User talk:RobertG/Archive-03

Thanks For Your Help
I realised how to upload the picture at the same time as you were editing it, hope I didn't overwrite anything you were doing at the time. For information I am actually involved with the Brunel Engine House. —This unsigned comment was added by Mrbryanejones (talk • contribs) 23 March 2006.

Waiting for Godot beckett stamp image
I see you tagged my image Image:Stamp Irl 1990 Beckett Godot.jpg for speedy deleting but maybe you can explain this a little further. So, I cannot use this stamp image in the Beckett article. What if I do a write up on the Waiting for Godot article, can I use the stamp there, or can I really only use a stamp on pages that are related to postage stamps per se? Another instance would be a write up about Beckett being commemorated by the Irish post office by the issuance of a postage stamp. Would that be in order? Obviously this stamp does not merit an article of its own. ww2censor 06:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting reply. Actually I have tried to contact the Irish post office but have yet to even receive a reply. Maybe I will have one of my Irish friends try to get some sort of statement from them one way or another. Retaining copyright on postage stamps is pretty pointless for an item that is in public circulation, usually by the millions, and I cannot see any downside for any postal authority even if a high resolution image was available online in the public domain. It could not easily be used to pay postage and that is the only reason for the issue of stamps in the first place. Right now I am working on some larger Irish philately articles, especially this one, Postage stamps of Ireland so I don't have time to consider your suggestions for specific article that could possibly use stamp images as fair use. Maybe later. BTW, as you seem to be a philatelist, I would like your comments on my new article mentioned above that is nearly ready for publishing. ww2censor 14:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Rassell Jamal
Hello, you deleted my 'Rassell Jamal' article - for correct reasons and i don't disagree with that...I just wanted to know if it's possible for me to retrieve the text of the article i wrote somehow, just for personal record so i can keep it on my computer, i was just wondering if you could help? thanks --Tanzeel 15:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for retrieving the text...kind regards --Tanzeel 15:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Avoidant
That was simply fantastic. I look upon your work with joy, as always, but for grounds you may fathom I took particular thrill at your diff of A Void. How long did you labor at writing it to your satisfaction? Mind's "I"


 * Good contribution summary ("For this contribution I took on a hard task: constructing a substantial, significant, and faithful, but suitably lipogrammatic, plot synopsis! Any good?") Words fail this author also! Awaiting vacation finish with anticipation, Antandrus  (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Office tags
I am User:Mindspillage, admin, operating from a public terminal, that's why I'm applying those templates. --Jaulwood 14:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As for why I'm using a different identity at public PCs, well, see WP:SOCK. --Jaulwood 14:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not block me as a vandal account... OK! This is a legitimate account. --Jaulwood 14:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To speak aloud, in brief...
As you may have guessed, not me. But amusing nonetheless. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad of your certainty... Glad to see others are sure I haven't gone crazy, even if I myself sometimes doubt. ;-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Unsourced" paintings
You listed a number of paintings uploaded by User:Gogafax as "unsourced" for which he had actually identified the artist, and the title (albeit in German). At least some of these are furthermore public domain due to the age of the painting and the fact that the artist died over 100 years ago (e.g., Gauguin, Manet), and Template:PD-old thus applies. Though he had erroneously applied the PD-self tag to some of these, that's an easy problem to correct. I haven't searched through all of his uploads yet; I'd appreciate it if you could complete my review of the images you tagged. Thanks, Postdlf 15:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Hi, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Once again congrats and welcome to our team! - Gl e n T C 11:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Barns are cool
So are Barnstars.

Commendation for your image cleanup
I see that you have taken up a lot of the slack in clearing out the un-sourced image categories while I've been on vacation the past week. Good work! It is certainly appreciated. If you are interested, I have a semi-automated tool (command-line, uses a slightly modified version of the pywikipedia framework) that I use to do the deletions. Let me know if you'd like to try it out. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You said you were interested in the tool... The first step is to download the pywikipedia framework. Then drop me an email (via the emailuser function) and I'll send you the code for the tool(two files, one of which replaces the catlib.py file from pywikipedia, and the other which is the tool itself).  To run it, type (from the pywikipedia directory): python bad_image_deletion.py 12_April_2006 (changing the date depending on which date you wish to work on) or, for categories other than the no_source categories, use python bad_image_deletion.py -c Category:NAME_OF_CATEGORY .  The program runs in three phrases; first it gathers information on the images, and will continue until it gets all of them, or you press Control-C; then it will bring up the message: "Press C-c again to really quit."; at that point, press any key except Control-C, and it will start asking you about the images it's found may be deleted.  A y marks the image to be deleted, any other answer does not.  After it's asked you about all the images, it will go through and automatically delete all of them.  Please ask me if when something doesn't work right. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Flanders & Swann
I personally heard "The British Motorway" at one of their shows at the Fortune Theatre in 1959. Obviously it isn't in the songbook -- "OOOhhhhhhh, The British Motorway" -- that's IT. But I guess under the wiki-rules it probably ought to stay deleted. Shame. El Ingles 15:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw "At the Drop of a Hat" at least six times. I believe I can recite the whole thing -- certainly "Greensleeves" was my party piece for many years. I've moved to California now and any theatrical archives I may have had are long gone, alas. A few years back I was looking for a pianist who would tour the expat pubs here with me, as a fake Flanders & Swann. Never found one -- but I know a pianist in Bognor Regis who can do all the music. Cheers.

El Ingles 22:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As a F&S fan you might enjoy the wikipage I just finished, "The Greensleeves Monologue annotated" (the quote-marks are needed, wish I could get rid of them actually). El Ingles 16:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That page has now been kicked out of the wikiverse and has moved here. El Ingles 22:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I need your help
Sambody has deletet a template I have createt. Pleace see my page. User talk:Hipi Zhdripi

Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry
i am very sorry about the cats page... i din't mean to do it i was just looking at the editing of things but then i clicked saved and it saved my mame on the page. this was never intentional and i am not a vandiliser just a newb with wikipedia. anyway i may have pressed buttons or something that made this happen so i will be more careful next time... once again sorry and thanks for reverting my error.. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poppit (talk • contribs) 25 April 2006.

thank you robert g
i am sorry robert. i'm just very lonely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.102.251.209 (talk • contribs) 25 April 2006.

CATS
Re my last question about your alterations of mine on the above page. I am dyslexic so that explains the bad grammer and spelling. I thought Wikipedia would spell check before they published everything. My mistake. Also you asked how I know cats have become more vocal with humans etc. Well I know as I have had lots of cats all my life and are very keen on them. I have read all the books & seen all the programms on them. Other behaviourist have discovered that cats in the wild, small cats, do not communicate vocaly but more with body language. They have become more vocal as through time they became domesicated. Hope thsi answers your questions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emmajaneyoung (talk • contribs) 26 April 2006.

Thanks for catching my mistake
Not sure how that happened. When I have a lot of spam links to revert I tend to go quickly...too quickly, sometimes!  OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Block conflict on 216.191.145.196
- I blocked for 48 hours, you did 24- you happy to reblock for the 48 due to the persistence of the vandalism despite numerous warnings and lack of shared IP notice? Petros471 16:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeh :) Now reblocked. Cheers, Petros471 16:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What should I do to obtain copyright needed for my own image TT01.gif
??? Why??? Please, help me obtain this required copyright- it is my own picture TTO1.gif see my ste http://www.tao.nm.ru/yinyang.htm made with computer and Turbo Pascal6 programm under my own FORMULA of YinYang Symbol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stalker2000 (talk • contribs) 29 April 2006.

Thanks
Hey, thanks for the message. Between you and Eva (two Esperanza members), I've unstressed quite a bit. See, thing is, it's finals time at school, and WP is a nice place for me to relax during study breaks. I guess doing something as drastic as putting Spoiler up for tfd, I should have expected some umpleaseantness, but it was disconcerting to have my study break turn into another dilemna. But thank you again, as I have indeed stepped a little bit away from the comments, so as to be a bit more objective. The debate will end with a keep, but I am happy that some interesting points were able to be brought up about it. If you ever need help with something in the future, please let me know, Chuck 12:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirect fixes
Thanks for the commendation - we aim to please. I have a plan to radically reorganise the Opera article (but not just yet).

And thanks also for the link to Redirect. Your message arrived just as I'd finished sorting out the links in and around Renard (Stravinsky) to my own satisfaction. I'm still a bit puzzled, though - doesn't "Don't fix links ..." conflict somewhat with what it says at Double redirects? In some ways, it seems easier to fix everything rather than worrying about what is a double redirect and what isn't. (Or, how can you tell that I used to be a librarian?)

Nice to see that Take it from Here counts as literature - real groovy!. Or maybe it's real gravy. --GuillaumeTell 16:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Commercial Link
Talk started at European Classical Music page about one of your reversions. Just curious. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.84.72.181 (talk • contribs) 10 May 2006.

Re: Thanks
...for the revert on my user page. I'm grateful. --RobertG &#9836; talk 08:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Happy to help. --Bachrach44 18:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Spam links
There have been a few dozen links to a commercial website (art posters) from a single unregistered user. All of this users edits have been to merely add that website to the external links section of articles. I thought you might know of a quicker way to revert those than to track them down one at a time - I know there are a couple of anti-vandal tools out there, but I'm not familiar with them yet. Thanks.Special-T 12:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I figured out how to revert each one quickly, so it wasn't such a big job.Special-T 15:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh
I've noticed you've reverted some vandalism on this article, so I thought I'd draw your attention to this proposal on the talk page. Tyrenius 01:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"sharper" vs "tighter"
For your info: Either one is okay in that context; probably "tighter" is a little more accessible to the uninitiated. But sometimes "sharp" (without the -er) can mean a little bit more. To say that a bound is "sharp" means that it cannot be improved. Dmharvey 12:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Images
Look, leave them be for now. As soon as I get the chance I am going to go back and add their sources, because I know where the guy got them from. But, I can't right at this second because I have to go to school; when I get to work (at 11am EST) I will add their sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bignole (talk • contribs) 19 May 2006.

User talk:64.242.1.250
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:test&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. - CobaltBlueTony 14:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Flanders & Swan citation edit
Hi Robert

The problem I have is that there isn't by definition going to be a published source for this - the tape can be found in the BBC's own VT catlog (which used to be known as VTOL but now goes by a different acronym.) The problem is that this is closed system only accessible to BBC staff. So I suppose that if you really wanted to push the point my "source" is a print out from VTOL which I still have in my files somewhere. The thing is without someone comming round to my house and looking at it or going to the BBC library and doing their own print out that isn't really a "publication".

The fact that I worked at the BBC is easily verified however... because you only have to go to the www.vtoldboys.com - and look up my name in the "credits" section where you will find it recorded that I was there from 1989 to 1997 and that I now work at TSWFTA in plymouth. (www.tswfta.co.uk) when you can see a picture of me working a Telecine machine.

Notwithstanding the lack of previous publication I feel that the information IS important as for many years the accepted wisdom has been that no copy survives of this recording. Since 1994 (when I found the film) I have known this to be incorrect (as do various other Ex and current BBC employees) but until now have lacked the means to communicate it.

I don't know where that leaves us... I am very new to this wikipedia world... and I have no wish to upset anyone... but for all the reasons stated i do feel that this information is important and shouldn't be arbitarily deleted simply because it is a previously unpublished fact. If we adopt that approach then surely no one will ever be able to add anything new? jennyd60 11:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!
Hello Robert! I just wanted to say hello and thank you for the welcome note on my talk page. I've just gone ahead and written a new article for Carmina Burana: Carmina Burana (Orff). It's not definitive but it's a whole lot better than we had! Let me know if there's any music work to be done that I could help with. Best wishes. -MarkBuckles 03:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup on A Sea Symphony (Vaughan Williams). I didn't realize I was so inept at spending Vaughan! Best wishes --MarkBuckles 09:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Beethoven
Hi Robert. See also discussion I can see your objection with "most recogizable". I changed that slighly, and concentrated on "major works", and left in the "rocognizable" bit. I know why the person would have put in "most recogizable" as it is more "catchy" than "major works". As far as an informal list like this, it's good. People will read through them, particularly if they want to "discover" the composer, and learn more. The problem is with big lists, is that only experts plough through them. Thank you. Wallie 09:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Robert again. I see we are both in Esperanza, and you also know about the subject matter. My pet hate is admins who pull rank, and get their own way, even though their knowledge is just about nil on the subject being discussed - but that is certainly not you. So it is refreshing to see someone who is trying to improve the article, and not just trying to win. I also take your point about others being candidates for being major works. Especially Piano Concerto Number 4, which seems to be almost in the "popular" area, as it is played so many times in piano competitions, as least where I live anyway. Wallie 10:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Brahms
Hello, can you tell me why you deleted the "See Also" section in Brahms? Almost all of the composer pages have a "See Also" section, with at least a link to the list of works and a link to the category with works of the composer. I noticed this deletion because I quickly needed to find a particular work of brahms: I searched to the brahms page, scrolled to the end of the page expecting to find the link to his works page. Now I have to search the whole article to find the link.

This section is not meant to provide information that would be redundant, but only to mention related pages, and the format of this section at the end of the composer page is a bit of a standard on wiki. So can I kindly ask you to recover the state of the "See Also" section, or provide an argument for this deletion? Thank you.--Dr. Friendly 15:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and please accept my apologies for being a bit aggressive as a new user. Still, I will miss the handy "See Also" section :) --Dr. Friendly 16:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi Robert. I'm wondering if I can ask you a few questions about the wikipedia community. I would like to be more involved in working together with other editors, but it's strange, I'm not quite sure what's going on in the big picture. I know there's a music portal and a composers project and some other things, but I'm not sure if they're especially active or how I should best contribute. Of course, there's plenty to write and edit - I'd just like to feel a little more connected to everyone else, like we're working together instead of next to each other. I also notice you're a part of Esperanza. I'm really interested in that as well, but again, unsure where or how to start exactly. I like the idea of positive cooperation and kindness and working towards goals as a group. Do you have any advice? Thanks a lot. Best wishes --MarkBuckles 07:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Project composers
Hello. Is there a consensus I missed? I think you will find that it is not Wikipedia policy to link to project pages from the main article space, and I expect your links will all have to be removed. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 12:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Meladina"

Thanks for the information. (Meladina 12:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

So far I put the logos only to the articles I've been personally involved. I don'd mind to cut the link to the project, but I like the idea to leave the logo at the bottom of the articles linked to the paternal article Composer. What is your opinion? (Meladina 12:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

Another opinion

 * Here is another opinion (Meladina 12:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)):

This Russian Opera article is part of the Opera Project


 * It can be placed at the bottom of the article. (Meladina 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC))


 * Nice! It would be good to have more of these for other countries' operas, maybe a Valkyrie or Papageno for German opera, Mephisto for French, Butterfly for Italian...  (And a more distinctive one for the Opera Project userbox rather than just the boring old Wikipedia globe.)  I'm not volunteering - I'm hopeless at graphics - but I'm sure there are more imaginative people around here. --GuillaumeTell 21:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Panufnik
Excellent expansion of the article. Warmest applause. Tim riley 21:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Cricket - All Rounders
I'm an American wondering about the skills in cricket. In baseball, pitchers are seldom good hitters. That is mainly because pitchers only play in every fourth or fifth game, so they do not acquire the batting skills that only come with regular playing. Occasionally there will be a "good-hitting pitcher" such as the famous Babe Ruth, but even then, their hitting isn't very useful because of their infrequent presence in the game. I'm wondering why, in cricket, there seems to be a similar separation of bowling and batting skills. Can you help? Lou Sander 14:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Baseball also has the phenomenon of a pitcher coming to bat and being totally bewildered. Part of the strategy of the game involves substitutions of players in a way that avoids pitchers having to come up to bat. In the American League (one of the two "Major Leagues," pitchers do not bat at all. Instead, a specialist player, known as a "designated hitter" bats in their place. The DH never takes the field -- he only bats and runs.


 * There ARE a few cases where exceptionally good players might switch from pitcher to general purpose player. Most of them take place in the lower leagues, and I think that most involve pitchers who aren't quite good enough deciding to try their luck as everyday players.


 * It is part of baseball lore that good pitching will beat good hitting, so good pitchers are prized players. It's also part of the lore that no skill in sport is as difficult as hitting a baseball thrown by a good pitcher. So good batters are also prized. The other major skill is fielding (catching and throwing), but in general it isn't as highly valued as pitching or hitting.


 * I guess baseball's catcher is analogous to cricket's wicket guy (name?), in that he's got a specialized defensive skill that is used in the vicinity of the batter. Lou Sander 01:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Grand piano link
Dear RobertG, Re: grand piano I.Q. test link

Since I am unfamiliar with your choice of acronym "SEO" tool, kindly redefine as this link is an extremely good resource on the subject (in my estimation), but I don't know what exactly you're asking. Kindly expound so we can get this back up. Thanks- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by My2cents (talk • contribs) 8 June 2006.

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your very thoughtful and considerate clarification (and education). Search engines hadn't even really dawned on me one way or another, to be truthful. I am curious though as to why search engines picking up links from Wikipedia would necessarily be a bad thing?

Anyway, I wish to solicit your assistance again, if I may. There is a user (rainwarrior) for whom invariably and strangely edits/reverts almost anything which differs with his own personal views. As such, I and others for whom I am acquainted have virtually stopped trying to contribute, out of sheer frustration.

In this particular instance and being you are an admin., rainwarrios seems somehow reluctant to modify your last edit (at least as of this writing). I suspect had you not "jumped in", it would be gone too.

I'd like to make a suggestion for a slight change to the text for the link being discussed, assuming you may be be inclined to agree. The link "label a diagram of the piano action" is actually part of 4 different "quizzes", if you will. Each one refers to different physical elements of the piano. I understand these scripts to have initially been a cooperative effort between the host website and a university professor for his music theory students. It was later expanded to include all 4 "panes". My feeling is that if the link were called something a bit more descriptive, it may better explain its content. Perhaps something like: "locating & identifying the parts of a grand piano"?

Your thoughts, help and suggestions are truly appreciated. Again, many thanks for your kind input and support. I thought about just doing this myself, but felt it more practical to seek your views in this, rather than having edits randomly reverted by another user (present company excluded) again.

My2cents 03:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

G Patrick Maxwell
Was the image that you removed properly sourced for copyright purposes? It was added back. I don't know, the problem may have been corrected.MollyBloom 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Openers
Hi, I noticed you edited my minor change to the Jack Hobbs article. You did say that "being an opener is not a handicap". While I can't deny that, of the list you gave in the edit summary, all of them were openers and have among the highest run aggregates, surely you're not claiming that if we compare the averages of openers and averages of number 3s, say - (I hesitate to say "average score as opener" and "average score as number 3") we'll find that the first is higher than the second? I fancy the second will be considerably higher than the first. Aggregates are perhaps misleading, as they take into account the longevity of the player's career, and it is possible that openers tend to have longer careers perhaps because of some correlation between the skills required and the time for which those skills are possessed. Just a thought. Hornplease 09:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's another not-quite-directly-comparable cricket/baseball similarity: In baseball, the man who bats first is called the "leadoff hitter." He is typically chosen for his skill at getting on base, either by hitting or by being walked. It's not so much that he scores runs through his skills, but that he gets on base so that the skills of others will advance him to score runs. Batters #2-#4 are more chosen for their ability to get hits that will advance the runner(s) ahead of them. #4 is called the "clean-up hitter," and is usually a man who hits a lot of doubles and home runs. If there's at least one man on base when he bats, his job is to get the man to score. Lou Sander 14:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

MYOB
hello robert, mind your own business in future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshuarooney (talk • contribs) 19 June 2006.


 * wow. . . i guess that's what they create wikistress meters for. . . MarkBuckles 18:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And also
No worries about the rvv on your page. Also, I wanted to say thanks for your thoughtful comments you left on my talk page. I think it's really easy to be rude to people when you never see them, and when you're talking they don't even get a chance to talk back. But I really admire the pillar of assuming good faith that the community aspires to. And the fact that the whole project even exists is a testament to a lot of positive effort and care. I think there are a lot of really 'good' editors out there. And luckily a lot of kind ones too, even if many can be flippant or overly antagonistic sometimes. I'm enjoying my work here so far.

Some of the project pages, like tthe composers project, and even the music project, seem to be kind of dead. Is there anything to be done about that? I suppose maybe projects vitalize when they reach a critical mass of active users.

Best wishes -- MarkBuckles 18:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits
Robert,

Sorry, I'm new to this Wikipedia thing, so I didn't realize I had to comment on my edits. I will say, though, that the music (theory) entries are quite a mess, almost to the point where they're really beyond repair without extensive revisions and additions.

As it stands, it would be better to have one entry--"music"--with a link to either the New Grove Online or, at the very least, a used copy of the "New Harvard Dictionary of Music" listed on amazon.com. Not only do many historical and, worse, technical errors (and omissions) exist with regard to music theory, but there is an overtly "popular"--dare I use the phrase "academically exoteric"?--slant to the entries. The fact that many people apparently use Wikipedia as a(n initial?) research tool is an unmitigated crime in this case.

I'll fix the more disturbing entries as I find them, but the adventurous overhaul about which I was contemplating will have to wait for a more dedicated Wikipedia soul....or at least someone who is both competent and unemployed.

LPRcycle--B.A. Music, Columbia University; A.M. Music Theory, University of Chicago —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lprcycle (talk • contribs) 22 June 2006.

G. Patrick Maxwell
The photo of this man is back on the article. You deleted it previously for copyright violation. I do not want to delete it, because the author of the article (and the one who posted it) is vitriolic towards me. We are already having an argument, because he is deleting whatever he does not like on the article -- eg anything that is not his POV on this man. Would you help at least with the photo? Thanks.MollyBloom 03:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * that's fine. I didn't know which is why I asked.  I did not delete it, but reverted to a previous version of the article.  The author is not listening to other editors, but just deleting.  Therefore, I had reverted the article.  I don't care if he uses the image, if it is fair use.MollyBloom 15:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

List of first-class cricket records
Re Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket, the exact problem is that the Association of cricket statisticians and scorers have given/taken away fc status to/from some old matches. This has changed the records for some old cricketers. The article currently contains bits of both.

According to Cricketarchive and Cricinfo (which follow ACS), Jack Hobbs has 61760 runs and 199 hundreds. As per the conventional figures used by Wisden 2006, he has 61,237 runs and 197 hundreds (p.278 and p.284).

But in the Wiki article, he has 61,237 runs and 199 hundreds. We should avoid such mixups. Tintin (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Since all the player articles use Cricketarchive/Cricinfo, it is the more logical choice but it might better to drop a word in [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket to see if the others have any different opinions. Tintin (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

thank you
RobertG--

Thank you for your support. I shall contribute more information to the "Saint Francois d'Assise" article in the next week or so. Any further information I provide will come from an extensive study on the opera (researched with scholarly sources, of course) which I penned in college. I shall also consult the pages you've suggested to me.

Thank you again. --Mungobuh 09:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

RobotG
Your signature with timestamp

Hi, I understand you are the operator of the bot "RobotG". The mediation cabal has recieved a mediation request pertaining to this bot. The user GPSpilot has expressed concern that your bot is deleting categories from articles with the result of removing those categories from wikipedia. He also has suggested this has been done without prior community consultation as to the suitibility of the categories especially via the usual categories for removal discussion. I am not taking sides at this point and i have no power to stop this bot however you may wish to consider suspending use of the bot until this gets sorted out. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining what is going on and putting this users mind at rest. The mediation discusssion can be found here: Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-26_A_bot_on_a_rampage.

I will accept the mediation of the case for now and pass it on or close it as is necessary, if you need to contact me you are welcome to use my userpage.

Thanks for your time -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 21:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually scratch all that it was just a case of the user getting the wrong end of the stick! Sorry to have bothered you. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 07:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for that comment, I do try. No there is no need to do anything now, I am just waiting for permission from the submitting user to close the request (merely as a courtesy), I was sure there was a simple misunderstanding involved but its always worth going through the process.


 * If you want to make a comment on the mediation page - for completeness sake then feel free but don't worry too much -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 09:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Robert, no problem, I'm glad it was resolved quickly. Cheers, Mak (talk)  15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Canyons & gorges
Hi - can you let me know if you plan to replicate this change down through the category tree? Thanks SP-KP 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

RobotG (→:Category:Members of the Privy Council to :Category:Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom
This hasn't been thought out very well has it. A very large number of those in this category were alive BEFORE the United Kingdom even existed. eg John Baker (English statesman) Jooler 10:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The first thing you should do is stop your bot. I'll add more in a sec. Jooler 10:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay there are several thousand people listed is this category who have been privy councilors for the Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Ireland, Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of Great Britain United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If there were separate catergories for all of these hisotical states of the British isles then there would be a lot of overlapping with people being in several categories. The only contention for 'privy councillor' is with Sweden and there are 27 people listed as privy councillors. The category move was badly thought out and the support of only three people and should be reversed or at least put to the vote again. Jooler 10:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't other Commonwealth Realms have their own Privy Councils too? e.g. Canada, Australia etc.  David Underdown 10:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They have an Executive Council (Commonwealth countries)- Canada has a privy council (so I am mistaken about only Sweden), where disambiguation is neccessary, but the UK/English etc.. privy council is by far the most significant and is the primary topic. It is anachornistic to have Robert Carr, 1st Earl of Somerset etc.. listed under Privy Council of the UK. Jooler 10:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I stopped RobotG for now pending agreement of a way forward, but we currently have a split category: the worst outcome! I've left a suggestion at User talk:Jooler.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 11:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On reflection, the current situation with a split category is the worst of all possible worlds. I will complete the rename per CFD as the correct implementation of Wikipedia policy.  The final decider for me was reading on the category talk page that the intention of the creator of the category was for it to include only current members.  Jooler may care to nominate the category to be renamed back again, but I suspect that some other approach is necessary, recasting the use and structure of the "Privy Council" categories.  Perhaps we need a category "Privy Councils", and categories for current Privy Councillors together with a category for each historical Privy Council.  I have left a note on Jooler's talk page.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 14:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi - Thanks for changing category "realism painters" to "realist painters" on the Alton Tobey page. Being relatively new at this, I thought I had to use categories as I found them — so I adopted the clunky and ungrammatical "realism painters" without modification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarylandArtLover (talk • contribs) 6 July 2006.

Professional status, for lack of a better phrase
Hello Robert: First, thank you very much for your kind welcome note the other day. I am looking forward to tinkering with various music-related pages; being fairly new to Wikipedia and especially to the whole contributing process I do not feel very confident of much in a technical sense but I figure people like you and Antandrus will keep me on the straight and narrow as much as possible.

I have skimmed your user page and am very interested to learn more about your cross-career status, an area I struggle with constantly. But I am unwilling to burden either of our pages (mine is so nascent as to be virtually non-existent) with a lengthy discussion. What's the best way for me to ask you my questions? Merci! Wspencer11 14:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

thank you for category redirects
For months, I've been trying to get AllyUnion to give me the code, but he refused (as recently as Monday). I'm working on a few parserfunctions so that the daily pages can be more automatic, and I'll probably run a bot for that, eventually.

Thank you again! And please put your code up on your bot or talk /subpage, so that we don't end up in this mess again....
 * --William Allen Simpson 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Category redirects for placenames
I understand you have a bot doing patrolling for images stuck mistakenly in redirected cats. I am uncertain if you are patrolling all Commons:Category:Redirects or just some of the selected subcats.

My conversion bot is currently doing explicit #REDIRECT s from adjectival placenames to noun form categories (Brazilian locomotives)->(ChooChoos from Brazil) (what is the deal with all these train pics anyway?). Approximately 2,100 cats are involved. These old cats should not be deleted since some folks will definately type them in searches.

Do you prefer I add them to a new redirect cat or put them in an existing redir cat? If so, propose a name and it is done. -Mak Thorpe 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * NO NOT add #REDIRECT to categories! They don't work.


 * NO NOT add category redirects with bot. To rename a category, you must see WP:CFD.  See the Howto.  And category redirects are used only with approval there!
 * --William Allen Simpson 14:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This refers to Categories on Commons, NOT on WP. Sorry for the confusion.


 * I understand the issue about "#REDIRECT not working." Nonetheless, on commons we are using it.  If RobertG isn't doing this patrolling that's fine with me.  We will let the other auto bot on commons do it. -Mak Thorpe 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:RobotG breaking pages!
RobotG is messing up pages it's editing! That this edit for instance. The commented bit, which provides info on why the film belongs in the category, is moved out of place. &mdash;Gabbe 12:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In this edit it even moves two comments out from where they're supposed to be. I've blocked the bot now. &mdash;Gabbe 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a nice name for a bot !!!! Tintin (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll unblock the robot, but don't you agree that moving the comments away from the category link really destroys the purpose of having the comment there in the first place? &mdash;Gabbe 13:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So I take it you're saying that for the articles the bot has already edited, your intent is to leave them as they are? &mdash;Gabbe 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see edit here for an example. Thanks, Postdlf 14:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

substitutions
Hey, Robert, py framework should easily do substitutions in place without moving the comments, and I see that you are sorting inter-language links at the same time. Don't do that, those are despised AWB features! (Should be an easy fix.)
 * --William Allen Simpson 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, William. I notice Cydebot does the same with interwikis and moving cats, so I assumed it was ok&hellip; do you know what the fix is?  Regards,  RobertG &#9836; talk 14:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

People complain about all the time (look at its talk). Maybe somebody screwed up the framework. Post your code as a subpage at RobotG, or email me, and I'll look at it.
 * --William Allen Simpson 14:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've looked, and I think the pywikipedia framework must have always re-ordered the cats and interwikis. I see Cyde is currently working on an in-place category replacement function.  I'll keep looking into it, but I don't think it will be a quick change to my bit of code.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 15:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * William doesnt know what he's talking about, AWB has numerous different settings, and doesn't suffer from many bugs that the pywiki framework does. If you only use the re-categorising option, then nothing else in the article is touched. Also, AWB has no "despised feratures". Martin 14:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:East Orangeites
Please don't category redirect this. The only on-line references to this useless name are from Wikipedia or its mirrors. And we really should have very few demonym category redirects, only for truly world-wide universally recognized unique names. There are "orange" cities and towns all over the world, and when most of the English world thinks of a place called "Orange", it's Orange County, California (a long way from New Jersey), or Port Orange, Florida (at least on the same side of the country). There "Orange"s all up and down the seaboard from Connecticut to Carolinas. And "East" Orange, rather than "South" Orange or "West" Orange (NJ has them, too) is really taking it to silly extremes.
 * --William Allen Simpson 20:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK - agreed. --RobertG &#9836; talk 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hunting oscillation
I'm a bit confused as to why this article, which deals with the fundamental physics of keeping a train on the track, and is completely general, has been moved to Category 'Railway lines', which deals with lists of specific routes. Users interested in historical/geographical detail are unlikely to be interested in deep analysis, neither are the numerate likely to find interminable lists of railway routes remotely interesting. Gordon Vigurs 13:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Voivodeship CFR
Thanks for formally closing the CFR, as I'm still a bit fuzzy on the exact procedures to be followed on category renaming. And I'm also still not done! This has been a huge change, and it's still a nit-picky process, renaming categories, getting the interwiki links straightened, and updating related stubs and templates. I think I've got another half-dozen categories yet to do, but I'm definitely making steady progress. :)

One thing that's still beyond me, since I don't have admin access (yet) is deleting the "leftover" categories, like: (etc.)
 * Category:Wielkopolska Voivodship
 * Category:Polish historical voivodships
 * Category:Polish historical voivodships (14th century-1795)

What do you recommend I do with those when I'm done? Shall I just draw your attention to them so that you can delete them once I (or your wonderful bot) have emptied them, or is there some other requirement that needs to be filled?

Thanks again for the help,

--Elonka 17:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks again for the help on this. :)  Most of the categories that I had left were pretty sparsely populated (only 1 or 2 articles), so I went ahead and took care of them manually, as I had other edits to do in those articles anyway.  The main one where I'd like help from your bot, is:
 * Category:Podlasie Voivodship (needs to be emptied into Category:Podlasie Voivodeship)


 * Also, I have several dozen articles now that need to be moved from one name to another. Specifically, all of the children articles in Category:Polish historical voivodeships with the name of " Voivodship" need to be moved to " Voivodeship".  I'm fine on doing it manually (I find these kinds of tasks relaxing), but if you have a bot that'll do it, let me know! --Elonka 01:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, that the leftover categories can be deleted. Here, to the best of my knowledge, is a list of everything that needs to go.  There's also a note in each new (destination) category that says "The following category redirects to here", which can also be removed, if your bot can handle that.  If not, just let me know when the old categories are gone, and I'll go through and remove the redirect notes manually.  And thanks again for the help and advice! --Elonka 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Category:Voivodships of Poland
 * Category:Wielkopolska Voivodship


 * Category:Polish historical voivodships
 * Category:Polish historical voivodships (14th century-1795)
 * Category:Polish historical voivodships (1921-1939)
 * Category:Polish historical voivodships (1945-1975)
 * Category:Polish historical voivodships (1975-1998)
 * Category:Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodship
 * Category:Małopolska Voivodship
 * Category:Łódź Voivodship
 * Category:Lower Silesian Voivodship
 * Category:Lublin Voivodship
 * Category:Lubusz Voivodship
 * Category:Land counties of Lubusz Voivodship
 * Category:Urban counties of Lubusz Voivodship
 * Category:Mazowsze Voivodship
 * Category:Opole Voivodship
 * Category:Urban counties of Opole Voivodship
 * Category:Podlasie Voivodship
 * Category:Land counties of Podlasie Voivodship
 * Category:Urban counties of Podlasie Voivodship
 * Category:Pomeranian Voivodship
 * Category:Land counties of Pomeranian Voivodship
 * Category:Railway stations in Pomeranian Voivodship
 * Category:Non operational railway stations in Pomeranian Voivodship
 * Category:Urban counties of Pomeranian Voivodship
 * Category:Silesian Voivodship
 * Category:Podkarpacie Voivodship
 * Category:Świętokrzyskie Voivodship
 * Category:Warmia-Masuria
 * Category:Urban counties of Warmia-Masuria
 * Category:West Pomeranian Voivodship