User talk:RobertG/Archive-06

Unfair warning

You just sent me some sort of warning for "experimenting with the page Cyclol". This is unwarranted - as you will notice, your "reverted" version [[1]] is identical to mine [[2]]. I had merely reverted an act of vandalism (or so it seemed to me). 130.73.65.53 15:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Resysopped

Here are your admin privileges back, let me know if you need anything else. Andre (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's really good to have you back. I know I speak for more than just a few people when I say that I look forward to seeing you at WP:CFD again. S ^up? 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		It's good to see you back! It occurs to me I've never left you one of these—a terrible oversight on my part. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!!!!! KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Same here, looking forward to seeing you around CfD again. --Xdamr^talk 16:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Welcome To Wikipedia

Your Welcome To Join Wikipedia. Casey19 18:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

About the move

I wouldn't say I'm brave, Cricket refers to many different things. The sport wasn't the first thing to be called "cricket". I'm not entirely sure what was the first, but I'd guess it was the insect. In any case, the article must be moved to Cricket (sport), and Cricket should be redirected to the disambiguation page. I'll afd the article Cricket (sport) so it can be moved properly there. Malamockq 16:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

On the Cricket (insect) page, yes. I'll request it now. Malamockq 16:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That was a vote, and on the Cricket sport page no less. Of course fans of the sport would want to keep it as just "Cricket". But it doesn't matter what fans want. Cricket refers to many different things. That's the bottom line. If I had my way, I would redirect Cricket to the insect, but I can compromise and leave it at the disambiguation page. Malamockq 17:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

About Olivier Messiaen

I see you have deleted the internal link of a work of Messiaen and later someone reversed back. Sorry, at that time I was creating that article and my first step was to add that internal link.(Addaick 13:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

Re:Harsh?

Ah everything is grand. I took a look at their edit to the article and nothing actually helped the article like changing "The film closes on a shot of the Myers house and the sound of Michael breathing beneath his mask." to "The film closes on the color black."(An unhelpful change seeing as most movie close on the colour block). Also 6000 kb were removed by the edit(when viewing from the RC) including info about the film sequels. None of the changes were spoken about on the talk page and no edit summary whatsoever. The edit, to me, looked pretty unconsructive that's why i reverted it as vandalism as the edit had nonsense included and possiple valuable content removed/altered. Anyway I gave them a level 1(removal of content) as I thought marking it as vandalism level 1 would be too harsh. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 16:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

fortepiano force

The section needs sources and a lot of work, but here you can see how hammer sizes increased (the one labelled Mahr looks like they are from a square piano, usually they have smaller hammers) http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/muwi/fricke/229hauser.pdf You should be able to hear different volumes in examples here, http://piano300.si.edu/lboothmp3.htm and search for examples of music with tangentenfügel, another "Mozart-era piano". - Mireut 11:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but my point is that using the same force on a fortepiano as you would for playing forte on a piano gives negligible extra volume over the force that gives forte on the fortepiano. Liszt played strenuously because on a piano it produced louder, more exciting music, not because the action was heavier. He wouldn't have used the same force on a fortepiano (nor would he have composed the same music for it). A pianist would have weak fingers, I think, to find playing Mozart on a modern concert piano hard work! (Depends on the piano, I suppose - I have played pianos where playing a C major scale was hard work!) --RobertG ♬ talk 11:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I misread the summary of your edit. A couple of the article's references (or close to) seem to support the idea that actions became heavier, though maybe referring to different ones, I don't know what Pollens and Good say. - Mireut 13:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Philip Belt "The Viennese Piano from 1800" The Piano New Grove Music Instrument series, W. W. Norton & Co., New York. 1980, 1988. p.34, 38
• http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-53771

Thanks for welcome from Raresoul

Thanks RobertRaresoul 13:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mondrian image

Hello, Sparkit. You uploaded (many moons ago) Image:MondriaanPiet.gif. I thought I'd alert you that the source you quoted for the image seems to have disappeared, so it's impossible to verify the copyright status of the image: images on Wikipedia must have a valid source, I believe. I put {{nsd}} on it for that reason. I came across the image on the Piet Mondrian article, and was put on alert because the non-free art license definitely doesn't allow for its use on articles about the image's subject, but only articles about the image itself or, perhaps, its author. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 08:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess we're SOL about that image then. The URL worked when I uploaded the file. The site has apparently changed as sites do, and I don't find it there now. --sparkit^TALK 03:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

About The Song "Hollaback Girl"

I edited the song "Hollaback Girl" because it is presented on the single cover. I thought that the title is not complete, so I edited the page and rename it as "Hollaback Girl (This S*** Is Bananas!)". I'm sorry for the wrong deed that I commited. And also, I do that because the title that is presented to the single cover was it. And I watched that video on a music channel on the Philippines (I don't wanna mention no more), and it is the title presented on the title of the song. But the word shit is covered by an asterisk (substituted the shit to s***). Thank you for your kind consideration and continued patronage. -- Beyoncé Superfanatic 20:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

C. B. Fry

Excellent job you've done on one of my heroes. Interesting point you raise re QI. If Fry had written this statement in a book, or been reported as saying it in a paper/magazine, we wouldn't question the verifiability of the source. Just because he said it in a different medium, doesn't (I believe) make it less verifiable. Equally, Fry may lie about it in any format! --Dweller 09:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Would you mind helping to restore the article to the title North Korea? That title has remained the consensus each time after several discussions. It was moved today by a new account, User:Salpetersyra, which has only been used for page moves. I tried to restore the title myself, but the move failed. Thanks for your help. --Reuben 17:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, how did a new user manage to move a page? He has no edits before today, and they are all page moves. According to Wikipedia:Vandalism, "Wikipedia now only allows registered users active for at least four days to move pages." Is that no longer the case? Or was it ever the case? --Reuben 17:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Reuben 20:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush

Hi Was looking at the George W. bush Article and saw that you reverted an edit by Ps2fanboy regarding the opening line of text. my question is i still see his revision when viewing the page. (and yes i have cleared my browser cache and reloaded the page several times.) Any idea what's going on??? Thanks bradin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradin (talk • contribs) 09:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Goemon

Sorry for breaking the Japanese text. I can change it back tomorrow if no one else does by then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erudecorp (talk • contribs) 11:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

e-mail blocks

Hi, I just saw that you indef blocked User:Ps2fanboy with the e-mail block enabled. Since I was a bit curious, I checked your other blocks and it seems to be something you usually do. While I know that the e-mail function is sometimes abused, it is said to be the first step in requesting an unblock, even before using the {{unblock}} template, so I am a bit concerned by you blindly blocking it. Cheers! -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct: I should not. Henceforth I will not, even for trolls. Thanks for alerting me. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Country name page move

Ah, I see how it works now. I suppose the description on the policy page is left deliberately vague because of WP:BEANS as you said. That means the editor in question must have been very familiar with how things work (beyond even what's written in the policy pages) to game the permissions so well. Interesting. --Reuben 16:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I deserve to be kicked for this...

I don't know how I missed the fact that you've returned... Needless to say, I consider it a happy thing : ) - jc37 10:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

ok

yea sorry, im new to wiki and i just wanted to see whether editing will work.

it wont happen again ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc.Bobadila (talk • contribs) 09:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

im confused

how can i create a new article? ive looked in the contact wiki for tips about it but it dosnt say how to create a new article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc.Bobadila (talk • contribs) 09:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Main page

Thanks for all your vandal fighing on today's FA, Wood Badge, I'm fighting it too. I helped write Wood Badge. I also helped write tomorrow's main page FA, Harry S. Truman. Rlevse 12:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Great edit! I appreciate it :-) Ta bu shi da yu 03:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mozart

Thanks for your comment, RobertG. It's sort of amusing to see what sort of stuff got written during the bad old pre-reference-sources days. Looks like Mozart managed to make 50,000 florins per year, despite his suffering from Tourette's Syndrome and drinking like a fish. Cheers, Opus33 21:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Triple sharp

Look again! - see my update of the Alkan article :-) --Smerus 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vadalism on my userpage. :) Couldn't find a little gold star to give you, but I'm sure there's one somewhere! Arendedwinter 10:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

greetings

Hello RobertG, I saw your name on a recent edit. Welcome back, and best wishes. Dr Steven Plunkett 23:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You are inactive, I am sorry to see, so I am not sure you will see this reply. Nevertheless, I feel bound to say that your brilliant, perceptive message hit home, and was far above what I deserved. I am, and will remain, most grateful. I wish you good health. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I see it. I was afraid you thought I was a madman! - perhaps I am. We must be strong. I am still originating and editing, as e.g. here (and here), but I am not who I was, having become Exopedic and like you strictly Eventualist. Do confer with those users if you wish. My philosophy is of Buried Wikipedia (La Wikipédie Engloutie, if you like, as you are a pianist - so am I, but probably only a 2 at best), that the best material here is is concealed beneath later edits, that the project will never be completed and is therefore existential, eternally present and eternally recurrent. (I may well write that page.) How we relate to it now, is more or less how we will always relate to it, and our relations and behaviour within W are like our relations outwith it. Hence I continue to edit, but shy away from popular subjects and edit conflicts just as I would avoid a physical battlefield. (I am also a transcendentalist.) I have found some happy fields recently, but remain myself for the purposes of a distinguished presence (haha!). Hope to meet you in some incarnation in the Elysian Fields of Wikipedia music! Health improving after March infarctions, thanks. atb Dr Steven Plunkett 21:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Blues

Yes I wanted to revert vandal and did the opposite :-) Vb 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

0.999...

Unfortunately, the bit about adding 1 to the "infinitieth" digit makes no mathematical sense, since there is no "last digit" to add anything to in the standard reals. -- The Anome 10:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. Yes, you're right: but I didn't comment on that, because I assumed it was a simple typo: the bit about the leftmost digit shoots the whole paragraph down, so it all had to come out, rather than fixing that particular bit. He's got the right idea, but the wrong way of going about it: it is true that

$1-0.999...=\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }10^{-n}=0$

This has to be dealt with in much more detail, however, because a substantial number of those who can't accept 0.999... = 1 regard the first equality as perfectly reasonable, but refuse to believe the second, because they can't accept that the limit of an inequality that is valid for all finite n can ever be an equality when the limit is taken.

Understanding why this the second equality is both meaningful and true actually requires a quite sophisticated understanding of what equality between real numbers means, which is explained further down the article.

-- The Anome 10:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Toccata and Fugue

I was wondering why the information of the Classical Guitar transcription was removed; advertising because I used the place to order it as a reference more or less? You could have just removed that and placed in a reference instead. LikuX 07:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was full of trivia and original research. There was no convincing evidence that the guitar transcription mentioned was notable (just a commercial link), so I deleted it. If you have a reliable reference that demonstrates its notablity, by all means put it back (with the reference). --RobertG ♬ talk 07:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, everything outside of Stokowski's transcription is really "notable" anyway. LikuX 08:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

iVillage On This Day

hey there-

I'm a producer for iVillage.com and we create a new video each day about the date's history and famous birthdays. Would love to include on each wiki page once the videos launch. In the reference section. Keeps getting pulled down... can you advise?

-Patrick patrick.sandora@nbcuni.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricksandora (talk • contribs) 18:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that WP:COI suggests that you not add pointers to your own work, but that discussion may be appropriate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year as to whether they should be added. (And yes, I'm one of the ones who has been removing them.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you advise as to make a discussion? I am new to editing Wiki. Do not want to break protocol (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2007

I see that you have now started discussion at the relevant talk page. I have no strong views, except that there should be a consensus there before the links are added to the day-of-year pages. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

An exploratory thought

Let's see, you're already an admin. You're active in project discussions, and are quite active in Cfd, help revert vandalism, and I presume you know at least something about bots... You're also someone that I think we could trust with more "tools". Do you think you might be interested in bureaucratship?

You may already know, but RfB has been seen as a nearly impossible hill to climb these days. One of the most common comments is that "we don't need any more Bureaucrats". (Which I don't think is true, and I don't think has anything to do with whether we trust the cantidate, but I digress : )

Anyway. would this be something you might be interested in? - jc37 02:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jc37, that's a serious vote of confidence, and I am grateful. I will think about it over the next few weeks, and take a closer look at what the responsibilities are, and the experience of the last few RfB candidates, and let you know. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Obviously there's no rush. So take your time and research at whatever speed you're comfortable with : ) - jc37 07:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Jc37, but my answer for now is no. Frequent participation at RfA seems to be perceived as a bureaucrats main task, and a significant reason for opposition among recent failed RfB nominations. I am not a regular at RfA, (I haven't supported nor opposed a nomination there for a while, although I keep a weather eye on it), and do not have the time, nor the inclination, to become more active there. But I am still tremendously grateful that you considered nominating me for the position. Best wishes. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There's also the WP:BAG, but I understand your feelings. Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, I just got my new id. I wanted to see if nothing was wrong. I won't do those weird things again. <Boyon12> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyon12 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Witold Lutosławski

Hi Robert. I don't know if you've looked again at the review for this one. Per your comment that you needed until mid-October to look at sources, I have left it up in the FAR section. Do you mind updating there? We don't need heavy citation; perhaps covering notes for sections. Cheers, Marskell 11:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. If there are paragraphs or sections created with the books you do have, might you cite those? This will show there's work going on to people stopping by. Thanks, Marskell 15:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Night of the Long Knives

Hello. The article Night of the Long Knives will be tomorrow's featured article, and due to its "hot-button" topic matter (Nazism), I think that it should be semi-protected for the next day or so. I and others put a lot of work into to making it comprehensive and neutral, and I see it's been anonymously vandalized in the last few day a couple times. Thanks.--Mcattell 18:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

An anon query

how do you know so quickly that i've vandalized a page? tell me and i'll stop doing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.92.214 (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

ok. birmingham city are rubbish though. do you enjoy monitoring all the stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.92.214 (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Watching for and reverting vandalism is strangely compulsive, yes. I'm not alone, there is a whole army who does it. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

how do you become one of them then? could i do it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.92.214 (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

if you're watching pages that are of interest to you does that mean you are a blues fan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.92.214 (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that...

I just hope Iˈll have some time. I am doing something for the german Wikipedia too...--Lycantrophe 11:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey,

I was reverting all the vandalism, until you came along. It wouldn't let me save as you were saving it already. Thebestkiano 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine, thanks for the comment. Your anti-vandalism work is very good too! Thebestkiano 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Lutosławski refs

Hey there. I thought I'd help out with one thing, by bringing duplicate refs together. Thus it'll be <ref name=Rae1>Rae (1999), p. 1</ref> at first mention and then <ref name=Rae1/> at every subsequent for that page. OK? It'll make sense when you see the first couple done. Marskell 19:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Approval for "Creole (song)" article

Can I ask for approval on restoring the "Creole (song)" article? And also the "Orange County Girl" article? Beyoncé Superfanatic 08:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Takemitsu FAC

Thank you so much, I really appreciate this. I've replied to your suggestions on the page and will get on with the amendments as soon as possible. Matt.kaner 12:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments Robert, and for the copy-edits. I'm not sure what to do about the fair-use image, I didn't upload it myself. Do you think it would be sensible to get one from somewhere else, and lower the resolution? Matt.kaner 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well... the image is not a free image, certainly. You may be able to make an argument for fair use, though it would be one of the numerous gray area cases; my opinion is to be conservative and not use a non-free image unless there's some compelling reason otherwise, though I can't make an authoritative call here or anywhere it's not quite clear. (As there are several images of him online, has anyone tried to ask one of the photographers to free a photo?)

In other news, it is good to see you around! Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Toccata and Fugue in D minor in popular culture

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Toccata and Fugue in D minor in popular culture, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. DannyDaWriter 06:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to the {{prod}}. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see you're back!

Blame cfd for alerting me! // FrankB 01:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Frank. Thanks for your welcome back! By the way, did you ever take a copy of the code of RobotG? If so, may I have it? I threw it away. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I knew I was in no position to run the BOT, and was trying to get others to do so, then left myself for most of the summer. Would the link help? That computer is unavailable now (under construction versus construction dust), but I hope to be back in my office by a week to ten days. Possibly David Kernow took a copy? He's I believe the only one I shared that link with via email. I'd email him, if I were you as he's been conspicuously missing in action. Hope everything is fine for him! // FrankB 13:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

RVW Pastoral

Hello Robert! I have just noticed that the Pastoral Symphony is listed as Symphony No. 3 (Vaughan Williams), unlike its two predecessors, A London Symphony and A Sea Symphony (Vaughan Williams). I can't move it to the logical naming, but could you as an administrator please do so? Also, should the entries be made consistent so that the (Vaughan Williams) bit appears in the London Symphony's title too? Thanks! P.S. Very sorry to hear of Ursula's death...she was a remarkable lady, at least based on the one time I met her. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 11:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Consistency, consistency, consistency… Hello! Yes, it certainly should be moved. However, I wonder about the "(Vaughan Williams)" in the article titles. There is only one A Sea Symphony, and only one A London Symphony, just as there is only one Sinfonia antartica. There is also only one A Pastoral Symphony, and I could easily arrange disambiguation links at the top of it and at the top of Beethoven's 6th. If you agree, I will move all of them to get rid of the unnecessary "(Vaughan Williams)" disambiguation. Or do you think all the VW symphony article titles should have the composer disambiguation in them, whether necessary or not? Let me know and I'll do as you think best. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In the abstract I think that just the titles should be fine. Can you please tell me how the results would appear if someone were to search for "Pastoral Symphony" or "London Symphony" without the indefinite article? In the first case I would assume that the RVW symphony article would appear with a disamb link at the top saying if-you-meant-Lou-B-then-click-here (& the reverse of course on the Beethoven symphony page); in the second case I don't know what would come up among RVW, Haydn, and any performing group so named. Merci! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and just did it. Have a look: London Symphony brings you neatly to a diambig page; Pastoral Symphony redirects to Beethoven's, so I added a disambig page and a link to it; I also added a dablink to the top of the VW Pastoral and London. I trust this will meet with approval. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick note

I'm leaving wikipedia. See my talk page for details. Thebestkiano^T|C 22:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Poor Robert

I think of him that way—bipolar as he was. Looks as though we both have a soft spot for his music, though. For me, Symphonies 2 and 4 and the Piano Quintet are the desert=island pieces. Downloading Glen Gould's recording of the PQ at a slow trickle. Good of you to recast the opening of the article. Tony (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I may gradually wade through the rest of the article. I hope you enjoy the Gould, although it doesn't appeal to me (I actually threw away my LP documenting Gould's murder of Brahms op. 79 no. 1). Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

On that note, I've just acquired the Brahms, and ... no thanks, the piano is distant, and so it's hard to judge Gould's contribution. Who was the recording engineer? How ridiculous. Not worth listening to. I suppose the Schumann will be the same. Tony (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My blocking. ----> InternetHero

Hello. You blocked me a couple days ago but failed to post it on the administrators board. If it is not too much trouble, I would very much like for this to happen. InternetHero 03:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why, please? The block is a week old, and expired some days ago. Perhaps there's a better way to accomplish what you want? --RobertG ♬ talk 10:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, its just so I know that the consensus act actually does override more logical acts like the neutral-point-of-view. If not however, I'll just downgrade to that principle. I've been banned once before and he posted it on the administrators board. If you don't want to, thats ok. I'll just post it myself. InternetHero 02:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you do post there, I advise you to be careful to do so in a way that will not lay you open to charges of disrupting Wikipedia. The consensus to which you refer seems to be clearly against your point of view. I think you are acting in good faith, but I also think it is strange that you still characterise your arguments as NPOV and verifiable and everyone else's as mere consensus. Anyone reading only your contributions to the debate might be forgiven for thinking firstly that the source by which you set such store was the only one put forward in the argument; secondly that it is plain fact that the pictures show completely different resemblances (which is actually your opinion); and thirdly that your comment there "…anybody can conjure up their friends to form a consensus…" implies that others have conspired against you for their own devious ends. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think thats what they did. Isn't Leopold's quote corresponding to the verifiability act? This isn't over at all because I will post on the administrators board and form my on "consensus" - and put a picture of the child-Mozart. Just kidding, I will put the Bologna Mozart. InternetHero 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this has been mentioned on WP:AN at [3] --W.marsh 04:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. I am not altogether surprised that InternetHero ignored my advice above. I don't think I have anything to add on WP:AN. InternetHero is obviously completely convinced of his/her correctitude, but I think others will understand the situation well enough without me. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not just me. You will see how many teachers, proffessors, and civilians who agree with me - indeed, it was them who have instilled in me, the accuracy of Leopold's testiment. InternetHero 22:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Civilians"? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I think teachers aren't taken seriously enough these days since they mold the minds of the youth. In the Classical Age, we'd be compelled to respect them a lot more than we do today. Sincerely, InternetHero 18:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit?

I've put a music-related article up for FA nomination a month ago, and it appears to me that you've been quite involved in the music-related areas of Wikipedia. Moreover, you've done a great job of scrutinizing the prose problems over at that Japanese composer article that you reviewed back on October 16. Tony1, of FA and general copyediting fame, recommended that the article I put up for FAC be "massaged throughout" by "someone who's unfamiliar with the article". I've asked a few users in the past to copyedit and proofread the article, to a good degree of success, but at this point, the prose remains a roadblock on the article's path to FA status. Thus far, the response I've received for copyediting has been limited, either because editors aren't as heavily involved in music article on wikipedia, I haven't found involved music editors thus far, or...other things that have resulted in the S.H.E FAC being second last on the FAC list as of right now. But yes, if you'd like to give it a look (or point out things in the prose that could be improved) then feel free to point things out. Pandacomics 06:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Pandacomics, but this article doesn't really appeal to my interests, and I lack the time. I hope you find someone to help out. I may take a look some time, and "massage" it a bit, but I probably won't fit it into your FAC's schedule. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cricket popularity

Its been questioned several times before so its been cited to death and dicussed at length. I would prefer the line to be more specific though. We are only talking teams ports here - otherwise the sport of walking would be pretty much unchallenged at number 1. I would also like to see mentioned by what criteria it comes second ie is it participation, live audience, tv audience etc. As I understand it its rated second if you ask everyone in the world "what is your favourite team sport" --LiamE 14:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Veropedia

I created an account for you, please check your email to pick up your password. http://en.veropedia.com/v/login.pl is the login page, http://en.veropedia.com/v/PonoParser.php is the magical parser. Good luck!

In reply to some of your other questions, Veropedia is not associated with the WikiMedia Foundation (for which there are good reasons). It is a for-profit, but the FAQ explains why, at least in part. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 12:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Shostakovich

Hello. Have you made a mistake? Some of us are puzzled why you would want to merge the article about the personal life of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky with the article about Dmitri Shostakovich? --RobertG ♬ talk 16:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

DOH! I want to request the merge of Tchaikovsky's personal life to the right article. I may have made a stupid mistake. Mind correcting it for me? -- Cat ^chi? 16:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to withdraw the FAR of the Shostakovich article as well? --RobertG ♬ talk 16:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. Perhaps but I think such a review would not hurt anyways. Please take the action you think is best (you can keep the FAR or close it reverting my edits). I'll agree with whatever your decision is. -- Cat ^chi? 16:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My advice? - I'd withdraw the merge request (because the personal life article appears to be summarised reasonably well in the Tchaikovsky article at Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky#Homosexuality, marriage and Dostoyevsky) and I'd withdraw the FAR for Shostakovich unless you have specific evidence that the article is not comprehensive. However, the decisions are yours: let me know what you want to do. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I got distracted by Real Life™ for a bit there - I see you've sorted matters: do you still need help? I can see how you made the mistake: the top of the "Tchaikovsky's personal life" article does rather major on Shostakovich, doesn't it?! --RobertG ♬ talk 17:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, the intro needs work. I was wondering how I could be so much in error, now I know. Yes the matter seems sorted. I withdrew the FAR nom but I think I'll stick with my merge suggestion.

I feel bio articles should focus on "personal life" of the person. Individual professional achievements and milestones can be individual articles.

-- Cat ^chi? 18:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Vaughan Williams article

Hi there: If you get a minute could you please take a glance at the latest addition to the article and let me know what you think? I have a feeling the added material is either leaning toward POV or includes material already covered in the specific works articles. I just can't make up my mind (such as it is, especially since I have a cold this week). Thanks! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything particularly contentious, but then I'm a Vaughan Williams lover, not really an expert! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Anthemoessa

Hi! I created a page called Anthemoessa. It's about the island of the Sirens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthemoessa Would you mind editing it please? Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Schindler

I want to say that I read an article once regarding Bettina von Arnim's role in the development of the fictional side of Beethoven's legacy, but I'm in no position to make any authoritative claims about it now. I don't know if this helps. In any event, thanks for raising good questions in an article that needs such scrutiny!  :^) Dunkelweizen (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking for help : )

• Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Wikipedians by programming language (talk)

Please see talk page for more information. - jc37 10:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Jc37, I'm not really that interested in Wikipedian categories. I'm not exactly sure what Category:Wikipedians by computer skill is for, except allowing like users to commiserate with one another, or helping them to receive unsolicited requests for programming advice from complete strangers! A can of worms best left unopened? I understand what you are trying to achieve, but I don't think worrying over whether it should be Category:User asm or Category:User assembler, Category:User awk or Category:User AWK is the best way to improve Wikipedia! And Category:User latex (the name of which might give a somewhat misleading idea of the nature of its members) is missing from your list. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 10:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the help that you did give : )

May I post your above comments at that talk page (to unify discussion) since there were some helpful points there? (Or you can, if you wish). - jc37 11:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No sooner said than done! Regards, RobertG ♬ talk 11:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again : ) - jc37 11:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Innings victory

I am not going to edit war with you. An innings victory (plus the runs) is bigger than any other victory, ie. by runs or wickets. The cite is correct. I put it there. The sentence was correct as written. Phanto282 (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No edit war is required, and I was not offering one. Comparing innings victories with runs victories is simply not comparing like with like. It is your opinion that the innings victory is bigger than any other (it may be my opinion too, but that's irrelevant). The citation does not support the opinion, and it is arguable that 521 and 342 for eight declared plays 122 and 66 is at least equally dominant (and Bradman batted in both innings there). I think that is why largest margins by runs is listed as a separate record. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The "by an innings" is put in parenthesis to distinguish it from "by wickets" and "by runs" because there are three types of winning margin. England's margin at the Oval in 1938 is the biggest in Test history, full stop. It does not need to be qualified. To win a match by an innings is larger than any other type of victory because the match is decided over three innings only. Suggest if you want clarification, leave a question at WT:CRIC and see what response you get. Phanto282 (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So a victory by an innings and 1 run is bigger than a victory by 500 runs? Sorry, I disagree. "By an innings" is in parenthesis to distinguish it from "by wickets" and "by runs" because there are three types of winning margin. Thank you, my point exactly. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't think I didn't notice. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No content in Category:Rugrats episodes

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Rugrats episodes, by TTN, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Rugrats episodes has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Rugrats episodes, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Category:Rugrats episodes itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Angel writers

List of Angel writers, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of Angel writers satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Angel writers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Angel writers during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister cast members

List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister cast members, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister cast members satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister cast members and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister cast members during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Category:Xena: Warrior Princess episodes

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Xena: Warrior Princess episodes, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Xena: Warrior Princess episodes is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Xena: Warrior Princess episodes, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot 22:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Graham Technology paragraphs

Hi Robert! Thanks for taking the time to have a look at the page I edited. Would it be ok to have bold lettering starting each paragraph instead of different sections? I feel the one large section is trying to cover too many areas and looks unorganised. Cheers! Paul PS, I have changed it around to this currently.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.177.183 (talk • contribs) 12 December 2007

Seems reasonable - but be careful with that conflict of interest thing. Welcome to Wikipedia! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 17:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Ernest Irving

A tag has been placed on Ernest Irving requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mbisanz (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Contemporary music, and John Cage

Hello, I thought you might be interested in the new WikiProject S.dedalus is building, Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music. Also, since we talked about Cage-related articles at Talk:John Cage, I thought maybe you'd like to comment on Sonatas and Interludes at its FAC page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonatas and Interludes. Any opinions and/or suggestions are very welcome. Jashiin (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am interested, and will continue to keep an eye on (and even perhaps continue to contribute to) articles that interest me, but I sha'n't formally join the project, thank you. I will certainly take a look at Sonatas and Interludes when I have time. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Wellbeing ministries

Category:Wellbeing ministries, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. – Cgingold (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Defunct radio stations in Des Moines

I have nominated Category:Defunct radio stations in Des Moines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Rtphokie (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Luto score in danger

User_talk:Tony1#Disputed_fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Lutoslawski_Symphony_3_excerpt.JPG Tony (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope it's OK now; I quail when it comes to all of this copyright stuff. Season's greetings to you, sir. Tony (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rivero vandalism

Thank you. I've added MichaelScart67 to the list of accounts known to be Eduardo and Andres. --Stéphane Charette (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bromak

Hi there.

I'm attempting to add our company on wiki, but I understand that you have removed it for 'blatant advertising'.

If this is the case, can you tell me the best way for us to add a listing on this site without breaching these terms?

i've looked at companies like accenture and I can see no difference to what we've added. Hence, I'd like your feedback on this please!

Thanks

Martyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromak (talk • contribs) 8 January 2008

I replied on your talk page. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. --Maniwar (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back : )

Just thought I would welcome you back from your Wikibreak : ) - jc37 10:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Let me add my welcome as well! I'm glad to see you are back so soon.

Superb essay, and it's right to the point. Very precise observations. I'm very curious to see how our community continues to develop, as we grow even more, and age. We've changed from a town into a city; but is it for the better? Don't know yet. San Francisco is better as a city than it was as a town. But for other places perhaps the reverse is true. It seems we need, as a community, a periodic re-dedication to our core principles, so they do not become mere "Sunday truths", the way "love thy neighbor" has been periodically demoted during centuries of religious wars among Christians, or "Allah is compassionate and merciful" is conveniently neglected by terrorists. Good essay! Antandrus (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Solomon

Thanks, Robert. The funny thing is, I think it possible that Suessmayr really does know some reference sources that would be useful in editing the Mozart articles. If only he would suppress all that rage and give me the usual info {author, title, publisher, place date}, I'd be glad to look at them. Maybe he will calm down and be more helpful in the (distant) future. Regards, Opus33 (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin

Glad to see you are involved with this article. Perhaps we can improve this article to GA status, at the very least? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Olivier Messiaen

Hi, I have tried to add an external link for the percussion repertoire used by Messiaen and it was removed by yourself because part of our site is commercial. I don't know if you checked the site before you took the link down but our "Repertoire" section is NOT commercial is a wholly separate part of our website and is invaluable information for percussionists, especially students. Messiaen's repertoire is becoming frequently requested due to his centenary this year. We feel our repertoire section is a very useful reference to a broad range of classical and contemporary composers and most definitely "fulfills the criteria" for Wikipedia. I hope you can overturn your decision and reinstate this link, Regards,

Dan Gibbins Bell Percussion Ltd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellperc (talk • contribs) 31 January 2007

Its being commercial was only one criterion I used when removing it. I still feel it doesn't meet the criteria, but others may differ. I've started a discussion section over at the article's talk page. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoge Veluwe National Park

Hello Robert, the image is definitely better. Thanks. Looking for new images is always rewarding.--GerardusS (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 3 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Euphrosyne Parepa-Rosa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Sorry, I have no information on the other people that you mention. I was interested in Mme. Parepa-Rosa because I am interested in the Carl Rosa Opera Company and its connection with Gilbert and Sullivan. Check out WP:GS. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Messiaen Repertoire Link

Hi Robert, I was just wondering if you had had been able to reevaluate the removal of our link to our Messaen repertoire page. I don't know if you had seen on the discussion page but someone has supported our argument. We are very confident this is just one of many that regularly use this part of our website. We strongly feel that this is an essential reference for student and professional percussionists. Please let me know if we can re-post our link as being Messiean's centenery I'm sure there's a number of people who would benefit from the information we are providing, Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellperc (talk • contribs) 5 February 2008

I am not convinced sufficiently to add it back myself, but if you insert it again I certainly shan't remove it. I notice that the link now lists 12 pieces rather than just 6, which is an improvement: any chance of updating the list to make it more comprehensive? Les offrandes oubliées, Concert à quatre, Saint-François, Des canyons aux étoiles stand out as missing after a cursory glance - do you sell geophones? I appreciate your careful, polite approach, thank you. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. We are always endeavoring to improve our Repertoire page however, obtaining the relevant information as specific as this is harder than you might think! Also, we do sell and hire Geophones (also know as ocean or surf drums), not that that's an advertisement of course! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellperc (talk • contribs) 6 February 2008

Hi Robert, I wondered if you could help regarding this messiean external link. I have tried to re-post the link however it has not become "live" even though I can see it on my computer. The edit is there but it's not showing. Is this because it has to be verified or something to that effect. I would appreciate any advice you can offer. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellperc (talk • contribs) 11 February 2008

The most likely explanation is that your browser has cached the older version of the page. Try refreshing the page in your browser (you go to the Messiaen article and then hit <Ctrl+F5> or something). I can see the link, so it's definitely there! Regards, RobertG ♬ talk 17:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Robert! That's done just the trick! I don't understand the logic of that but thank you anyway!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellperc (talk • contribs) 11 February 2008

TIm Burton

I recently uploaded a new better picture of tim burton , you said it was wrong i was only trying to change it not to be destructive sorry. Michael jackson 12341234 (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re

I think the section List of organ concertos may need some changes as it looks like a list and some more internal links. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Warnings

Please try to remember to place warnings on user talk pages when reverting vandalism. It helps the admins when assessing the need for a block. Keep up the good work. Cheers Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

?

why you deleted my page titled "Dsr2008".

whats wrong with that? Dsr2008 (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bug

Thanks, fixed. (You can stop SB if you see stuff like this that is clearly wrong, by leaving it a message.) Rich Farmbrough, 18:34 13 March 2008 (GMT).

RE: Spaces

I was hoping to achieve enlightenment.

you're welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cberry01 (talk • contribs) 19 March 2008

A Sea Symphony

Hello,

I have moved A Sea Symphony to A Sea Symphony (Vaughan Williams) and created a disambiguation page because the seventh symphony by Howard Hanson has the same title.

Regards, --Mahlerite (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, RobertG, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Idontknow610^TM 10:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. My word, was that really three years ago?! --RobertG ♬ talk 11:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Skeletons on tin roofs

i stand corrected (civilly).Thanks.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC) and no, i don't think it warrants inclusion in the article. :)Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Complaint

Come on I am so Pissed at all the Spin in Wiki I wrote that.Please remove the global warming.It has not been prooved ever. in the 1970's the same idiots were raveing about global Cooling and wiki and palls keep distorting history for an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.50.230 (talk • contribs) 15 April 2008

So all the sourced material is "spin", raving, and historical distortion, while your addition is not? If you have problems with the article please discuss them on the article's discussion page. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rename on Czech Wiki

Hi, sorry but I can't rename your username on the Czech Wiki now because there is other user with no vandalistic editing. Now, we have rule that I dont have right to do it. I will try to writte him/her the message in Czech if he/she will be able to change to some other name and this one release for you. We will see but it is old account so probably nobady is using today so there will be no answer (in this case we have to wait one month. I am just reediting our rule about this topic so if will be allright and no protests after one month I have the right to do it :). Please remember me after one month your request and hoping I have right to do it. --Chmee2 (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: Sorry for this complications but you are the first user with this problem on Czech Wiki so our rules are not ready for this yet :]

Mexican pewter

robert: thanks again for your welcome. at risk of being a pain in the arse, could i ask you to peek at the article on 'mexican pewter' and my comments thereon, and advise. i didn't mention this in the discussion, but both of the external links are to commercial websites. ThanksToyokuni3 (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are absolutely right! Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

InterWiki to Kiswahili Wikipedia

Hello, RobertG. Thank you for given me an information regarding InterWiki! But unfortunately I didn't know if I delete something! I use to delete some others once I picked them in Kiswahili Wikipedia, and there's possibility to delete some place which are not deserve to be deleted. I accept my mistake and keep remind me once I do it again! Cheers,--Muddyb Blast Producer (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Islam Page Deletion

Yes, it was accidental. Sorry! LukeFF (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry for editing the Japan page :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spykodemon (talk • contribs) 24 April 2008

No problem - you are more than welcome to edit constructively. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing help

Please help me fix the "2001 Kansas State Wildcats football team" page. The schedule box is messed up. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topgun530 (talk • contribs) 28 April 2008

You forgot to close an internal link's square brackets! --RobertG ♬ talk 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Quite unnecessary. The links led where they should have as it was. No harm done, however. Kostaki mou (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry about that.) My memory played a trick on me. I just checked the older version and found that "Dvořák" (even with the right diacriticals, which I did have) led to the disambiguation page. My bad. Still, no harm done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostaki mou (talk • contribs) 29 April 2008

Leoš Janáček

Hi, I just added some info to the section "Life and work" of Leoš Janáček. I see you contributed to the article recently, can you please look at it...and maybe check it..? Thanks.Vejvančický (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Changing an Article Title

the article:list of eponymous medical signs is in need of a title change and i don't know how (or if i can). more than half of the entries are tests, diseases, disorders, syndromes and other more specific terms (auer rods). in medical nomenclature 'sign' has a fairly specific meaning, and most of these don't qualify. the only common feature they all have is eponymity (?). 'signs' needs to be changed to 'terms'.Toyokuni3 (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:FFA

My sincere apologies for my careless typo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

RobertG, I just saw and responded to your post over at Wikipedia talk:Former featured articles#Well.2C I thought they were improvements. I am very sorry, and sincerely apologize for my error; I don't know how I made that typo, it was unintended, I've left a null edit to correct the record, I wouldn't have even noticed if you hadn't pointed it out because the two Vs run together on my screen with my eyesight, and I asked Gimmetrow yesterday if he could find a way to do what you wanted to do without leaving footnotes in the list and how they would affect the bot. It's possible none of that will make you feel any better, but it was an honest mistake, typo, and I'm sincerely sorry for it. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness you're back :-) I haven't yet heard from Gimmetrow on the bot breaking; I know it's very sensitive on that page, and since I left him about half a dozen dumb questions yesterday, I'm not surprised he hasn't gotten to it yet. Robert, I once took a one-week break from Wiki when someone chewed me out over literally one *s* (whether the word in Spanish was plural, and sources disagreed). When I realized how upset I was about being chewed out over an "s", I knew I needed to take some time off LOL! So I know how the little stuff can getcha, and I really am sorry :-) It's scary that between my eyesight and my touchpad I don't see those things, so the best thing I can do now is simply avoid ever trying to type "rv" at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)