual discussion. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, they'll give the reviewer right to just about anybody nowadays. ;) INeverCry 00:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antiquary, sorry about that templated note I added above, but when I added the reviewer right, the message magically appeared before I could stop it. So I'm just adding here that INeverCry requested the right for you, and that I hope it helps with your editing. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{NoACEMM}}

Here's an example of what the autoreviewer and reviewer rights do under pending changes:

• Драйден, Джон (John Dryden)

My edit is autoreviewed and in the 4th edit down you can see Chipollo's edit checked by Migueletto, a reviewer. INeverCry 23:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, INC, and thanks, SV; from the link above and from Template:Pending changes table I think I now understand how much this will help my work here. In a word, I'll be trusted to create articles that go live immediately, even if pending changes is impeding most other editors (and, I'm convinced, the project as a whole). That really is a weight off my mind, not to mention a feather in my cap. Thanks again. --Antiquary (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a possible answer to your computing woes. ;) I hope to see you back up and running some time in the new year, which I hope will be better for both of us than 2012 seems to have been. INeverCry 18:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC) 1:Now come on, surely the most sensible option would be some kind of nose prosthesis. All the best. --Antiquary (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They just had a woman who paints with her lips on Leno the other night, so I'm sure you could turn out a few GAs with the old snot locker. I just ordered myself something of a present in the form of The Maias in Penguin Classics. It'll probably have to wait a while though, as I've been considering a return to the Romantics, starting with Scott. First I've got a 10-hour history of Scotland by Neil Oliver to watch. I'm waiting for the end of January so I can see some majors tennis. INeverCry 20:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But see how two problems solve each other – you have to watch the Neil Oliver history of Scotland and you have to somehow get through Boxing Day. With meal breaks that should just about do it. Neil Oliver has almost monopolised documentaries on history, archaeology and geography over here, but he is admittedly both professional and genuine, especially on his own subjects, e.g. the h of S. Merry Christmas, it can't last for ever. --Antiquary (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays!
	I've grown somewhat fond of this little christmas bells icon. ;) Happy!... you know the rest... ;) INeverCry 20:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to say, I keep stumbling upon your great work at Wikiquote... Really excellent job! ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and being Portuguese I particularly like the Luís de Camões article that you created there. ;) DanielTom (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I'm afraid I knew, and know, almost nothing about Camões except that he's too much of a giant to be left out of Wikiquote. By contrast I know and love most of the novels of Eça de Queiroz, yet that's a worse article since it's badly overbalanced in favour of the Letters from England. But there, it is the English-language Wikiquote. --Antiquary (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double oh! I hadn't realized that it was you who also created that article! I must confess that I don't know much about Eça de Queiroz myself, other than what I learnt at school, but if you like I can share a few stories from that period with you. For instance, I remember that one of our (mine and my group's) projects in middle school (Portuguese class) was making a film adaptation of Eça de Queiroz' short story "A Aia". In it, my female dog played the role of the baby. ;-) Other than that, I can only remember reading one book by Eça de Queiroz (namely, "The Maias"), which was (and still is) mandatory reading for Portuguese class in our high schools. As a side note, back then we school kids got to visit Eça's house in Lisbon (as well as the very beautiful "Casa do Silvério" in Porto), where we learned some funny things about him (e.g. that he used to write while standing up). Anyway, enough nostalgia. It is incredible that you know Eça de Queiroz, indeed much better than most Portuguese natives do. Best wishes, DanielTom (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to see a new article from you. Perhaps we/you could pick out a couple images from Alexander the Great for King Alisaunder? INeverCry 22:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the bust, but, as you say, there really isn't room for a second image yet. INeverCry 20:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I finally took a break from deletions for a minute and created something. Humble, I know, but I just needed some text to go with that nice photo. I've been meaning to write you a decent email, but I have to procrastinate a little longer... INeverCry 00:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a nice piece of work, though I hardly need say I know nothing about the subject. Yet again I'm struck by the fact that on the one hand there's an article on almost every English-language literary figure you could possibly want to learn about, and on the other there are crowds of highly notable foreigners we don't cover. A look at Template:Russian Booker Prize is enough to show that.
I haven't given up on 'The Bard', I expect it'll be ready in a week or so, but I've been distracted by a holiday in Bard country (Snowdonia) and by a health scare. I went blind in one eye three years ago and I've lately had trouble in the good one. It quickly got treated by laser surgery under our Bolshevik health system, but there's the prospect of further problems. While I thought I might have only a few weeks sight left I decided it was more important to get out another academic piece while I still had the chance. That's done now. The subject is connected with place-names and Anglo-Latin literature (rather a departure for me) and I should probably get it read over by a place-name scholar before I try and place it. Now I'm back with Thomas Gray. I'm on a hiding to nothing of course since I'm bound to be compared with Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard written by the wanderer in outer darkness, but you can't let that influence you. --Antiquary (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a re-work and expansion of his article. Have a look when you get a chance. I'm relatively proud of it. INeverCry 00:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly good. I'll take a look at that tomorrow. --Antiquary (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Copyedited --Antiquary (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Splendid article btw.[reply]

Something new from an old rusty pen. INeverCry 00:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salut! A nice little piece, though you don't tempt me to make it my bedside book. I'm basically out of it as far as the computer goes just now, but I hope I can tweak that article presently. Antiquary (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For steadily improving Wikipedia in the area of English Literature. RomanSpa (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! "Working Man" may be an over-complimentary description of me since I only come here to play, and as a result most of my articles would have benefited from having more time and care applied to them, but doubtless every correct, referenced fact improves Wikipedia infinitesimally. I appreciate the encouragement. --Antiquary (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome... Keep up the good work! RomanSpa (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Antiquary. You may not have seen the note I put on the userbox talk page when I made the change. My purpose was to add the National Park to your box so it made some sense when I listed it in the WP:Userboxes/Parks page. Would you consider putting Lake District National Park back on--leaving off England? Best, Old Beeg _{··warble··} 20:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll mention the Lake District. You're right, I missed your note – one of the hazards of never using watchlists. --Antiquary (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antiquary, please see the notice on the category page. For convenience that cat is added to all operas, irrespective of the subcats in which they are also listed. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, aren't you. Ah well, I'll know better next time. -Antiquary (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey old friend. I'm coming off a somewhat shitty month, but I'm back. Whoo-hoo! I'll shoot you an email in just a bit. I have a new address, so I'll likely do it thru wiki email. I've got something slightly witty to say about STC... INeverCry 23:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a happy New Year to you too, me old mucker. Oh dear, STC's in for it again is he? I'll email you back. --Antiquary (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be creepy, but I notice you added some material on the Lucius Tiberius page. Is there anything else you'd like to include there, and did you find the information already there credible? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Also, there is an WikiProject on King Arthur. Would you like to join? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That page seems fine to me apart from perhaps needing one or two more references, especially for the last sentence of the fourth paragraph which looked like it might be OR. The King Arthur Project looks interesting but I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to do anything there at the moment because pains in my arms (tennis elbow) mean I really can't type much. Cheers. --Antiquary (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I finally checked my email and responded to yours of last Wednesday... INeverCry 20:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I always feel so civilised bestowing a cup of tea on an Englisman. I feel even more civilised now that I have internet access back after almost two months offline due to outages and ISP hassles. I ended up with a year discount though. Expect an email soon. Just don't wait around on the computer on my behalf... Good to see you alive and typing! Jeff the Obscure 03:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, please take a look at this weeks TAFI selected article, Marie Serneholt. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taken a look. Thanks, but I'll pass on that one. --Antiquary (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kittens are not Baklava - Thanking you for Userboxes

KING (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have the same favourite word. --Antiquary (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...for adding the new Sussex church images! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, especially since I'm always rather nervous of responses to my substituting my own photographs for other people's. Merry Christmas and floreant Laridae! --Antiquary (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antiquary, and Happy New Year. I made a conscious decision when I started these lists to exclude anything that is not a registered place of worship accessible to the public and which does not occupy its own building. So the following are excluded: hospital chapels, school chapels, prison chapels, chaplaincies in airports (as they are not standalone buildings, although in some cases they are registered for worship – like the one at Heathrow), cemetery chapels, private chapels within houses and country estates, and places of worship registered within part of a building, which historically was common with Jehovah's Witnesses and Plymouth Brethren places of worship and which is now sometimes the case for recent Evangelical, Pentecostal and similar churches. Inevitably there are plenty of grey areas! For example there are certain cemetery chapels which have been converted into public places of worship (e.g. at Brookwood, Surrey); the Catholic chapel of Holy Cross Hospital at Haslemere is registered for public worship and has regular Masses, so I included that on this list; and I occasionally include community centre-type buildings (e.g. the Queen Elizabeth Park Centre here) which have places of worship in them if I can prove the worship community owns the building. I have to leave the computer now but I'll be back online in about an hour to add a little more. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Yes, it just becomes rather difficult to manage if many places are in scope. When I found a definitive list of places registered according to the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, which covers any non-Anglican place of worship, I decided to use that as my basis. The other exception I was trying to think of earlier before I had to log off was chapels at convents, seminaries and the like – although the odd exception, such as the Towers Convent Chapel at Upper Beeding (which has been used as a public Catholic church for nearly 100 years!), does apply. Regarding cemeteries, it is probably best to write about them in the village/parish article, particularly if the chapel(s) are listed. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just talking to someone via email, and I reminded myself of this old favorite of mine by the other Sir Walter: The Lie (poem). Something tells me it won't be new to you. INeverCry 03:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To my shame I didn't know the poem, and I see why you like it. I hope Raleigh cheered up, though if it was written in his last years he would have had little reason to. --Antiquary (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes me feel a bit better about sending you a book you already had... INeverCry 01:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

INeverCry 03:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Originally posted on your userpage:

Never done this before so forgive me if I'm doing it wrongly. Just wanted to say thanks for your article on L.E.L. I visit Cape Coast often and her figure continues to mystify me (as I believe it has done countless others over the decades). I do have a few questions though relating her and to your article. Is this the place to ask them and to pass on my email address? I'll check back periodically. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.66.200.83 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 9 March 2016‎

Hi. Actually that's not my article, I just made an edit on it recently. Esme Shepherd, who's been doing quite a lot of work on LEL, might possibly be able to answer some of your questions. Just click on the blue link to get to his/her talk page. --Antiquary (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Atlantic306. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Edie Ochiltree, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, pressed wrong button, have reviewed article, its excellent Atlantic306 (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Miss Mackenzie. Anything you can do for her would of course be welcome. She's a surprisingly good read, especially when you're over the age of 40. I think I'll be happily stuck in the Mid-Victorian period for quite a while to come. Trollope, Collins, Dickens, Gaskell, The Brontes, Braddon, Reade, and maybe even a couple of Lord Lytton's domestic novels. Nothing too Wilde for me... INeverCry 05:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Well old man, here we are with the old school holidays template. Not out of any feeling of nostalgia, but just my habit of being a lazy bastard. I wish you the best &c, especially with your eye problems (I've got a great collection of poetry readings from BBC and Penguin Classics of Wordsworth, Byron, Hardy, etc, if you're ever interested - just let me know). I hope you got my email. I was just thinking I'd love to have some of the jam you make, on home-baked English bread. Our bread here in the US always seems counterfeit somehow, as does our jam, though I'm sure we've got some country folks who do it up the way it's supposed to be done. But I'm a city boy... Everything I eat comes out of a plastic bag or a tin can... lNeverCry 03:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Reminds me again of the Cambridge Companion I lost... I've got a Penguin Classics paperback copy of a good-sized collection of his journalism (600 pages or so). It's got some really good pieces in it. You could get a cheap copy pretty easily. I may get the CC, but I hate buying things I already had... My newest book purchase is the 1000 page My Novel by Lord Lytton. I basically go on AbeBooks and look for stuff nobody else has wanted, wants now, or ever will want... It rained all day yesterday and snowed all day today. It's snowing as I type this. We've got four inches so far. I've got a few rare volumes of Dostoyevsky to send you within the next couple days. lNeverCry 06:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Have a look at this bit of ego massage... I'm in 4th place... The 1st place guy has 5 million edits... lNeverCry 08:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I've made 1250 edits on Commons in two and a half years. By my reckoning that means I'll reach the one million mark in only 2000 years. --Antiquary (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, half of it was shameless padding, but what the hell... lNeverCry 00:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Young family, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your email in amongst more than 100 asking for donations or to sign some petition, &c. The only news I would have to impart is that I'm still buying up books by obscure and forgotten men named Charles, those being Charles Lever (9 volumes), Charles Reade (8 volumes with 1 on the way), and Charles Kingsley (3 volumes with 3 more on my wishlist). I also have a volume each of John Banim and Amelia Opie on the way, and just got a nice fat novel by Gerald Griffin about the Duke of Monmouth. As for weather, we've got a day coming this week with 40.5 centigrade. That's 105F. It's been stuck up around 95/100 for all of July... I have to go to the doc tomorrow for a recharge. I'll respond to that email that was drowned in spam in a bit. Take care old man. lNeverCry 04:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• PS. I hope you don't mind my little adjustment to your talkpage. I'm an obsessive bastard who just can't help it. Sometimes I fix mistakes on the userpages of people I don't even know... lNeverCry 04:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good! On my ongoing list of "possible Did You Know? hooks for the future"* I have an interesting one for this church. I'll have to go through my books to find where the anecdote was written and the page reference, but I'm sure I can find it. Leave it with me! (*Most of them relate to Sussex church articles which haven't been written yet but which may be eventually.) Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued. To some extent that article was modelled on your various Mid Sussex ones, so you probably recognised some phrases and even sentences. That comes from my being rather out of my depth in ecclesiology – I'm a literature man. --Antiquary (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those curious anecdotes that regularly turn up in church histories (especially in Sussex, funnily enough!). It's fortunate that the other church involved in this tale was in the Hove area, because that means I've been able to use the Judy Middleton sources I've added to the article: she is the leading historian on the Hove area, with a breadth and depth of research that I can only wonder at. I have to go out unexpectedly tonight, but I will put together a DYK nomination and do all the related bits tomorrow. I did recognise the general structure; it has always served me well in terms of organising the most relevant information, and it seems to have influenced church articles by other editors, so I suppose as a "template" to work with it's as good as anything. I really must get back to writing more church articles, but (as I'm sure you've found with your own editing) it's easy to veer off course and find interesting tangents, and suddenly you're working on something completely different! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent story! Coincidentally, a visit to St Leonard's, Aldrington is on my to-do list as I want to photograph the place and, if I can find it, C. Aubrey Smith's grave there. Tangents are in fact the only thing I can concentrate on: I was supposed to be writing something academic on King Arthur all the time I was doing Henfield church. Thanks very much for your improvements, and in advance for the DYK nomination. --Antiquary (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St Leonard's has a very pleasant churchyard with a still-rural feel, but I believe the church remains under threat of closure (it seems St Philip's Church, Hove has superseded it as the main church in the Aldrington area). Judy Middleton has written a fair amount about Smith in the Encyclopaedia of Hove and Portslade, so to help you to find the gravestone, here's a quote from vol. 12 p. 71: "the grave is situated in the southwest corner near the wall and next to the wartime grave of 2nd Lieutenant Crapp [he died when his plane crashed on Aldrington recreation ground in 1917]. The Smith memorial takes the shape of a massive rounded slab laid on the ground while at the top end there is a curious structure of rugged stones surmounted by a stone cross. The inscription reads With malice towards none; with charity for all". Various other family members are commemorated as well. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I'd previously gleaned from a Radio 4 documentary was that the no. 6 bus goes past the Smith family grave, and since I don't know where that goes... Clearly I'm going to have to investigate this Encyclopaedia further at Brighton Library and see what else it can tell me. --Antiquary (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih^Talk 00:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I can't edit at the reference desk currently as an IP but I just wanted to say thank you for your help there!

Best wishes, 2A02:C7F:4684:A300:D0A9:8E77:2EA8:6054 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, believe me I tried to figure out which churches those statements apply to, but every source that I found was vague about it. As far as I could tell, it varied between individual congregations even within the same Christian denominations. For example, among Episcopalians, some went with the 6th ([1], [2]) and some had it on the 5th ([3] [4]). Same for Lutherans and Unitarians and most other Protestant traditions. So unfortunately, it was not possible to get more specific. —howcheng {chat} 00:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps it was naive of me to expect any kind of coherence between or even within the various churches, but I'll let that "which" tag stand since I suspect most visits to that page will be made by people who want to better understand whether it's the 5th or the 6th, and perhaps some future editor will be able to dredge this question to the bottom. Thanks for stopping here to explain. Hope you had/have a happy Twelfth Night. --Antiquary (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the French prose cycles, but anything really. Especially since many works don't have articles at all, and even planting La Tavola Ritonda style stubs would be nice. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be late in replying to you, SNAAAAKE!!, I've been out of reach of a computer for a few days. Thanks for the encouragement, and yes I have got a few plans for Arthurian articles, but then I've also got a hell of lot of plans for non-Arthurian ones so Arthur will have to wait his turn. I probably won't go into quite such detail as I did with the Vita, but that's because I'm obsessed with G of M, and the Vita article was just a sorry little stub. I'm sure you're right about the French prose cycles: even a careful reader of Wikipedia articles on medieval lit will sometimes find themselves wondering which Lancelot and which Merlin is being referred to, and being able to wikilink to the right article would be a big help. --Antiquary (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Antiquary. I noticed you've done articles on The Virginians and Philip. Do you recommend these? How about his Catherine, A Shabby Genteel Story, Barry Lyndon, and Henry Esmond?

Can you tell me what you think of Lothair?

One last question: have you read The Cloister and the Hearth by Reade? What about Bulwer? Is Harold or The Last of the Barons worth a read? Thanks for your time sir. Geoffroi 01:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Geoffroi. I'm afraid I'm going to be a disappointment to you. Some of the WP articles I've written are on books I've never read, and into this category come Philip, The Virginians and Lothair. The only Thackeray I know is Vanity Fair, Henry Esmond and some of the lectures and journalism, and from these I get a rather disagreeable impression of his world-view. I'm not utterly beglamoured, as Thackeray certainly was, by 18th-century high life; his romanticism is for me an artificial hothouse creation quite unconnected with reality; and if you want to call him a snob, as many do, I'll not disagree. Charles Reade I've long meant to try but never got round to. Should I, do you think? I have very, very distant memories of finding Bulwer-Lytton's historical novels turgid, but I wouldn't want to discourage you on such slender grounds. My favourite 19th-century British writers are Wordsworth, Coleridge, Lamb, Macaulay, Edward Freeman, Jane Carlyle, Wilde, Stevenson, Emily Brontë, Borrow, Peacock, and above all Sir Walter, especially the novels before Ivanhoe. Some others I'm more selective about: I love Byron's letters and journalism much more than his poems, I'd give all of George Eliot's other novels for a single chapter of Middlemarch or Romola, I love Dickens' later novels only, I find it difficult to believe that the genius who wrote the Justified Sinner and a few of the short stories can have been responsible for churning out all that other stuff, and I seem to have lost my ability to read any Thomas Carlyle apart from the letters and essays, though in them the hypnotic fascination remains. I hope you don't find any of this fighting talk. --Antiquary (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you mention Carlyle. I just listened to a teaching company lecture in which the story is told of Mill's servant burning the whole manuscript of The French Revolution thinking it was waste paper.

I remember reading Vanity Fair and being annoyed at Thackeray's constant comments. I'll have to explore the rest of his works on my own.

As for Reade, I've read his Griffith Gaunt and am on his Love Me Little, Love me Long. He has a duel scene in GG that is probably the best one I've read, even if he contrives to have the heroine stop the duel at the last moment. I have yet to try Bulwer-Lytton.

I also haven't got into Wilkie Collins much beyond a short story collection. His story "The Diary of Anne Roadway" is a work of the highest class. I love all of Dickens, though The Old Curiosity Shop is a bit tedious, and his two historical novels show that history really wasn't his forte.

The only writer I can recommend to you is John Banim (the "Irish Walter Scott"). He isn't Scott's equal, but he has real talent and is completely at home with Irish history, in which his historical novels are set.

With that, I thank you for your response and wish you a merry Xmas. Geoffroi 22:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was only the first volume of the French Revolution, though that was devastating enough. It took Carlyle months to be able to face the prospect of starting again, but his friendship with Mill was undisturbed the while. Such disasters have happened to other writers, and they seem to agree in their opinion that the second draft was better than the first. I tell you this in case, God forbid, your hard drive should ever fry. You're the second WP editor to recommend Banim to me, and since I'm always on the lookout for another Walter Scott I should probably take the hint. If you're nettled by all authorial comment, not just Thackeray's, then perhaps you should stay clear of George Eliot, though that would otherwise be a shame; personally I find her reflections on the action unfailingly wise and witty. Since you liked at least one of Collins' short stories you should certainly try The Moonstone and The Woman in White – quite as good as everyone says they are. Everyone also says his other novels (possibly excepting Armadale) are far inferior, so I've always left them on the bookshop shelf.

A merry Christmas to you too, Geoffroi. --Antiquary (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a little present for a lover of Scott. My copy of The Cloister and the Hearth includes an introduction by Algernon Charles Swinburne. In this introduction Swinburne says that Reade "displays a mastery of prose style second only to our greatest prose stylist, Sir Walter Scott." Geoffroi 19:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, an excellently chosen gift, Geoffroi. Almost all the great writers adored Scott, from Byron to Virginia Woolf, and now I can add Swinburne to the number. His choice of compliment though is a little surprising since out of Scott's many excellences his style isn't the most obvious. At any rate his récit often reads like a first draft, and indeed often is, though the dialogue may be another matter, especially when it's in Scots.

And now I'm off for my traditional Christmas morning ritual of climbing a local hill with an Iron Age hill-fort at the top of it, so I'll bid you a cordial farewell. --Antiquary (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you on my watchlist every day: are your daily exercise walks taking you around the Listed buildings in Warton, Lancaster, camera in hand? I keep intending to do likewise in Silverdale. PamD 12:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I live in Sussex, but I was brought up in Lancaster and I revisit the place occasionally, pandemics permitting. Last January I spent an afternoon (drizzly – you can tell) in Warton taking photos with the specific intention of filling up that Listed Buildings page, and now I'm slowly uploading them. In a week or so you'll see that my walk took me as far as Silverdale, but there'll still be plenty of spaces left on that page when I've finished. --Antiquary (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya,

I just now read the article and ended up with the question discussed here, to which you provided the answer. So I thought I'd say thanks! :)

- 2A02:560:423A:CA00:35C9:9B08:D628:1A2D (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I aim to please.--Antiquary (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Antiquary, I am currently just started editing again on Wikipedia and am curious about how you get those banners on your talk page,thanks! Takumi (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Takumi (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Takumi. The only banner on that I put this page is my "Talk of many things" box, which I customized – so long ago that I can't remember how – from Template:Archives. It would puzzle me to do anything similar again, because I'm really no kind of a markup wizard. I can only recommend you study the Template:Archives page, or else click on "Edit this page" at the top of this page and see what I did, but in that case please be careful not to change anything inadvertently. There are also various things put here by other people; if you want to reproduce them then you just need to go to the top of that section, click on "edit", and see from the markup how they did it. Sorry I can't be more use. --Antiquary (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Takumi, if you're talking about Antiquary's user page, those are WP:USERBOXES; ← the link I provided gives more information on how to format and add them to your user page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That answer is very helpful of you from when I asked “What part of Syria did King Baldwin IV rule?” Sarah Shaheenbaz Faizi (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to be useful. --Antiquary (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Young musical family (England) has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for reverting your edit to British Asian; I was reverting unsourced additions by an IP editor and accidentally included yours in the revert. I've now restored it. Apologies. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Think nothing of it. Keep up the good work. --Antiquary (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Antiquary. I saw this book on Anatoly Bogatyrev article. It's a book I've been looking for a long time. Where can I get it? Google books provides a small snippet only. Cheers, — Toghrul R (t) 11:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toghrul R. I wish I could point you towards a full text of that book somewhere on the Web, but those Google Books snippets were all I could find when I was researching the Bogatyrev article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange might be able to send you individual entries though not the whole book, and failing that Worldcat can tell you where to find hard copies should that be any use. --Antiquary (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and tips! I think the only choice is buying a physical copy of it from online stores. Will do it. Best, — Toghrul R (t) 06:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Antiquary: how are you? can you help me for something , thank you --Wikipedian Serkan (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'd be pleased to give any advice I can. --Antiquary (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put a mention for you in 2 articles hope you see it and make your edits or you can do it from scratch to be ready for the main space and if you like May

Can you move the articles to your sandbox and work on them,and when you finished, they can be in the main space Thank you

--Wikipedian Serkan (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow you. Where are these two articles? --Antiquary (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

here sandbox and this

what is your opinion ? Wikipedian Serkan (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think they'll be fine after a little proofreading, and I'll certainly do that for you if you like. I'll do the shorter one tonight, but the other may take a few days. --Antiquary (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You For Your Helping,so much‬‏

I hope you can send to me an email now ,to send you the draft for the articles , as it is in my inbox, the sources may be lost.

Maybe it will be Great if you make the articles from scratch

Thank you for your interest and I wish you a good day,Have a nice Day Wikipedian Serkan (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to see "E-mail this user" on the sidebar of my userpage, but I'd prefer to do this job on our respective talk pages and sandboxes unless you have some strong objection. Writing these articles from scratch doesn't appeal to me but, as I say, there is really no need to. Your drafts are basically fine. --Antiquary (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did it, I wish you will write it from scratch the first one , and the soconed no problem as you like, because you are experience editor in Wikipedia and to reduce the opposition to Article,Thank you

Wikipedian Serkan (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, that was globally banned LTA User:علي_أبو_عمر, continuing his relentless quest to find someone to publish an article about himself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Banned user. Right. In that case my involvement ends here. Thanks for telling me. --Antiquary (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following this sockpuppet and cleaning up after him, I am impressed by how helpful you are to a new editor, Antiquary. I guess it's good to be skeptical when they say there might be "opposition" to their article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But always starting out assuming good faith, of course. Cheers. --Antiquary (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course! And I meant that as a genuine compliment. If an editor came to my user talk page, asking for help writing an article, I'd send them elsewhere, not take the time to help them write it. I think that's very generous. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[shuffles feet] Shucks. --Antiquary (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my original "his own opinion" to "his own, somewhat equivocal, opinion". My own opinion is that Nicholson's feelings teetered between fury and contempt; but that's WP:OR and I can't say so in Wikivoice; nor is it likely that anyone has ever commented on Nicholson's review. It's online; so feel free to improve my edit, with suitable delicacy! Narky Blert (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An improvement, certainly. I don't think I'll interfere any further. --Antiquary (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for pointing out Book 8 chapter 37 of morte. Schyler (exquirito veritatem bonumque) 21:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Keep on editing!! YOU ROCK!! :) Babysharkboss2 was here!! 13:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really think I only gently sway, but thank you very much. --Antiquary (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antiquary, thanks for commenting on my article Shirburn Ballads which as you know I have adjusted accordingly. Actually I have a very mild interest in ballads (having come up through the UK folk revival and encountered a number being sung by others - not by me though!) but all I know about this collection has recently been gleaned from internet trawling. It came across my radar because I was interested in what had happened to the contents of the library at Shirburn Castle after the departure of the ninth earl (a whole topic in itself) and this item proved particularly hard to trace. When I tracked it down, I figured it had some interesting characteristics that were worth documenting - one can read the full 1907 published transcript I suppose, but I have not had the stamina to go there! If you wish to add anything more to the topic from your own knowledge (which I would wager is probably deeper than mine), please feel free to do so. All the best from Australia - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have the edge on me there, I'd barely heard of them. It's really a very nice article, chock-full of the historical and palaeographical details that fascinate me. --Antiquary (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good-O. Glad it reached your expected standards! And yes, details like these (and many others) fascinate me as well - even though my tastes are pretty broad (some would say, almost random...) - For example, I cannot now remember why I (effectively completely re-wrote) the "parent" article Shirburn Castle - never been there, or had any personal interaction with its subject/s. Actually I do remember now, I saw it used as a set location on an episode of "Inspector Morse", and thought, now why in the world have I never heard of that place before? Which set the old mental gears turning. And so it goes! Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]