User talk:RobertG/Archive-05

Bot name
I think your bot name is funny. :D "Rob(er/o)tG" Happy holidays! Iamunknown 09:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ensoniq EPS synthesizer/sampler/keyboard
Hello, I have a gently used one that was purchased brand new in 1987 as a gift from my parents…. I was in an all girl band for 3 years. I have two full sets of disks with all different kinds of sounds, including very high quality orchestral and percussion. Would you be interested in purchasing if I listed it on eBay or otherwise received your payment via PayPal? I have the manufacturers zip case that protects it and the power cords. Please let me know your thoughts at advand_1@hotmail.com. - amy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.242.27.167 (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Is this robot still active
re: category redirect talk


 * Would be good if there was a noinclude block in the template display alerting users such pages were or were not automatically BOT edited when tagged by this, including whomever may be running it in your absence. Seems to me I saw someone take it over for you at one point??? Or do several of you operate it? In any event, some overt notification on the tag page would be nice inside an noinclude block.    For Impetus, See Mel Etitis's post on WP:AN and WT:CFD and my answer (save pending backing down to it at the immediate moment!) Happy new year! // Fra nkB  19:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

RVW photo
Hello Robert! Here's something for you to think about. I was in touch with the RVW Society a couple of months back, regarding obtaining permission from them to post a photo with the article. They sounded very interested, and said I should check the book There Was a Time, which Stephen Connock of the Society edited. It came out about 3-4 years ago, and apparently includes a great many photos, many of which are otherwise unpublished. I have not been able to find a library here that has one, at least not anywhere near where I live. Is this something you would be able to pursue at all? I can provide the contact information to you if you like. Thanks! P.S. I have had Hodie stuck in my head for a while now, for obvious reasons. (Plus that's the work that got me interested in music way back when.) --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 19:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Undelete and Relist "Category:Jewish American businesspeople" ASAP per Vote
You and a few other people were in a minor dispute a little less than a month back about the swift (and what many saw as the unethical) deletion of "Category:Jewish-American businesspeople" due to only three people voting on that categories deletion and subsequent merging. Here's the record of the conversations where that rash decision was overturned --. The consensus after realizing your mistaken decision to delete the category was that the "Deletion [is] overturned and relisted – 02:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)" -- however, as far as I can tell, the deletion has yet to be overturned and the category has yet to be re-listed. I am wondering why this has not been done yet and request that you restore that category ASAP per the decision on 20 December 2006. If you cannot do this please forward this message to the person/people that can do it. Thank you. --172.132.143.100 07:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello -- I would just like to know why "Category:Jewish American businesspeople" was relisted per the vote on the 20 December and then immediately nominated for deletetion again right after it had been created; it was then subseuently deleted with little or no input (votes) from the people who formerly voted to keep it. Why was the category's deletion overturned only to be renominated for deletion again directly after that, only to be redeleted in a few days? Could you answer that question for me please?  --172.161.68.238 13:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can answer that. Administrator Trialsanderrors closed the DRV debate as deletion overturned and relisted, so I undid the deletion and relisted it immediately at CFD.  Another administrator closed the second CFD, and yet another deleted the category; you'd better ask them about that.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Test cricket records
Hi Robert... please keep the date style consistent in the list of test cricket records article - i.e. it should be 10 January, 2007 not 10 January 2007. Thanks, Mi kk er (...) 22:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To be explicit: the year should be wikilinked (2007) and there should be a comma between the day & month and the year (10 January, 2007. Mi kk er (...) 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Toolserveraccount
Hello RobertG, please send your real-name, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to. We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB.

Often-populated Wikipedia category redirects
Hi, I noticed this category and am responsible for putting many articles in some of these categories. I have been categorizing hundreds of articles over the last month, and find appropriate categories from the category index. If the redirect categories did not appear there, I would have used a different category. I'm certain I'm not the only one.

Can you look into preventing redirect categories from appearing in the index? That way I believe the redirect categories will fall out of use far more quickly. Akihabara 15:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I believe it would be a very simple software change: the category index above would, despite its name, not show the category index, but show the category index less the redirect category (which is also indexed - it seems all categories must be for speed).  This kind of query operation on a database is very common; it may even just be a one-or-two-line change.  Of course, I cannot be sure as I'm not familiar with the software, but I'd be surprised if it were major.  Akihabara 22:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings!
Hey, thanks for that. This is weird:


 * m User talk:Antandrus‎; 17:44 . . (-13,719) . . RobertG (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv, which the bot helpfully signed for you :-))

But where are the 13,719 characters in the actual diff? . Most strange ....

Hope all is well with you! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the star!
And here's hoping for the naming convention to stick. Watch the skies for more cleanup in the books/novels cats... Her Pegship  (tis herself) 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Musical instrument manufacturers
You recently renamed Category:Musical instrument manufacturers to Category:Musical instrument manufacturing companies. For similar reasons, as well as for consistency, should not the various subcategories, e.g. Category:Guitar manufacturers, be similarly renamed? -- Rsholmes 14:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PLease change your mind
Please do not delete this page, it is not a load of nonesense as some of the users have said. Phoenix Technologies is the company making it, an awful coincidence that a company with the same name already exists. My friends and I have heard of it and we have never heard of the author or producers. Please change your mind. Wiki3.0 16:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Trombone names
Talk:Trombone. Your opinion would be appreciated. Dar-Ape 19:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for moving my botched CFD submission to UCFD. CiaranG 14:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello!
Some time ago, you did a copy-edit to the article on La Fille Mal Gardee. I wrote most of this article, and I was very pleased with your edit.

I was wondering if you would like to go through some of the other articles I have written and do the same? Please let me know. I have a tendancy to want to squeeze every bit of info I can come up with on the subject from my sources, and in so doing I have a tendancy to have run on sentances, some grammar mess-ups, etc....

Please let me know! --Mrlopez2681 07:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Eroica Symphony edits
I'm not sure why you rolled back my edits, as most of the 'analysis' in the article is embarrassing nonsense at the moment. (What the heck is an 'anti-theme'??) I explained my reasoning on the Talk page, which I thought was the appropriate place. You commented that sources are needed, but there is nothing to cite except the score of the work, which is carefully referenced in my text and freely available.

If there's something I'm missing, please let me know by putting it on the Talk page, I don't have a Wikipedia ID. If you want to contact me via email it's eroica_project at hotmail.com. -- Eric Grunin 66.195.65.126 14:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My user talk
Thanks for the revert. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, the irony is fantastic. They put the indefblock template on my userpage and then I get to put the real indef template on theirs. Kids, please concentrate in school, don't troll Wikipedia! Think of your grades! Sorry, all that's a touch infantile. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 16:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Beecham
The photographs that I've uploaded for the article on Sir Thomas Beecham are all taken from actual albums that were released by EMI. The color photograph appeared a number of times, including a Seraphim reissue of Beecham "lollipops". I am not actually sure how to designate the category or source of these photos. However, they were all from albums and are available on various websites, usually through www.google.com. Sallyrob 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephen King Collection
Why did you delete the Stephen King Short Story Collection page? There was nothing wrong with it.. it just had a list of all his short story collection books (which i needed!). ??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.72.180.154 (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Hello! It wasn't deleted: it was moved to Category:Short story collections by Stephen King because that's what the community has agreed it should be called. Best wishes. --RobertG &#9836; talk 09:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin. Antics @ "Category:Jewish-American businesspeople"
Hello -- you may recall that in mid-December 2006 you and many others voted to undeleted "Category:Jewish-American businesspeople" which had been unjustly and swiftly deleted by a rogue administrator in early December 2006; proper debate/voting was not done and huge amounts of data was lost when this category was deleted, many of the people in that category losing their Jewish identity entirely because of this. This particular unjust category deletion happened in early December 2006, see:.

This unjust category deletion was later rectified when you along with others overwhelmingly voted to overturn the deletion and relist the category, see: . However, at this time neither admins. nor others bothered to begin re-adding the names that had been lost/merged when the category was originally deleted.

However, the category was not immediately recreated -- it wasn't relisted until many-many days after it had been voted back in to existence, and I had to bug User:RobertG in order to get it relisted, see:. Also, since that category's former data had already been entirely merged in to "Category:American businesspeople" it effectively meant that in order to rebuild the unjustly deleted category the people that had built it up over many months had to start from scratch since a list of the former names in the category were never provided so that users could re-add them. The category nor a list of the names that were formerly in it is no longer available, or this info is only accessible by admins.

Finally, even though the category deletion was properly overturned by you and others, it was renominated for deletion AGAIN on the 10 of January 2007 (only days after it had been recreated) -- it was then deleted 17 January 2007, with NONE of the people that had formerly voted to relist the category voting this time around; see: .

I am wondering if there is anything that can be done about this? Are you able to obtain a list of the names that were formerly in the category, or are only admins. able to do that? Can you or someone else try to have the category relisted? Is there a way to undelete the category again, given that it was deleted BOTH TIMES under rather dubious circumstances, with those that voted to undelete it the first time not even knowing to vote the second time or even that it had been renominated for deletion?

Thanks for any info/help that you can provide. --172.161.68.238 15:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC
Your actions regarding Category:Jewish-American businesspeople are being RFC'd.  Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your User:RobotG bot is rv'ing changes that are under discussion.
Could you please stop your bot from running it's Category:Video games to Category:Computer and video games changes. There is a discussion to do the conversion which started but is paused with that talk takes place.BcRIPster 17:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at these categories, I've often wondered what the difference is between a computer game and a video game! I've removed the redirection template from the categories tagged for CFR.  Belt-and-braces: I will also alter RobotG to ignore categories matching "*video game*" or "*computer game*".  --RobertG &#9836; talk 09:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we'll have this resolved shortly, and right now it looks like a strong lean in favor of rename.BcRIPster 15:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fuck
Hi. I've just become aware that Category:Fuck has been deleted. Indeed, not just deleted but banned from future creation. And I'm aware that you were involved in the deleting and protection of the category.

You may be interested in reading my comments from the original debate: '"What grace may be added to commonplace matters by the power of order and connection." The word Fuck is not a minor word. It is a powerful and evocative word with a history and a culture that may at times be quite shocking as well as mildly amusing. It is not a word that should be swept under the carpet. A word that can cause books and records to be banned is certainly big enough to be encyclopedic. If we have articles on the word fuck then it seems vital that we have a category in which to link these articles so people may do some organised research.'

I am not that familiar with Wiki procedure to know how to go about undoing a protection on a category. I'm sure there must be a place where this subject can be debated again. Would you know how I could start another discussion on this category? While the discussion in which the category was voted to be deleted was a clean sweep on that occasion, it had not been such a clean sweep earlier. I think it depends on who is taking part - and it seems to me a future ban is perhaps an over-reaction by people who had not fully considered all aspects of the category. I would welcome the opportunity to put forward some alternative thoughts. The result may be the same - but I feel at least some balance might be brought to the proceedings. Regards SilkTork 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Silly me. I have just seen plastered across the template the very thing I was looking for. Disregard my message! Regards. SilkTork 22:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a automated to all bot operators
Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pied people
Is this a firvolous category, because I see it a lot on TV. It makes the news. But just because it gets attention, do you think it's inappropriate because it seems not serious. Chivista 15:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on whether it is frivolous; however I agree with the consensus in December that it should be deleted. Categories or articles that have been deleted through consensus may be deleted again if they get recreated, and they are often then protected from recreation.  Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 08:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

RobertG, unfortunately I had to revert the following edit your bot made to the article Queen's University of Ireland: "(Bot: Changing Category:Closed universities and colleges per CFD, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 3)". The bot's change was mixed into the middle of a bunch of vandalism edits. Sorry about that. Feel free to re-do your category change manually or though the bot again, thanks Wikidenizen 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

List of premature obituaries
Do you have a source for the Louise Fletcher entry you added to this? I couldn't easily find one from a bit of Google searching, but you will know better than me where the information came from. I am currently cleaning up the article and trying to add a reference for every entry, so your help on this point would be much appreciated. Thanks! Ben Finn 01:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Category redirects
Hi - There's a thread at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion about hard vs. soft category redirects which seems to be converging on the idea of using both, so that the category link from an article mistakenly added to a redirected category takes you to the target category (hard redirect does this) but also the article gets recatted into the target category (soft redirect + bot does this). Just to see how the current recatting bot handles this, I added a hard redirect to category:Aztec military. You seem to have noticed this change, and changed it back with this edit. Did it cause RobotG problems? Note that if MediaWiki were changed so that when an article is categorized it is actually added to the target of a (hard) redirected category, this would make category redirects work nearly perfectly. In any event, your input on this thread would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated message to bot owners
As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Bot Policy: "Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds." Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

CFD cats
Hello Robert. I was closing CFDs and I noticed this edit, removing the CFD-related tagging from inside the template stuff and adding it to the end of the article. I don't think that's a great idea as the likelihood is that the cats will be missed. Any chance you can persuade your bot to ignore these cats? Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry Angus. It is an issue I know about: when it deletes a category from a category which is itself up for an unrelated CFD it does leave these behind.  It is not trivial given the nature of the pywikipedia robot libraries; it only happens rarely (this time it's one edit out of nearly 4000 carried out by the bot between 19th and 21st Feb); and the CFD categories are checked and cleared out at the end of the month anyway.  Given the huge recent CFD backlog I calculate that RobotG making the odd error like this is acceptable.  But I am designing a workaround.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 10:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'll just need to pay closer attention. Not the end of the world! Thanks for the explanation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Erdős numbers
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Erdős numbers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cat out 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of category
Hi RobertG, I just noticed you deleted Category:Surreal films. We were not notified in WP Films about it. Is there any way I could get a copy of its former contents, or has a bot deleted the category from all the articles too? Hoverfish Talk 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see it was simply renamed, so no problem. Hoverfish Talk 08:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Category Discussion
Category deletion is based on discussion, not simply voting. It seems you deleted the category "enemies of Batman" solely because of the majority belief that it was identical to "Batman villains". This is, in fact, a false belief; the reason "Batman villains" was deleted was due the the POV judgement inherent in the word "villain"; the word "enemy", on the other hand, is objectively definable as a character who opposes Batman. Thus, though the category "enemies of Batman" is similar to "Batman villains", it did not have the problems that caused the first category to be deleted. NOTE: Please respond on your own talk page. Cosmetor 03:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am aware how CFD works, thank you. I explained clearly in my closure that I thought the contributors to the discussion were largely of the opinion that "enemy of&hellip;" was just as much interpretation as "&hellip;villain".  Their opinions are just as valid as yours.  If I were to answer your argument immediately above, I would say that opponents are not necessarily enemies.  By way of illustration, in this matter it appears that you oppose me, but you are not my enemy (I hope).  If you do not agree, you may by all means take it to deletion review.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 09:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

CfD closings
When you close a CfD, please put the top template after the heading section and not before. If you put it before the heading the page looks funny and you lose the heading break when looking at the page. Vegaswikian 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Olivier Messiaen
I disagree that the list of students is irrelevant to the article, and have tagged each article with mergeto and mergefrom, respectively. Other articles about significant musicians or others in the music industry have link or lists of those whose careers they've influenced. Care to discuss your reasoning with me? Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 18:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In the lead paragraph, I'd only mention two or three of the notable students, but a list near the end of the article, perhaps just before references (maybe even a subset of a "See Also" section) of ONLY notable students is, I think, entirely appropriate. - CobaltBlueTony 15:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits
See 84 Charing Cross Road. I notice that someone reverted your edits. -- Ssilvers 18:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I happen to think my edits were an improvement and the reversion is thus a retrograde step, and SFTVLGUY2's edit summary made me laugh since it now reads as if it were written for American technical consultants. I'm not even watching the article, and I don't feel very strongly about it.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 08:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Image
Oops! Thanks RobertG! Mak (talk)  17:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything OK?
O sure, everything's fine. I was just in a hurry, and did not check my irritation (as I usually would) at the continuing juvenile behaviour nipping at the heels of these major articles. 210.50.108.146 had made and not fully corrected the alteration of Life to Fun. Thanks for caring! See you around. –Noetica 13:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Robot G
I've merged List of Everybody Loves Raymond writers into Everybody Loves Raymond, by creating a crew category with a subheader of writers. Would it be possible to program the bot to this format, instead of creating list stubs? -- Zanimum 14:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the constructive and sensible suggestion. While RobotG is "very experienced" at deleting categories, it is still learning how best to turn those deleted categories into lists, so all suggestions are welcome!  I will investigate the possibility of making it capable of creating a subsection in a relevant article; sometimes it will probably be more appropriate to create the list!  (The motivation behind getting the bot to do this is the huge backlog at Category:Categories to be listified then deleted.)  Thanks for your interest.  Best wishes, --RobertG &#9836; talk 14:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the mean time I've been renaming a lot of them as Crew of ___, so that it encourages other entries. Would that be easier to reprogram? --  Zanimum 14:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Adagio for Strings
Hello Robert, I saw your note and felt inspired to try splitting up Adagio for Strings into a real article and pop culture article, as with The Planets, Carmina Burana, etc. Yours truly, Opus33 19:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have got round to it eventually, but I couldn't have done it better! Well done.  It's definitely the correct approach I think.  Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 09:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I did not know about "nowiki". Will use it henceforth. Wugo 15:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit
Hi there,

Sorry about that. I was trying to get rid of something else and made a bit of a mess of it. I am trying out editing by removing the odd bit of obvious vandalism etc.

Regards,

SocksySquirrel

I meant to run you down
re: Category redirect BOT and this CFD talk proposal --to which this is a heads up that I added some belated comments to today -- and I had always meant to run you down, then you showed up anyway. Sorry, time's been a little tight, and I destabilized my computer about then which made for a dicey couple of weeks. Also wondering whether you'd be willing to run your BOT now and again over on the commons. See: commons:Category talk:Maps which may generate a few category renamings, though we did most of that back from May through August. This proposal is sortof phase II, which David Kernow and I are trying to free up time to begin putting in place, and should mainly include retagging. When a well populated category needs renamed, then having the BOT run upon request is what I've in mind. Not a regular patrol. // Fra nkB 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Preliminary reply: Your thoughts and your suggestions seem sensible. Before reading your message I had just looked my logs and I came to the conclusion that the full bot run (rather than just looking at Category:Often-populated Wikipedia category redirects) really does not need to happen very often, and thus the full category can probably afford to be much more populous.  In any case, it could be split and delegated, as you point out.  I am thus nearly convinced about your  proposal.  Reprogramming the bot should be fairly trivial.  As for you, my time is a bit tight at the moment.  I will reply on the discussion you link to some time next week.  We need consensus on this because it will be a new approach.  I had not thought of my bot as being "part of the Wikimedia software on Wikipedia" before.
 * As for running the bot on commons, I will have a look at helping there too, or giving someone the bot's code and some instructions. I would presumably need to create an account for the bot and get it authorised there first?  What's the procedure? - I don't frequent commons!  --RobertG &#9836; talk 07:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:UEFA European Football Championship goalscorers
When you close a CfD as delete or merge or rename, please remember to list it at Categories_for_discussion/Working so the bots or other users can cleanup up the categories and articles. Vegaswikian 01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend not to use &hellip;/Working, since I have my own CFD bot, thanks! --RobertG &#9836; talk 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution
Hi, if you would take another look at the CFD you'll see that everyone other than the nominator wanted it renamed to "Proposed amendments..." not "Proposals to amend...." Otto4711 02:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a copy paste edit in my closure. But I got it right on my bot's task list!  Thank you.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 09:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Morning. I woke this this morning
and watched as an increasing number of my bookmarked articles appeared on my watchlist. It turned out that this was because Category:Sculptors who exhibited at the 3rd Sculpture International was being deleted. I was surprised to learn that this was happening because in the past when something like this was about to occur, I, as the creator of the category and, I might add, most of the article in it, was at least notified that this discussion and vote was happening. It seems to me that is is representative of the new wikipedian way, or perhaps it is just because the rest of wikipedia has caught up with my little niche, American sculpture. In any case i think that I am resigning from wikipedia, I am declaring most of my edits to be original research and opinion and let's see who can get them deleted first. Carptrash 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded on your talk page. I'm very sorry you feel that way.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I recall, Brookie set it up for me because I did not know how to set up a category. I am not one of those folks, envyable as they sometimes seem to me, who divide theri lives into work and play and personal and not personal. Nor do I hold you in disesteem for being the action  hand of a group decision.  I had over 1,000 article that I patroled so obviously missed that blip on the screen.  Anyway, thanks for getting back to me.  Carptrash 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

List of first-class cricket records
We missed Kambli from List_of_first-class_cricket_records. Did we compile it or copy it from somewhere ? Tintin 10:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Proposed for deletion for over five days
Is this category broken or something? Today, Magnetic Events inc includes this category, but when you go to the category page - the article is not listed.

Any idea what's wrong? Garrie 02:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Help
How do you insert images into pages? !BOB+2!07 13:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Lost in the bit bucket
I'd thought I'd left you a note about this belated conversation continuation, and also whether you would be willing to run the BOT on the commons, say once a week--once we got back to the Maps project there, or consider leasing it to myself or David Kernow. (Failing us, how about CBDunkerson or such? There has to be someone you can AGF about! I know nothing much of scripts, as a hardware engineer of thirty years would like to know even less , and would promise not to fiddle with it.) RL being RL, and being busy on six wiki's with WP:TSP, I apparently got distracted, and that post got left in a preview bit bucket unsaved--I'll likely find it in the next hour! ( darn it! I've been trying to close down browsers all week!). Now they are asking on the Commons Village Pump (here) about whether you run the BOT there on any kind of schedule or at all. Thanks, and sorry for the extra politics, but you hold an important bottleneck, pending the developers getting things finished. Cheers! // Fra nkB 23:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Frank. Thanks for your messages. You asked about running my  ion robot at Commons. I am somewhat reluctant to commit to that, as there is not doubt procedural red tape there, as here, for requesting community support for a robot account, and I don't frequent the Commons myself. I am sorry I am a bottleneck! While, for obvious reasons, I wouldn't share the source code with everyone, I am more than happy to let you or David Kernow (both users I trust) have it. Then you could run it on Commons (or you could help on en: as you suggested if either of you have community support for a robot account). The robot code requires the pywikipedia framework, and it may need some tweaking to run on Commons, as I probably haven't parameterised much of the en: specific code. Let me know if you want it, and I'll email it to you. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the endorsement... I'll take this under advisement, and discuss with David. I'm currently in the position of telling some on the commons that 'the emperor has no clothes' (Just read down some from that link given above about 'English') so I'm not sure this would be the time to press more potential controversy. OTOH, their does seem to be some demand for such a BOT. Waiting will fill, but by all means go ahead and mail it to me. If nothing else may give me an excuse to get off my ass and learn something about scripts. Thanks // Fra nkB 18:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Spouses of polygamists
I noticed your bot going through & removing various polygamy categories, so I was wondering if you were aware of Category:Spouses of polygamists. It would seem this cat would merit the same treatment as the other polygamy categories. -- 63.224.137.164

Deletion review
I asked for a deletion review of Category:Royal National Theatre Company members and Category:Category:Royal Shakespeare Company members. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim! 07:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not close any more categories
Your abuse of your power in the above case is shocking. It is impossible to have any confidence in your impartiality. Please do not close any more categories. CalJW 03:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think crying "abuse of power", and alleging base motives ("&hellip;which he thought no-one would get a chance to challenge") without foundation, are not constructive contributions to a deletion review. Quite apart from that, your accusations baffle me.  While I am confident in my closure, I recognise that I am not infallible.  I have closed hundreds of CFD debates: I always expect any xFD closure might be taken to DRV.  Perhaps you might have done me the courtesy of crediting me with at least a basic understanding of Wikipedia processes.  (Your comments reflect some Wikipedia contributors' increasingly confrontational approach, a trend I deplore.)  Besides, if it were demonstrated that my closure was against Wikipedia policy I am sure the deletion would be speedily overturned: show me the relevant policy, and I would unreservedly apologise.
 * You made me think more deeply about this, and on reflection I find you have not addressed any of the issues I raised at closure, and appear to have done a vote count. CFD is not a vote, and I did not accept the arguments in favour of keep.  I did not introduce a single "new argument", I expressed what I thought were the logical problems of arguments in the discussion.  The weakest of all arguments is to call someone else's arguments "weak" without saying why.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 10:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just thought I would comment that, in the past, I have found RobertG an excellent and conscientious discussion closer. And his comments above would seem to quite clearly reaffirm this. - jc37 10:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jc37. --RobertG &#9836; talk 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You introduced a string of new arguments, or at least new considerations. You also said that the debate was incomplete, yet didn't give anyone else the chance to continue it. You might have kept the debate open for another period to resolve this issues, but you preferred to make the decision yourself. CalJW 18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of confidence confirmed
I absolutely stand by my description of this incident as a abuse of power. If you don't wish to be criticised, it would be advisable to follow Wikipedia's policies more closely and respect the wishes of the community at all times. Most of us can't get anything deleted without there being a consensus to do so, but you can, you did, and you have now accepted that it was a mistake. I would say that making a major decision off your own back without the justification of consensus was a rather "confrontational" way to treat the wikipedians whose good faith contributions you cancelled out, and that you are the one who needs to think a little more about what a collaborative project means. I am pleased that you have decided to reverse your decision, but you still show little sign of understanding that your conduct (not just your decision, but your conduct) was inappropriate. If you are in doubt about whether a deletion closure is appropriate, it follows that you sense that there is no consensus for deletion, so deletion shouldn't happen. Thus I must repeat my statement that I have no confidence in your ability to act as an impartial servant of the community, and that therefore in my opinion you should cease to make major decisions such as closing close deletion debates. I don't want to be "confrontational", but unless someone confronts administrators who exceed their proper powers, there are no checks and balances in the system, and wikipedia will simply become an oligarchy with an unfettered elite who can do whatever they wish regardless of consensus. I have been involved in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for two years and there are incidents like this one on an all too regular basis. I am very unhappy with the quality of service provided by administrators, and with the dismissive attitude administrators all too frequently display towards any complaint about their use of their powers. CalJW 18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I find this is increasingly how Wikipedia operates, and I want no further part in it. I have done a comparison, and I find I would not swap my Wikipedia contributions history for yours for a hundred million pounds.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 07:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * CalJW, your hysterical over-reaction says far more about you than it does about RobertG. Your attacks are vile and completely unwarranted.  You don't want to be confrontational?  Great.  Go away and leave Robert alone, that would be unconfrontational.  But you do want to be confrontational, hence the hyperbole and the bitterness of your attacks.  Closing a deletion debate is never a major decision, it's just something people do - sometimes they get it wrong (I don't think Robert did here) and usually they get it right.  In many cases there is at least one editor who has an unshakeable conviction that the deleted content was of pressing and vital importance tot he project and if we gave those opinions the weight you seem to want, we would never get rid of crap.  The problems identified with this category - arbitrary selection of theatres, lack of contextual information about the importance to the individual's career, lack of contextual information generally, these are strong arguments for listifying.  Very strong.  No information is lost in listifying, and problems of weight, sourcing and context can be addressed.  In any case, savagely attacking the closer is a ridiculous way of approaching a dispute of this nature and I think you should be ashamed of yourself.  Guy (Help!) 10:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not often that I am able to fully agree with someone's entire statement, but I strongly support Guy's statements above. Until perhaps the last couple months, I spent about a year on WP:CFD. I remember User:RobertG] quite clearly. I remember quite a few others. I have to say that I don't recall [[User:CalJW at all. And just to make it incredibly clear how I feel about this. RobertG was/is on my short list of admins that I feel/felt could be nominated for Bureaucrat. He just simply does an incredible job, and deserves much better than the vitriolic bile he received from User:CalJW, above. - jc37 10:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Guy. This kind of conduct is unacceptable. One disputed CfD closure is enough to drive one of our best admins and content contributors away? Just sickening. Moreschi Request a recording? 13:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, completely agreed with all of the above. I'm not sure I've seen a more unacceptable contribution to Wikipedia from one user in a long time.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  15:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I no longer edit
either sculpture or architecture articles, I just now do fun stuff, not work, I am still dedicated enough to the concept of wikipedia (if not how it works in practice) and care enough about its content to not want stuff that looks not quite right to remain, so I figured I'd pass the work on to you, since it seems that this is how wikipedia now operates. I was checking out an edit in Walker Hancock and was not at all sure about the way the reference to Stone Mountain was handled in either of those articles. While at Stone Mountain I further noticed that Roy Faulkner was in red. If you get hold of The Sculpture of Walker Hancock by the Cape Ann Historical Society and Georgia's Stone Mountain by William Neal I think that you can make giant strides through all this. Carptrash 02:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I no longer edit either. --RobertG &#9836; talk 07:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go
...Robert, but I do understand. Doing all that good work for the project, and then being subject to a bitter and completely unjustified attack, is one of the most common reasons for burnout of long-time contributors. Best of luck to you in all things; I'll miss you here, for you were one of the very best. Most sincerely, Antandrus (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've always considered you one of the finest admins I know for your tireless work at CfD, and to see the incivility and baseless criticism you've drawn because of it is terrible. the wub "?!"  22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I echo these comments—your excellent work in closing CfD discussions was certainly appreciated. I'm sorry to see things have come to this.


 * Best wishes,  X damr  talk 01:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, come back! You've been doing a great job, and you should not let a single hysterical rant get to you. Please consider reconsidering.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously seconded : ) - jc37 08:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your kind words. Thank you, Radiant and jc37, I agree I was doing a first-rate job.

My involvement in Wikipedia no longer satisfies any of my criteria for commitment to a voluntary service. It did so once, and my feelings may change again, who knows? My parting gift to Wikipedia is this essay. --RobertG &#9836; talk 11:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, some of us know your true worth... and I can sympathize with the grind getting to you, but don't let abrasive editors with less significant contributions than a pared fingernail from your pinky have undue weight. Even a hundred such sums out to zero in the multiple, for zero equals infinity time zero, and you'll never be regardable as a zero for your many contributions here, or I'd guess, anywhere!    Consider also, that there are still many a position in life wherein you could find yourself meeting up with such people face to face across a conference room table, and won't have the ability to just close up shop, but will instead have the real duty to deal with them, no matter how unpleasant. In truth, personalities follow a bell curve just like many distributions -- some people are outside the first two standard deviations no matter what we'd like. So don't let the bastards get you down, and consider them an opportunity to learn a new skill--or at least an opportunity to ratchet up your own ability of self-control to a whole new level!      If you've other reasons, then God speed and may he fill your sails with fair winds, but do consider the source before taking criticisms to heart--whether here or in real life. Dealing with a zero deserves internalizing and owning zero angst too. Save your angst for the real mistakes we all make in life, and shrug off the natters of those that don't count.     Good essay, by the way. Best wishes, // Fra nkB  16:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Build anyway
As Bishop Muzorewa said, "What you have spent years building may be destroyed overnight. Build anyway." --Ezeu 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Members of Mensa
Hi ... I just became aware of Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 8 that you closed on 2007-03-13 with a result of delete ... FYI, I created that category last summer (2006-08-24) as a result of Articles for deletion/List of famous members of Mensa (2nd nomination) ... I even researched memberships through the Library of Congress, and now all of that work has been thrown out ... so it started as a list that was deleted to be replaced by a category, and the current conventional wisdom is that it should not be a category, but I'm not going to offer to recreate it again as a list.

If I had known about it, I might have participated, but like you recently decided, I gave up months ago ... good luck with the detoxing ... the first thing to do is zap your watchlist. :-) &mdash; 04:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)