User talk:RobertG/Archive-07

Template:Infobox classical composer
This was recreated and I've put this up for deletion (and blocking) see Templates_for_deletion. Thanks --Kleinzach (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations: FC versus F.C.
Hi, Sorry, spur of the moment thing, but have a look at the Manual of Style and see what you think.


 * "Acronyms and initialisms are generally not separated by full stops (periods) or blank spaces (GNP, NORAD, OBE, GmbH); many periods and spaces that were traditionally required have now dropped out of usage (PhD is preferred over Ph.D. and Ph. D.)."

It'll take some time, but not a huge amount of effort to re-direct all the 92 English League clubs. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've seen FA Cup within many of these these articles without full stops! Just one of many inconsistencies within an article. Surely an article is still "Featured" if moved? Content over style and all that? I'm no expert, I've only contributed a Featured List here and not any articles! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * UEFA, and FIFA are also consistently in there without full stops! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I essentially repeated the note above on Talk:Arsenal FC. (Look ma, no full stops LOL!) best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also mentioned just now on Talk:Arsenal FC, but FWIW, here's the Club template at WikiProject_Football. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Composer names dabs
Dear Robert, I see you are putting in Christian names for lots of composers. Is this a general decision, or just applying to certain guys with ambiguous surnames? Please advise, then I can get it right first time and save you more trouble. Warmest greetings, Eebahgum (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I'll try not to be so lazy in future! Incidentally, I note that the busy old Opera Project has gone round turning most of the singer voice-range categories (e.g SATB etc) into 'Category:Operatic tenor' etc. Kleinzach kindly kept me informed. I think they have managed to avoid non-operatic types like Harry Plunket Greene, Elena Gerhardt or Gervase Elwes, but of course there are many singers - in fact most - who do other things as well as opera, and this change (which I have no objection to) does leave many distinguished Lieder singers or oratorio types uncategorized as such. In fact their change has slightly hijacked the Category system, because they have made definitions that had wider significance serve the opera project specifically. I know that oodles of virtual ink have been poured out in discussion of the point: but Kleinzach also suggests that the Music project should have its own categories, such as 'Lieder singer' or 'oratorio singer'. But where would one stop? Do you have any thoughts about this situation, i.e. with regard to the UN-categorized residue? Is there now a preferred format for categorizing singers outside of the opera world? Best, Eebahgum (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's roughly how I feel about it too - one difference is that you are a sanguine eventualist, whereas I am a sort of ad hoc eventualist on the never-never, as I suppose wikipedia will never be finished, so the thing is to get on with whatever one thinks important and leave these problems to people who feel that they matter. Perhaps that is a sort of existential eventualism, regarding this Virtual Wikipedian Creation, perfect in its origins as idea, but imperfect in its visible manifestation because it is constantly in the process of Becoming rather than simply a thing which has Become. And who am I to interfere with a Cosmic Plan, let alone the Opera project...? If there isn't already a category for accompanists, however, we must have one. Yours (eventually), Eebahgum (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to reply to your nice note sooner... I think what I mean is that the incomplete version is perfect, because if everything that could be done to it had been done, there would be nothing left for other interactive editors to do, which would defeat what is one of its best qualities. So its imperfections of organization are part of its continuing organic evolution, which should NEVER be resolved. By remaining in a state of suspended incompleteness through editorial inertia or indifference, there are fewer mighty schemes to come into conflict with one another, a happily anarchic freedom in directions of growth remains open to all imaginations, and the dragon remains latent within the egg. My great concern with your comment is that you think it is "useful" - that seems to me recklessly optimistic... The better some parts are, the more dangerous it is, because the whole thing is online worldwide, and the good bits give an entirely unwarranted credibility (by reflection, as 'twere) to some of the diabolical propaganda and other crap which is being stuffed into the most recondite places. I think of myself as the Dutch boy who put his finger in the dyke, or at any rate one of a team so occupied. Hope you're enjoying this early summer, cordially, Eebahgum (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Undershaft, forsooth... Your edit to Major B explains. To trade city churches, we are 'where St Mary Woolnoth kept the hours/With a dead sound on the final stroke of nine.' But I am only equipped to perceive wikipedia as an idea, let alone the laptop, and for some unearthly reason it stirs an unaccustomed desire to interact with it. I think I am probably more depressed than you, because this idealism is within and from me, in a tradition from Bishop Berkeley and Schopenhauer, Emerson, & co. It's a kind of Marvin syndrome. You, on the other hand, are more like Democritus (who, if he were on earth, would be laughing). It's an honourable school. ;-) Best wishes Eebahgum (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Bradman
Welcome to the party! --Dweller (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Windsor Chair
please see above article. you will understand why. unfortunately, unlike 'mexican pewter' this article needs to be here, but not as is.your advice will be much appreciated.Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Name on cswiki
I made usurpation. Now it seems that there is a space for this account. Try it if is it working, if not, writte me. (But it is not possible rename account RobertG-cs to RobertG, so you are loosing some edits because it is writting me that this name has reservation in SUL (propably for you :). Have a nice day --Chmee2 (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sergei Rachmaninoff and Charles O'Connell
Wish you could have said said something abot this on the discussion pages instead of the edit history. Oh well. I did attempt to clarify the Rach-O'Connell relationship and cited accordingly, per at least some of the information below.

To answer at least some of your questions, Robert Matthew-Walker discussed the working relationship of Rachmaninoff and O'Connell in the August 2000 issie of Internatinoal Piano Quarterly. O'Connell joined RCA in 1931, at the height of the Depression. Their relationship was not a positive one. M-W does not say why Rachmaninoff stayed with RCA. Some guesses have been the combined demands of family, touring, construction of the Villa Senar and at least intermittent composition took recording lower on the priority list, or at least left him less occupied with recording, at least in the early 1930's. This left between 1934, when Rachmaninoff started recording again, and 1937, when he booked the EMI sessions, to postentially get fed up with the matter.

I had hoped to second this material officially in the Martyn biography of Rachmaninoff. Since this is a holiday weekend in the United States, however, the library which has this text is closed until next Tuesday, and I may not be able to get there until next weekend myself. In the meantime, I did some clean-up and footnoting; hopefully that is enough for the time being.

Jonyungk (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings
You've got mail! Hope all is well with you. Antandrus (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL. I see you've also discovered a new wonderful form of entertainment!!  Love that one (contributor).  :) Antandrus  (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I enjoyed your "noticeboard".  My favourite is the pithy "Administrators' noticeboard".  Best wishes&thinsp;: it's good to have you around.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Piano infobox
Hi, I noticed that you opposed the original infobox on the Piano article, and since then someone else has added a different infobox. I don't know what you feel about this one, but I think it's unattractive and oppose its addition for the same reasons you had. Should there be a discussion on the article's Talk about whether it's appropriate or not? I'd rather just remove it. ALTON  .ıl  02:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Mensans
Hello again, ...

I happened to come across you while updating My contributions - a tale of research to reference the CFD that deleted the category that was created to replace the list that was deleted by an AFD ... 

Anywho, I just thought I'd say, "Howdy!" and point you to the Very Well Monitored, all of which have Very Good WP:V. :-)

Happy Editing! &mdash;  18:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Bradman passed
Thank you! --Dweller (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the reversion on my user page. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome! --RobertG &#9836; talk 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy Right Infringment
I found a photo on the New York Yankees page, that I believe was stolen from another website. The poster changed the name, posted it as his own work. How can I report this?

Here is a link to the photo on www.ballparksofbaseball.com  http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/images/yank0708900.jpg  which has been posted since the middle of June.

And here is the plagiarized photo on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NewYankeeStadiumFromCourthouse62808.jpg

Note the car door in the bottom left corner of the photo, as well as the color of the traffic light. Also the man standing on the other side of the car. It is the same exact photo.--Subman758 (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Most first-class catches
Someone pointed out in a posting to the rec.sport.cricket newsgroup that some of the players in List of first-class cricket records have a different number of catches shown than is the case in their Cricinfo entries: Lock: CI 831, Wiki 830; Langridge: CI 788, Wiki 784; Rhodes: CI 765, Wiki 764; Milton: CI 760, Wiki 759; Hendren: CI 759, Wiki 754. I checked Patsy Hendren's own Wiki article, and it agrees with CI and disagress with the "most catches" table. This obviously isn't a very satisfactory state of affairs. Presumable difference sources have included different matches asa first-class. Or perhaps some sources include only "catches in the field" and excude catches made as a substitute keeper. JH (talk page) 17:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or alternatively the CricInfo source has changed (the CricInfo source quoted no longer shows those below 811 dismissals, I notice - as I'm sure it used to). There's a discrepancy with WG too, it appears.  Perhaps the numbers came from a Wisden Almanac before the article settled on ACS/CricInfo?  I'm a bit busy just at the moment: I may get round to investigating it.  Or someone else could fix it!  Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 19:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing this. I didn't want to interfere with your "baby". :) JH (talk page) 20:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! Thanks for pointing out the discrepancies! - but I hope no-one thinks that I imagine I "own" the page - and it no doubt contains other errors&hellip;  :-)  Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 21:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Back
Thanks! I was in the high mountains, but with an occasional internet connection. I'm scratched and sunburnt and bugbit but otherwise happy to be back. :) A handful of photos to follow, if I can find anything unphotographed with an article.  Best wishes, Antandrus  (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Vanity article deletion
LOL, that was a long time ago. It was the first time I ever edited wikipedia, in fact. Since then, I've made lots of good and valid contributions here... but you're right, I deserve more punishment :-D I'll go dig up some good encyclopedic people to write about. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Greetings
Thank you for the award! I'm not actually very witty with words, so I was a bit surprised at myself when I was finished with that. But now that I come to think of it, I wonder why they don't use a message like that in one of the welcoming templates? Thanks again!!! I called the Warner sister &quot;Dottie&quot; and lived to tell the tale! (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bangalore Police Commissioner
Robert, I was wondering why you did this edit ? Shankar Bidari is the new Bangalore Police Commissioner. Dont worry. I had added this with news reference --  Tinu  Cherian  - 06:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. It's a featured article, and the change was unreferenced (and was done with no regard to the table syntax so that it didn't display anyway).  I notice you did it properly!  Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 07:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your are welcome. It is true that many a times we are little 'suspicious' of IP edits. Keep up the good work. No problems --  Tinu  Cherian  - 09:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Papadakis and Aimard
FYI. I love to assume good faith and all, but this is a strange allegation. Is there perhaps some other, rather obscure, series of awards similar in name to the Gramophone Awards? Shouldn't this show up on Google? I have Aimard's recording right here with me (Sony) and it's definitely the winner in 1997. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Facel 2 and wishful thinking price rises
Dammit, RobertG, of course you are right re "predicting that any rise is bound to continue". I wrote that & yes, go it has to. Let's put it down to positive thinking! Thanx cn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.85.140 (talk • contribs) 17 July 2008
 * Yes, but otherwise it is a most informative article - although personally I'd rather have the E-type Jag. Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 16:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Rather have an E-type"...... how COULD you!....... best wishes to you too, nonetheless86.150.85.140 (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Help request
I was wondering if RobotG can tag categories for deletion? There's a rather large tree at Category:Fictional characters by occupation. I'd like that cat and every subcat to be nominated for deletion, except for the "Lists of...".

If you're able to help, it would be most appreciated : ) - jc37 22:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I hope things are well with you.  I no longer run RobotG.  Even in the old days I would probably have tagged each of those categories by hand, probably in FireFox tabs.  I like the idea of "Fictional saint" as an occupation!  Sorry I cannot oblige.  Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 06:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And Hi again to you too : ) - Things are mostly fine here, and I hope that they are well with you as well : )
 * And no worries about the tagging, I'll look see if I can find someone else with a bot (Someone shouldn't have to try to tag these by hand, if we don't have to.)
 * Thanks again : ) - jc37 07:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

InfoCaptor deletion
Hello Robert,

I found that the article I wrote about InfoCaptor is no where to be found. Was the content not appropriate? If there was anything that could be improved please let me know. If you decide to keep it permanently deleted, can I at least get the original text information. Nilesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njethwa (talk • contribs) 21 July 2008
 * I replied on your talk page. Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 06:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Help, again
I asked for your help before and I can't figure this out. Help! Thanks so much.Topgun530 (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Schubert's last sonatas
Hi. I've requested peer review for this article, as I hope to make it a GA (not FA as yet). Any comments would be welcome. Thanks. Gidip (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Henry Moore at WP:FAR
You are one of the leading editors of Henry Moore. His article has been nomninated at Featured article review/Henry Moore.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not using the official notification before. Henry Moore has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Blues at WP:FAR
You are one of the leading editors of Blue, which has been listed at WP:FAR. Please follow the discussiona at Featured article review/Blues and consider helping out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FAR for Cricket
Cricket has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. - auburn pilot   talk  02:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Ashes
Isn't the relevance determined by readers and administrators - I believe the information to be relevant. Also, if you go to Premiership for rugby, on Wikipedia the page is called Guinness Premierships 9for sponsorship reasons) and there is a sponsorship section under Premier League football:

Sponsorship

Since 1993, the Premier League has been sponsored. The sponsor has been able to determine the league's sponsorship name. The list below details who the sponsors have been and what they called the competition:

* 1993–2001: Carling (FA Carling Premiership) * 2001–2004: Barclaycard (Barclaycard Premiership) * 2004–2007: Barclays (Barclays Premiership) * 2007–2010: Barclays Premier League [24]

So, I would really like it if the sponsorship section i have added to The Ashes page is left, it is after all, as the logo states, called 'The npower Ashes Series 2009' I think sponsorship is of great interest to many people, and I am one of them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallerina (talk • contribs) 18 November 2008
 * Yes, whether the content stays is determined by a consensus of readers. I am a reader.  Three separate readers have now removed it as irrelevant in the current form.  I opened a discussion on The Ashes talk page.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 11:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Messiaen Recordings
Hello. The Messiaen recordings which I posted are from Imeem.com which has agreements with record companies allowing sharing of certain recordings. The record companies receive a portion of Imeem's advertising revenues in exchange. Not all music posted on Imeem can legally be shared but the ones I posted can be. For instance Louise Bessette's recording of Les Vingt Regards is posted on Imeem but cannot be shared. John Ogden's recording can be shared in part. Terrence.Maguire (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied on your talk page. --RobertG &#9836; talk 12:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion of the problem that I have raised. I make frequent use of Wikipedia but realize now that I would prefer to remain on the reading end. Whatever your conclusion about Imeem I doubt if I shall try to make any further entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrence.Maguire (talk • contribs) 10 December 2008
 * Thank you for your contributions; it is important that we all consider questions such as these, and tread very carefully when it is possible that someone's copyright is infringed. --RobertG &#9836; talk 08:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
...it survived! Very, very fine article, by the way. (I disagree that it is under-cited; in my personal opinion many of our articles are over-cited.) Well-placed FA, by the way, on the centenary of the composer's birth. Good job. I'm also tempted to put back that line about Messaien's music not confusable with anyone else's -- it's certainly true, and a citation can probably be found. Antandrus (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Help!
Please see this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games

There is an ongoing issue with Kung Fu Man over an edit dispute which is getting out of hand, and I'm fairly certain the user is relying on sockpuppets to make revisions to the article. Check the revision history yourself to verify this. Also, I've been receiving harassing comments and threats from this user and am not sure where to turn for help. Please get involved and try to act as the voice of reason. Thank you. 74.242.123.2 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's outside my realm of expertise, the issue is of no interest to me whatever, and since you appear to have asked at least 18 other contributors the same question (some of whom have apparently looked at it) you can certainly do without me. Thanks.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 11:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture
Regarding this, have you seen this? We've become notorious ... Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

1849 Bisson daguerreotype of Chopin
If not a daguerreotype, then what? Frania W. (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A photograph. I quote from the picture's caption in Jeremy Siepmann's biography of Chopin: "The only known photograph of Frédéric Chopin, often incorrectly described as a daguerreotype."  --RobertG &#9836; talk 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A photograph in 1849? Isn't it rather a photograph taken from a now lost daguerreotype?  Frania W. (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to answer your question. Where did you read that it's a daguerreotype?  --RobertG &#9836; talk 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In all the books & articles where this portrait is. What I would like to know: since this was always (as far as I know) described as a daguerreotype, from where did Siepmann get that it is not?  Frania W. (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All books & articles?! Google "chopin daguerreotype" and "chopin photograph": not a precise test, I know, but 5000 results versus 3.4 million is interesting.  Don't know; not the sort of thing you write unless you think you know.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RobertG: Encountered an *edit conflict* with you.  Here is what I was trying to post:
 * P.S. And if it is not a daguerreotype, then Siepmann should tell us was process was used because, for a picture done in 1849, we cannot simplify the description to the word *photograph*.  In the mid 19th century, there was an evolution in this new art & the new process for each step of the way had a name.  Frania W. (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No he should not - his book is a biography of Chopin, not a history of photography. "Photograph" is simply a general term: we describe images of real things, be they Polaroids, digital image files, scanned images, copied images, projected transparencies (and even perhaps daguerreotypes), all as photographs without any problems.  Daguerreotype is a specific name for a specific process.  If you have a reference that tells us the specific process that made this image then please name it, otherwise it's surely just a photograph.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 21:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When I "find the reference that tells us the specific process..." I'll put it there. Frania W. (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted this discussion at the Chopin talk page, as it's really more relevant there. I sincerely hope you find a reference. Best wishes, Frania. --RobertG &#9836; talk 06:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I saw it. Whether a dag or not, I am curious to know what the process was, so I am looking into it.  Bonne année à vous, Robert!  Frania W. (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Health informatics
Casting your mind back to Nov 2006 (!) you seem to have done a category redirect of Health informatics to Health care informatics. "Health care" is a subcat of "Health"; the redirect would seem to have put Health informatics at the wrong level. Pages in the "Health" category, "Health informatics" and "Health software", are now subcats of "Health care informatics" - a lower level in the tree than "Health". Somewhat confusing and I'm curious why it ended up this way. (if you respond, here please) Thanks 69.106.246.15 (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A long time ago, indeed! I can't exactly remember.  I presume that when I found Category:Health informatics was a #redirect to Category:Health care informatics I simply moved the articles from it into the other category, and changed the #redirect into a category redirect.  Category #redirects were - possibly still are - frowned upon.  I notice that there are also two articles, health informatics and health care informatics, so perhaps the category should be split likewise?  There is already a Category:Medical informatics that contains health informatics (but medical informatics redirects to health informatics) - does this enter into the equation?  Perhaps Category:Medical informatics should be "renamed" to Category:Health informatics, and health informatics made its main article?  It certainly all needs sorting out, as I agree with you that it is somewhat confusing as it stands.  By all means discuss it at WP:CFD - a forum I no longer frequent.  Hope you get to a satisfactory end result.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 10:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My experiences with CfD, CfR, have been so bad - subjects were software categories and the discussions there seemed as if from another planet - that I no longer visit, let alone frequent them. What I'll do is just straighten out the structure (having a "Health informatics" and a "Healthcare informatics" that is a subcat). Thanks 69.106.246.15 (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Done! Category:Health informatics lives again! 69.106.246.15 (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

List of solo piano compositions by Olivier Messiaen
Hello,

I noticed you added a merge tag to that article; I did the same at List of solo piano compositions by John Cage for the same reason. I thought you may be interested in this discussion: User talk:Timneu22.

--Jashiin (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Janacek copy-edit
Hi Robert! You've provided a breath of fresh air at Janacek, and vastly improved my constipated prose. I notice you queried the apparent self contradiction of "informal", then "formal" divorce, as did I. So I asked Vejvančický (the page originator and main editor) about that. Apparently Janacek and his wife never actually or legally separated. They had first an informal, then a formal divorce. It makes no sense to me either. For a bit more info, try the talk page. I think the query is still on the page, not archived. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Embarrassing typo corrected. Haploidavey (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Flanders & Swann
Thanks for correcting the quote-- unfortunately all my music collection got nicked, so I was going from memory. Thanks for fixing it instead of just deleting it: that was kinda my hope (if you ask on talk you don't often get much response, I find, except on very busy articles). Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I goofed on warnings to 90.193.250.88
1) I made a mistake by implying that they had altered several articles after my recent final warning. I went back to correct the mistake, but you had already blocked.

2) I see your block action, but there isn't any visible result. I.e., I don't see a third block notification. This is the second time I've noticed this happening to an admin in the last couple days . Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I don't think you goofed.  I doubt there's a systemic problem.  The person came back after two blocks and immediately did the same vandalism: he or she is apparently in denial about Wendy Richard's death.  I thought enough is enough.  The only thing I didn't get to quickly enough (real life intervened) was putting a "blocked" template on their talk page - I'll do it now. --RobertG &#9836; talk 08:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This well known medvandal IP promptly blanked the talkpage. I've reverted, but..LeadSongDog come howl  17:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
For reverting the Vandalism to my page, gotta love the satisfaction by changing the number in the vandalized userbox.-- SKATER  T. 04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! --RobertG &#9836; talk 08:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

File:DScarlatti.jpg
I don't think this image is appropriate for a {{subst:npd}}. I've removed the tag; feel free to list it at WP:PUF. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Wikipedia implies that this is a contemporary likeness - which cannot be verified.  It still looks modern to me.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 07:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Beethoven's Fifth: Fate?
You asked in at Beethoven symphonies and  at Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) whether Beethoven's fifth symphony is widely called "Fate". I can't answer that question with any authority for English usage, but in Germany that is definitely a very popular moniker, the Schicksalssymphonie (see lead of de:5. Sinfonie (Beethoven)). The English article about the symphony has a section on the "Fate motiv", but doesn't mention it as a nickname. On the other hand, Amazon lists a DVD using it, and many other music related web sites do, too: googling allintitle:+Beethoven+fate+symphony seems to indicate that it is not uncommon. Upshot: it may be helpful to include it in the article and the template, but that's only my opinion, largely based on my German background. All the best, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Michael: I knew about Schicksalssymphonie. I think it might be worth mentioning in the article that it is popularly known thus in German, particularly if it's reliably documented somewhere!  As the Wikipedia article comes top of Google searches for "Beethoven's 5th" the danger is that Wikipedia will create a popular nickname rather than documenting one.  I think that if we are going to state Beethoven's 5th is known as "Fate" it should be backed up with unimpeachable refs.  It's a question that's come up before - which came first, the recent neologism or the Wikipedia article about it?  Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 14:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
...for this; I didn't even notice (that particular 12-year-old has been harassing me for months, and has figured out that the best way to go unnoticed is to sneak his edit in between those of others when I won't see it). All the best -- Antandrus (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Big Bang luminosity
Hi, You edited Gamma-ray burst to re-introduce the mentioning of "the Big Bang luminosity". Could you refernce a source that gives a definition and quantification of that concept? Luminosity is energy per unit of time, so what is taken as duration when we talk about the Big Bang luminosity? Feel free to reply at the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamma-ray_burst#.22since_the_Big_Bang.22.3F

Thank you, --65.105.195.14 (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ray Dotoratos recreated
You've probably also noticed this but just in case... Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks: I would have deleted it again, but someone else was there before me! --RobertG ♬ talk 16:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A footnote to the above. How legitimate do you think Wikipedia is? Administrators, authors, editors use ficticious names. Cannot verify any of this authenticity. Please tell me how readers can rely on this form of fact finding for "The Project"?69.118.241.91 (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI Robert -- I have answered Borismule on his talk page. Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "How legitimate do I think Wikipedia is?" Currently Wikipedia favours content that is reliably sourced per WP:V and WP:RS, if its subject is notable, and if it is expressed in an unaffiliated and impartial tone.  There is a lot of matter on Wikipedia that is either unverifiable, unsourced, insignificant or partisan: there is consensus that the encyclopedia is usually improved by its removal.  There is consensus about other things too: for instance, consensus and civility.  --RobertG ♬ talk 20:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

North Korea
Good work on removing the vandalism on the North Korea wiki page :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazardousguy69 (talk • contribs) 5 July 2009
 * Thank you. The pleasure was mine.  --RobertG ♬ talk 10:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Michelle Paver
Template:Michelle Paver has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Support
LOL. Thank you for your support. I'm sorry, I really got twisted there. Had to go outside and water the garden instead of swear at my computer, for a few minutes. Antandrus (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Folooge!
The article that you just deleted, Folooge!, does not fit the G1 CSD criteria - it was not "incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content". It looked like a dictionary definition, and thus may have been suitable for PROD or AfD, but it shouldn't have been speedy deleted.  Chzz  ►  13:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was, however, patent nonsense. If it had been deleted under CSD G3 would you have disagreed?  --RobertG ♬ talk 13:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know; I can't see it, because it has been deleted.  Chzz  ►  14:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Olivia Ofrenda
Hello! You deleted this article three years ago. Since then, the character's reception and coverage has increased. She is even ranked among Game Stop's ten best female video game characters of all time as seen here. Therefore, would you be so kind as to undelete this article so that I can make use of these new sources and if I am unable to sufficiently enough to justify a stand alone article to at least merge and redirect then? Thanks for your time and help! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Zero Punctuation on Portal
Regarding this edit here, yes, I am fairly sure Croshaw actually said that. You were, however, right to undo the edit. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 09:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The enigma ...
Hi RobertG -- thanks for your help with the Enigma Variations situation. I've left Sir Padgett another note, which I hope is sufficiently polite, and I protected the article briefly (I guess I just don't like blocking people unless I absolutely have to; Wikipedia is nasty enough to newbies, as we see daily). Offhand I'd guess he'll be back with his additions, and he has not responded yet to any messages, so let me know if you have any suggestion for how to proceed. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops sorry
Sorry on that revert.....This huggle is pretty slow...I gave that revert some 5 mins ago....Again sorry....  aru nku mar  checkmate me 08:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

TheVortex
Sir, I request you recheck on the page you deleted recently. The page was deleted in misconception of another thing. Please reply soon !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuzition (talk • contribs) 30 November 2009
 * No, no misconception. Please read Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and notability (particularly notability of musical groups).  I hope your band does become notable one day.  Best of luck.  Thanks.  --RobertG ♬ talk 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Tawny owl vandal
Is back. Could page be protected again, please? Ta. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Bye and Happy Christmas
''Please accept my advanced Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.I will not be able to wish you on those days as I will be taking a Wiki break for one month starting tomorrow. Also wishing you a Happy editing.. :) '' arun  talk  07:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

ford granada yedek parça temini
yardımcı olabilirmisiniz ben Türkiye, den Zeki yardımınızı bekliyorum teşekürler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.20.173 (talk • contribs) 13 January 2010
 * Hello. I cannot read Turkish, so you will have to frame your question in English, please.  Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 15:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Innapropriate comment on Witold Lutoslawski
Hi there,

My name is Tom.

As I was cruising through the arts portal on Wikipedia I noticed that some retard had left an inappropriate comment in the "featured biography" of Witold Lutoslawski.

I don't know how to remove it so thought I would let you know instead.

Many congratulations on a great article. Keep up the good work.

Many thanks from Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.203.97 (talk • contribs) 3 February 2009


 * Thanks for pointing this vandalism out, Tom. I hadn't noticed before you mentioned it, but I've fixed it now.  Thank you for the compliment about the Lutoslawski article.  I enjoyed writing it - with help from others.  Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 12:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Page removal Help
Hi Robert,

Some years back, I was new to Wikipedia; in terms of adding new content. As a result of testing I ended up getting the following post for deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_20#Category:Ajitha_Hemaratne

Now, I would like to remove it permanantly from wikipedia. Everytime I browse for my page I get this as a result. I need your assistance to get this removed permanatly. I am looking for a favourable response from you.

If you need to contact me, please reply to this. (I Believe its possible) my username is ajithahemaratne [New user]

Thank you, Regards Ajitha Hemaratne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajithahemaratne (talk • contribs) 11 February 2010


 * Hello. I blanked the deletion discussion as a courtesy, as you request.  I hope that will be sufficient, and that others will agree to leave the discussion blank.  If it is not sufficient to remove the page from search engine indexes, then you will probably have to consult someone else.  Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 16:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
Thanks very much for the amendments to the lead, which are definite improvements, and for the compliment about the article in general. I'm open to any other suggestions on improvements. Jonyungk (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, thought you'd like to know that I nominated this article for featured article of the day for March 18, which is Rimsky-Korsakov's birthday. Jonyungk (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your note of confidence in this article being supported for TFA on March 18. I was actually hoping you might also put in a vote one way or the other. Under WP:CANVASS, I cannot ask you to vote yes or no; all I can do is ask you to vote. Hope you understand. Jonyungk (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism of my Talk page -- Boing!   said Zebedee  21:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, pagerank algorithm figure 2 updated
some of the numbers in your figure are wrong. I have corrected it.

Best --Puekai (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Trout Quintet
So, does anyone know why Schubert named it after an edible fish? I have followed the links about lieds and poems to no avail. Quedude (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The piece is known as the Trout because the fourth movement is a set of variations on Schubert's earlier Lied Die Forelle (The Trout)." Alas, not a food reference I am afraid...  The song is an allegory warning young ladies to beware of men hoping for an easy catch.  Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 19:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I love the allegory! Maybe you can help me. I'm a food writer and I'm writing an article about food and the arts. Contemporary music has many titles devoted to food. But I cannot think of any classical pieces. Can you? Quedude (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking for a while, and no, I can't think of many! There must be lots of classical settings of drinking songs, not to mention foody episodes in opera - for instance in The Magic Flute and Don Giovanni.  There are light songs, like William Bolcom's Lime Jello Marshmallow Cottage Cheese Surprise, which may not be quite what you're looking for.  There's Handel's Alexander's Feast, and William Walton's setting of the biblical Belshazzar's Feast.  I think Handel did a setting of Belshazzar too.  Does Bach's Coffee Cantata count? - Not exactly food.  I'll post anything else I think of here.  Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 14:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Edward Elgar's Enigma Solution
Hi Robert,

You wrote, "Hello, the theory about pi is interesting (although it seems to me just a little Procrustean), but without references it is original research which consensus holds has no place on Wikipedia. I removed it from the Enigma Variations article. I hope you get the ideas published, so that a reference becomes available for Wikipedia to report. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 19:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)"

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

Well, after much research and writing, the Pi article is about to be published in the Journal of Current Musicology (Columbia University). We are working through a few minor revisions with the editor who says maybe it will be included in the Spring edition.

In any event, I would like to start thinking about how it should be worded in Wikipedia. Could I send some preliminary paragraphs to get your input as to what is appropriate? I do not feel confident that I should just edit the page with something this significant.

By the way, I found that in 1887, the year before Elgar wrote the Enigma Variations, a very humorous event occurred in Indiana as the State House of Representatives passed a bill legislating the method to be used to calculate Pi. This action was widely ridiculed and Elgar was very fond of such "japes." That would have been a good reason for him to be thinking about Pi and, as he was a master puzzler, trying to develop four bars of music which contain both decimal and fractional approximations of Pi (3142 and 22/7). To my surprise, I also found that the three sentences he wrote in 1929 for release of the pianola rolls, he was giving the world a confirmation that Pi was the solution. At that time he was 72 years old, his wife Alice and his best friend, August Jaeger had died, Elgar was in poor health, and no one had solved his riddle. He was determined to never give up the answer himself and he had staunchly resisted for thirty years. However, since he would not be able to confirm the solution after his death, he left three clues in the three 1929 sentences which confirm that Pi was the correct solution. It could not possibly be a coincidence that four bars of music that begin with scale degree 3142 (decimal Pi) also contain fractional Pi (22/7). Pi is the solution and Elgar's 1929 sentences are his confirmation of that fact. Why else would he write about this work after 30 years?

Hope I did not bore you with this but obviously I am excited about the project.

Yours truly, Dick Santa  Dnlsanta (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am pleased you got it published. Any information from a reliable source can be added to the article - provided it doesn't overbalance the article by giving undue weight to any one aspect of the subject.  Making concrete suggestions on the article's talk page sounds like the best idea.  If the other theories are also documented (unless it can be proved that the pi theory has gained general acceptance - which would itself require a raft of references), I would have no objections.  Best wishes,  RobertG ♬ talk 14:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Messiaen !vote
Hi RobertG: I'm voting here to "keep" Olivier Messiaen an FA. It's purely a friendly and symbolic gesture, as I can't bring myself to participate in that forum. For one, anyone who says "keep" is assumed either to have an agenda, to be "involved", or to be insufficiently versed in what a featured article is. (Yet the opinions of those who claim that every "unreferenced statement" is original research are somehow treated as gold standards.) If they delist Messiaen, you can be sure that excellent articles no longer correlate with featured ones. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you, thank you. I am confident Messiaen is an excellent article partly because yours is not the first such feedback I have received, and partly because someone else surprised me by nominating it for a featured article in the first place way back when.  All very gratifying.
 * Because of this Messiaen debacle (and other discussions elsewhere, including a similar process at Witold Lutosławski where I grimly humoured them and this was viewed as an improvement) I now view "featured articles" as merely a means of varying the main page. I don't complain, because at least articles don't get on the front page without being reviewed.  All the currently featured articles are excellent, even if to be featured they must slavishly conform to one or two useless standards.
 * The Messiaen article was on the front page for his centenary, which I think was one of the best achievements of Wikipedia. I wouldn't give two hoots now if it were de-featured.  Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 06:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I remember the Lutosławski review (maybe even participated [I've used different names]--as a good guy of course). We also met on Antandrus's talk page during the "CiterSquad" debacle (debacle for the five people bothered by it, that is). I continue to not understand the "reference every statement" approach to Wikipedia, at least with respect to easily researched subjects, but it's apparent that a rather philosophically void view of what referencing means has won out--forever. Best wishes, Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How to undo multiple edits?
Hello and thanks for reverting the vandalism in Charles 2 of England. I was unable to revert the entire edits with undo button. How to do it? --EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Will reply shortly on your talk page. Best wishes RobertG ♬ talk 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Messiaen
Thanks, best of luck with this exemplarly article, I'll certainly help in what ever limited way I can. Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I place five or six statements on the talk page that I think should be cited. In my view, that should wrap it up, I dont see any other issues, in fact I see a model article to be proud of. Ceoil (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If I get a bit of time, I can certainly help with that. I'll keep an eye on the talk page, then.  Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 15:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a date so. Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Everton vandalism
You should have left that vandalism in there...the spelling was fantastic. Perhaps we should move it to the article and the british schooling system :) Keep up the good work RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Made me laugh, too. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 11:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

London Philharmonic Choir
Thanks for helping clean up bits of the article. I am a new-ish Wikipedia editor and all the help I can get is much appreciated. I'm planning to get this page to GA or FA status but lots of things still need cleaning up. It will be a slow process but it will get there. I've noticed that you are an admin specialising in blocking vandals. There is a user which I have encountered that has the IP address 173.15.153.132 I have given that person/s a level 3 warning and yet they have continued to vandalise random pages. I would be grateful if you could monitor the user's actions and see if he/she should be blocked. Many Thanks! Noelypole 08:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

John Linnell
Thanks - re- John Linnell (cabinet-maker) —Preceding unsigned comment added by G.kavandi (talk • contribs) 17 September 2010

Elgar's Enigma
Hi RobertG. You asked me to let you know when/if my Pi solution was published. Done. See proposed addition on the enigma discussion page. Best Regards, Dick Dnlsanta (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edward Elgar
No good deed goes unpunished! After your suggestions at the FAC for William Walton, which were of great help, I trespass further on your kindness by asking if you would be interested in looking at the FAC for Elgar, which I have put forward today. All the best. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cello Concerto ms. - thank you! I wasn't looking properly when I posted it. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR notice
nominated Welding for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Cirt (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

About the shifting keyboards and re-tuning
Dear Robert,

I meant the comment about the piano una corda mechanism as helpful to a non-harpsichordist, to understand how keyboards can be shifted sideways. That is what they do in a grand piano (uprights simply shorten the hammer stroke, but that's something else).

The technical discussions from Frank Hubbard's workshop are considered the gold standard in the United States. When one shifts a keyboard, no re-tuning of strings is needed if the instrument is in equal temperament. I thought a reference to Hendrik Broekman's paper would be better than my writing something.

What do you think?

Willis Bodine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrbodine (talk • contribs) 23 November 2010


 * I think modern transposing harpsichords should certainly be mentioned in the article: thank you for correcting that omission. I have never needed my harpsichord to be in equal temperament, which is possibly why I was slightly sceptical about the "simply slide, minimal retuning" bit.  Perhaps I am in the minority in preferring unequal temperaments for music before about 1770 - temperaments which (like Valotti, Werkmeister IV or Mean Tone) I can reliably set up myself :-) Best wishes,  RobertG ♬ talk 08:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Special schools
You put a "soft redirect" on Category:Special schools in England; is there any reason why Category:Special schools in the United Kingdom could not have subcategories for England, Scotland etc now that there are several subcategories for London, Somerset etc? Hugo999 (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I made the soft redirect because the category was a #redirect, and that is an unhelpful thing for a category to be. Looking at the category's history - the #redirect was made on 8 December 2005 - I cannot find any relevant discussion.
 * If we have Category:Special schools in England then we should have Category:Special schools in Scotland, Category:Special schools in Wales, Category:Special schools in Northern Ireland, which are red links right now. You may also be taking on a fair amount of unnecessary work in disentangling the categories Category:Schools for the blind in the United Kingdom and Category:Schools for the deaf in the United Kingdom, some of which may be in Scotland, Wales or N. Ireland.  It should perhaps be discussed somewhere first, but I will abstain from any such discussion as I have no preference whatsoever!  Make sense?  Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 15:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK will go ahead with special schools; I made a cat for those in London as they were 5 in the overall "schools in London" category. But it does not follow that schools for blind/deaf should also be done; as for churches say a city may have "churches" in it, with type of church done only at country or state level. Someone else made Special schools in Somerset, but I don't think a complete breakdown to county level is justified. Hugo999 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you be interested in helping with a documentary on the Panama Canal?
Hello, I noticed that you have more than ten edits on the Panama Canal article. First of all I would like to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Secondly, I am writing to ask you if you would consider participating as an advisor to a group producing a documentary about the canal and its history. If this is of interest to you please drop me a note on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Psingleton (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your invitation. Most of my contributions to that article have been to remove vandalism rather than add content.  My expertise is in other areas!  The canal is certainly a fascinating structure: good luck with the documentary.  --RobertG ♬ talk 19:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandal block request.
Sorry to disturb you. was blocked before for introducing long-term misinformation on Digimon-related articles and those on several train stations in Taiwan after several complaints from other users. That block expired several hours ago and has restarted his MO once again. Already reported him to WP:AIV, but no action so far. I don't want to get involved with him anymore. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that user has already been blocked by someone else. Digimon is not my area of expertise, and I wouldn't have recognised some of those edits as misinformation: I am pleased someone else has had a chance to deal with it!  Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 21:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Women cricketers who made a century on Test debut
Hi Robert, well done on adding the women! To be honest, I was surprised this category had never been done for the men...... It was going to be my next subject but you beat me to it. :) Rocketrod1960 08:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you! Love my cricket, but being an Aussie it isn't the best of times just now! I have read Wikipedia for years but as you noticed, I have only got into the editing part just recently..... And am having a ball doing so !! Rocketrod1960 10:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

La Transfiguration de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ
Please see Talk:La Transfiguration de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ about the capitalization of the title. Thank you. -- Klein zach  23:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes Minister
Hello. After initially reverting you, I went back and removed the parenthesised chunk I added. I feel it is better to introduce such a point but if it is not relevant at the early stage then I figured it better to state that the party affiliation is not given rather than never, as never also summarises the whole outfit. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing Certain Wiki Entries
Hello Robert,

I have a question for you. I've just googled a particular product that has been getting a lot of attention here on the West Coast. After reviewing some of the google entries I found a listing on Wikipedia for the product, VAD Vodka. After clicking on the entry it appears that it was removed by you. My question is why would this entry be removed, especially when users like myself turn to Wikipedia for information. There are dozens of other products on wikipedia. Could you please explain the process to me. I'm not affiliated with the company, just a curious patron.

Thank You,

Lisa ldudelson85@yahoo.com24.23.190.65 (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you looking for VÄD (vodka)? I can't find the removed page you speak of. Prodego  talk  05:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Prodego, I hope that is what Lisa was looking for. I have no recollection of deleting any such page.  I searched for VAD Vodka on Google, and the top relevant Wikipdia listing is Vad.  Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 06:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Latsabidze
Hi Robert, thanks for your edits in my article. Best wishes, Sausa (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Frederick Delius
Hello, RobertG. After your help on William Walton last year, I wonder if I could impose on you again? Brianboulton and I are trying to get the Frederick Delius article up to FA level, and would be grateful for any comments you wished to make at the peer review page. Best wishes, Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your efforts on this. I am horrified at my unintentional rudeness about "comprising": I thought it was the work of a bot, and I apologise in six different positions for aiming it at a human - particularly such a clued-up and unstintingly helpful one. Forgive! Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia sometimes makes me feel like a bot. No umbrage taken; I shall look for an opportunity to leave an annoying template on your user talk page as revenge.   I just thought it was a bit odd that an orchestra would be assembled for a performance for three people, it seemed so unlikely that no-one else would be invited.  --RobertG ♬ talk 19:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Phew! Thank you for your magnanimity. As no good deed goes unpunished, you should be on your guard for further importuning later this year on the John Barbirolli article which I hope to get from GA to FA and then the Benjamin Britten one, which I have in my sights. As I have said before, please don't hesitate to recruit me if I can help with reviewing any articles in which you are engaged. Tim riley (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Postscript: Delius is now up for FAC, if you are minded to comment. Tim riley (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You asked if I was thinking of working on either Britten or Bax in the near future. A definite yes to the former. I know next to nothing of Bax; I have a dim memory of Ken Russell playing the old boy in one of KR's gentler television films, but I really don't know his music(except Tintagel like everyone else) and couldn't begin to do the music half of any FAC level revamp of his article. One can always do the biography side, of course. As to Britten, would you be interested in working collaboratively on him? I must say that working in tandem with Brian on Delius has been a pleasure, and I am definitely a fan of collaborative projects now. Tim riley (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Active users sought
Hi. I'm Ace. And I kinda need your help. I'm trying to build consensus over at Talk:John Byrne. So far, not so good. I just need to find people willing to express an opinion here. I didn't think it'd be this hard. Eh. I guess this is just a slow peiod. Ah well. If you can top by in the next 24 hours, that'd be great. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)