User talk:Grover cleveland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello Grover cleveland, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 01:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


User name[edit]

Why do you have this user name?? Georgia guy 01:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Because I admire Grover Cleveland Grover cleveland 01:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

In my POV, that makes you an Impersonator. --AVM (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Willem Mengelberg[edit]

I saw your edits and your question. Your edits did solve the POV problem. Thanks. gidonb 05:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary[edit]

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 17% for major edits and 48% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 27 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 08:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I am doing a project on Grover Cleveland and I was wondering if you could tell me anything about his greatest accomplishments and how he changed the world (or US). Thanks! I need it fast. WordWhiz 02:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I would love your help.[edit]


I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. [1] is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. nsandwich 01:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Günther Herbig[edit]

I have announced your article in the stub section of Portal:Germany/New article announcements. If you write more about German conductors or turn a related stub into an article, please announce your article there. Thank you, and happy editing! Kusma (討論) 18:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best, although I can't guarantee anything! Probably better to keep an eye on Category:German conductors. Grover cleveland 06:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

James Levine[edit]

Greetings: just wanted to let you know that I caught someone making libelous statements on the James Levine page; I have reverted them and sprotected the page. Somewhat to my surprise, there were numerous deleted revisions in the article history, so this has been going on for a while, probably all by the same person: I noticed that you were one of the people active in removing the junk, so thank you! By the way, good work on all the conductor articles. Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Grover cleveland 02:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

NBC Symphony Orchestra[edit]

It's a great shot of Toscanini, and the recording comes from the first or second year of the NBCSO. Okay, well, I'll try something different. Pepso 17:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Might be appropriate on the Arturo Toscanini page, if not for copyright problems. See WP:FU. It would have to accompany a critical discussion of the recording(s) featured on the CD. Grover cleveland 06:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Rachmaninoff's "signature"[edit]

Rachmaninoff ended some of his major works musically with a rhythmic pattern - a long, two shorts and a long (as in the endings of the Second and Third Piano Concertos) or three shorts and a long (as in the ending of the Second Symphony), which is sometimes thought to relate to the prononunciation of his surname (RACH-man-in-OFF).

I can see how that rhythm fits in with the rhythm of his name, but do we know that this isn't any more than a coincidence? I must say I'd never heard this before, and I've read a lot about him and his works. Do you have a reference? Cheers JackofOz 09:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a common story that I've heard many times among musicians. I didn't insert this para in the article -- in fact I toned it down from an older version which definitively asserted that Rach put the rhythm in because it fits his name. You can delete it if you like. Grover cleveland 16:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The Blue Panther strikes again...[edit]

I thought you would like to know that User:Far2steep has taken content from the deleted "The Blue Panther" article and put it on Blupantha and blanked Blue Panther so he/she could put the information from the deleted article there too. I am not exactly sure where to go from here.--Darren Jowalsen 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- I've AfD'd it. Grover cleveland 23:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Brooklyn Symphony[edit]

Hi Grover! Excuse the questioin, but I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and I'm not sure what "commenting out" something means. Could you enlighten me? I see you're involved in several of the symphonic and conductor pages! I've just been glancing around and doing some copyediting and minor additions on a few of them, so I'm sure I'll see you around more. MarkBuckles 14:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at the diff for my edit and you'll see what I did. Grover cleveland 15:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

afd page[edit]

Hello. I see you nominated Cloud 7 for Afd, however you forgot to use the {{afd2}} template on the afd page, so it wasn't being listed correctly. I have fixed this, just letting you know for again. Regards, MartinRe 20:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Grover cleveland 20:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Illegal immigration[edit]

I like your comment about <<Novel assertion that "immigration" only refers to legal immigration needs to be backed up>>". This passage had me foxed too. I think that immigration, legal or not, is a term that's been around for a long time. It think some folks like the term "illegal alien" instead as it sounds more offical, legal and perhaps sexier. Wallie 21:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth Harwood[edit]

Hello, i am the author of de:Elizabeth Harwood and fr:Elizabeth Harwood, and although i could roughly translate either version into english, i'd prefer somebody else to do it. Don't you sincerely think it's a shame that one of the most beautiful voices ever to have come out of an english-speaking country (imo) has still not gained recognition here ? The same goes actually for Robert Lloyd (singer) - see de:Robert Lloyd. Cheers, RCS 08:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to think fit to answer, shall i turn to somebody else ? I am quite disappointed. RCS 07:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. AAfraid I don'thave time for this right now. Grover cleveland 15:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Beethoven's 9th[edit]

Hey! I noticed you pointed out on the symphony's entry, that Böhm's recording of the 9th is not the longest recording in duration. Which is the longest? And how long is it? Is it any good (supposing you've heard it)? Atavi 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This one is supposed to be twice as slow as any other version! I'm happy to say that I've not heard it. Grover cleveland 21:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm dumbfounded. I really wonder if what the conductor's theories (for want of a better word) have any standing. Perhaps we could copy this link to the article's talk page (I doubt it belongs to the main article) Atavi 14:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey and way to go[edit]

Since our editing paths crossed several times, I began looking at your contributions and feel that I should congratulate you for their general usefulness and impact. And I have more than once started exploring pages that I would edit, from your contributions. So, cheers Atavi 13:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Thank you- I really need to keep better informed on the subject full-stop! Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Barenboim[edit]


Could you please explain why you removed the "highly POV material"? Was it written in a biased manner? I believe not. I think an article about a musician should include primarily a discussion about his music rather than boring facts about his life, what pieces he recorded, etc. Stating such opinions is in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Characterizing opinions of people's work.

Gidip 09:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I replied to your question on the Daniel Barenboim discussion page. Briefly, the problems were that your material did not include any verifiable citation information and included what appeared to be personal opinions. Grover cleveland 09:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Rubinstein and Horowitz[edit]

LorenzoPerosi1898 is fooling around with the Rubinstein and Horowitz articles again. Is there a way to get him banned? THD3 17:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've requested administrator intervention here. Grover cleveland 01:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I have reason to believe this person is actually Leonardo Ciampa, who has also contributed to articles about himself, and recommended his own book (published by a vanity publisher) in an article about Pope Puis XIITHD3 01:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks. Grover cleveland 03:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Better understanding WP:NPOV and WP:V[edit]

There is a general misunderstanding of late as to the true intent of WP:NPOV and WP:V. To state a "fact" (or, if you prefer, a "generally held belief") which is supported by virtually all sources and contradicted by few if any, it is not appropriate to slap a "[citation needed]" tag on, just for one's jollies. "Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents." One DOES NOT have to provide a source for such a statement!!! There is where y'all are a little unclear about the rules here. To even attempt to name "one source" for the above comment about Lincoln is ridiculous. If, instead, you know of a source that contradicts it, it is your onus to find one. Perhaps you also disagree that Lincoln was the 16th president. If you think he was the 15th or 17th, go prove it. Slapping [citation needed] here and there might be enjoyable to you, but that is not the appropriate response to accepted fact. This clarification is intended not towards any one editor in particularly, but clearly it has become a trend, and a very immature one. Best, LorenzoPerosi1898 00:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lorenzo. I'm tired of arguing this point with you. If you look on your user talk page you'll see that quite a few other users agree with me on this one. Bye. Grover cleveland 01:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
One source for Lincoln as one of the greatest presidents? Easy. Fall 1985 Issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly, specifically the article entitled Rating Presidents and Diplomats in Chief. There. Done. Now nobody has to waste the time of editors adding a "[citation needed]", because there's now a credible third-party source that says Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents. It's as simple as that. Someone may also post that Lincoln was one of the worst presidents ever, provided they have a source. Your example stating that Lincoln is one of greatest presidents is simply an opinion. It's a widely shared opinion, but it is not an "accepted fact". Accepted by whom? Him being the 16th president on the other hand is a fact found in most general reference sources and is easily locatable by anyone - it's undebatable and will never change. Greatest president on the other hand is, as I've mentioned, simply the opinion or the Point of View of a large number of people, which could even change over time.
That's why there is no "accepted fact" on Wikipedia and why the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. Any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research. It's really not a difficult concept to understand. Yankees76 20:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Leonardo Ciampa source edits/clarifications[edit]

Nicely handled, thanks. LorenzoPerosi1898 01:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Your input[edit]

Would be appreciated here. Thanks :) Glen 09:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Glen S[edit]

Results are in (you'll never guess) Glen 04:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Grover, just so you know, I have now indef blocked User:LorenzoPerosi1898. I'm sorry you had to endure the malicious accusations and fabricated "evidence" against you from this user. I'm exceptionally glad that your good name (and of course Glen's) has been cleared in this matter. Best, Gwernol 04:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for your help! Grover cleveland 04:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want as a souvenir of the last week, I've taken over the account (just to avoid any future returns). Let me know! Yankees76 05:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bruckner's 3rd Symphony[edit]

I have been researching Bruckner's 3rd (specifically, differences in the first movement in revisions). While searching for recordings, came across this wiki entry and had some questions for you:

How did you come to the conclusion that the George Szell/Cleveland Orchestra version was the 1890 (Raettig?) version? I followed it to rehearsal E on the first movement and they matched up (with the 1889 Nowak). Were you looking at a different movement when you determined that the Szell/Cleveland performance differed from the score? My e-mail is I would appreciate any help you might be able to offer, I'm writing a term paper currently on the subject. Lastly, great writing!! Its great to have educated people contribute so much to a free knowledge source!!!

(Also, sorry if I'm not doing this entry correctly, never have posted anything before! Need to get an account someday...) 20:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Do you know if the 1890 Raettig and the 1889 Nowak editions differ in the first movement? I only have the 1889 Nowak so I can't check how close they are. 21:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Sorry for all the spelling mistakes... ug, making me look bad.

late reply[edit]

Grover C: Thanks for your note a while back about references. Apologies that this reply is very belated; I'm still kind of figuring out the system here. I'll see how well I can keep up with updating classical music entries. Thanks again, DJRafe

St. Paul[edit]

I have reverted your edits because I think, in the first case, you mistake the nature of the assertion which is simply about the number of words which can be counted in the pages of the NT. The second issue relates to the meaning of the word arguably. It is such a well-recognised point that I can think no scholars who disagree. Even if Acts was written in 64 this is ten years of more after St. Paul is held to have written his letters. Please tell me who your scholars are who disagree. Roger Arguile 11:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on the Paul of Tarsus talk page. Grover cleveland 20:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Christoph Eschenbach[edit]

Thanks for taking notice of the Eschenbach page. I don't know if you had a chance to look at the previous versions. From one person's alias, "Montco", I believe that that refers to Montgomery County, which is just outside of Philadelphia. The tone of the article at that point was definitely pro-Eschenbach and not quite to wikipedia standard. I tried to make the article seem more even handed, but I'm not sure how well I succeeded. From what I understand, it has been quite a controversial issue in Philadelphia, especially with the tone of those posts toward the one critic, Dobrin. Best, DJRafe, 05:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Request for edit summary[edit]

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Emil Gilels[edit]

I appreciate your input as to your musical taste regarding Gilel's stature as one of the greatest pianists of the 20 th century. While you may regard this as "over enthusiastic," my addition was supported by one of the pages used as a reference in the article. If you really have an objection, you are better advised to express your reservations in the discussion page. I would revert your edits until you act in a civil manner. User:

Hi there.
  • Please sign your edits in talk pages.
  • Your original addition said that Gilels "is regarded as one of the greatest pianists of all time" [2] and gave no source. The link to which I presume you are referring to says that "The unexpected death of Emil Gilels in 1985 at the age of 68 robbed the world of one of the most significant pianists of the twentieth century". "Greatest of all time" is not the same as "most significant of the 20th century". Note that you did not cite this page inline as is recommended for such value judgments. Note also that this link is to an Emil Gilels tribute site.
  • I described your edit as "over enthusiastic" and "unsupported". It was unsupported because you didn't provide an inline citation. "Over enthusiastic" is justified because even the Emil Gilels tribute site to which you refer uses significantly less gushing language to describe Gilels. Your suggestion that I am not acting in a "civil manner" is totally unjustified.
  • I note that you did not in fact revert my changes: instead you replaced your original language that Gilels "is regarded as one of the greatest pianists of all time" with a statement that "Gilels is regarded as one of the most significant pianists of the twentieth century" [3] although again there is no inline citation. Therefore your claim taht you "reverted" my edit is itself disingenuous.
  • For the record I personally agree with you that Gilels is one of the greatest pianists of all time. However on Wikipedia we are not allowed to inject opinions like that without backing them up with sources, as you are probbably aware.
Grover cleveland 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Alexamenos graffito[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Grover cleveland! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bexample\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 06:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rephrase at Saenz[edit]

Thanks for the pointer at Saenz v. Roe. I rephrased the sentence in question. Hopefully, it's okay now.Ferrylodge 17:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

de Sabata[edit]

I drifted in from WP:PR, and made some changes consistent with WP:LEAD. However, you obviously know much more about the subject, so please edit the introduction to correct any things I may have highlighted too much, or any important things I may have omitted. I basically just cut together an overview based on what you already had written. Kaisershatner 15:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! As far as I can see your edit is fine, as long as there is no fair use problem with using a CD cover in the lead of the article. Grover cleveland 15:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OR @ Jesus tomb[edit]

Hi. It may interesting for you to read [4]. It's just another point of view. And it's related to out debate. I don't say it's an argument, I don't say you are wrong based on this link. (I don't know nothing about the site or the author). But I think it's worth reading, even only to see someones arguments. I hope you'll not missjudge me by this. Cheers. adriatikus | 01:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Adriatikus -- thanks for the link. I looked through it briefly. I'm not sure what its relevance is to the OR dispute at The Lost Tomb of Jesus. My argument is that citations should be made for the claim that the movie's findings contradict various Christian beliefs. Are you suggesting that this article supplies such citations? Grover cleveland 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Kudos are due to GC[edit]

Hello, GC!

I just ran across this edit, so I want to say thank you. You patched up one of my pet peeves – one I don't always have the energy to correct. Do you have a copy of Fowler's excellent book? DavidCBryant 21:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I read Fowler a long time ago... Glad I'm not the only one. Grover cleveland 23:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Classical pages/thanks[edit]

Glad to help; as the Beatles said on the rooftop, I hope I passed the audition :) Best, DJRafe 04:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for WB-C editing[edit]

Many thanks, Grover, for your sterling work in editing/adding to the William H. Barrington-Coupe/William H. B. Coupe/Barrington-Cooper? article. It's just the sort of bolstering of the article I was hoping for when I penned it yesterday. (I must say that the transmogrification of 'Barrington-Cooper' into the much more aristocratic sounding 'Barrington-Coupe' strikes me as very plausible.) -- Jmc 05:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

7Q5 revert[edit]

Please read the discussion page before reverting material. You stated that no reason was given for the modifications made to the "counter-arguments" section, but I gave many reasons on the discussions page. I have experience reading greek manuscripts and the modifications that I explained and made were based on that. Again, please don't simply revert material if you haven't read the discussions page and are not familiar with the arguments. Thanks.

My apologies: it is standard practice at Wikipedia to put a note in the edit summary such as "see discussion page" in cases such as this. If you don't put an edit summary other editors will assume that the edits were unjustified. There are so many cases of this that there isn't always time to look at the discussion page. I'll respond to your arguments on the discussion page later if I have time. Grover cleveland 16:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand the lack of time, and I should have written a brief edit summary, but since it has been a long time since I edited a wikipedia article, I had forgotten about the edit summary. Even so, editing a source like wikipedia where many people come to get accurate information is important, and so the discussion page should usually be quickly perused to make sure that there is no argumentation before reverting information. People should probably focus on a smaller subset of articles if they want to do a reasonable job of editing. Anyway, thanks for acknowledging. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Alexamenos graffito[edit]

First, I should say that my own choices are by definition subjective, and that my personal reactions are generally to error on the side of caution. It could possibly be considered a "B" by others. I guess my primary reservation is the length. There are a number of references included, which is wonderful, but a bit more elucidation in the text as to what is being refered to might be in order. Basically, I get the impression, possibly inaccurately as impressions are inherently subjective, that there is a substantial amount of at least expressed opinions out there which are not being described in detail. If I am wrong in that, and I easily could be because I know nothing whatsoever about this particular subject, that would likely improve the assessment grade of the article. John Carter 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can do anything to improve the situation. Grover cleveland 22:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I should also point out that WP:PR might be a good place to go for a more formal review. I know on the basis of my having expressed similar concerns about Maximus the Confessor, and the subsequent work by the editor involved in that article, an article of rather short length has recently been promoted to FA status. So, if you can indicate that the other content which is available is not really relevant, then this too could conceivably, after review, possible revision and discussion, get FA status. John Carter 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar Problem?[edit]

What is the grammar problem here?

After Japan regained it's sovereignty, freedom of religion remained as part of the new Constitution of Japan.

Sovereignty is something a thing, in this case Japan, possesses, hence the apostrophe. So what's the problem? Brentt 23:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophes aren't used with possessives of pronouns: see its Grover cleveland 03:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No content in Category:Works by Alexander Mosolov[edit]

Information icon.svg

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

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Works by Alexander Mosolov, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rachmaninoff's First Published Score[edit]

I noticed you removed a claim about The Rock being Rachmaninoff's first published score. The claim was made in the 3rd reference I have listed on the article concerning The Rock. I am not sure when the First Piano Concerto was published relative to the aforementioned tone poem; I will look into this. Thanks. -- Chewieblue

David Tholen[edit]

I question the appropriatness of adding a tag that recommends the use of "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" to a protected article.

What items do you believe are in need of citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightingale0 (talkcontribs)

Umm -- every single claim in the entire article. I don't see any citations at the moment, and of course they are required by Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Grover cleveland 08:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The policy states: "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed." I didn't notice any quotes, and don't see any challenges. There are embedded links in the article, for example the link to a list of Urey prize winners. What items do you believe are in need of citations? Also, you have not answered the point about recommending "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" on a protected article. - Nightingale
OK: here are the claims that I think are "likely to be challenged" (I will challenge them right here if you think that's necessary) and should therefore be sourced: the claims about Tholen discovering asteroids, and the Hale-Bopp incident. Embedded links to other Wikipedia articles are not themselves citations. To be honest I really don't care about the Bold, revert, discuss cycle -- my purpose in tagging the article was to draw attention to its lack of sources and recommend that they be added: how this is done isn't something I particularly care about. I can't imagine that it would be that difficult to find, say, articles in astronomical journals about the asteroid discoveries. Grover cleveland 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I have a non-Wikipedia link to the prize, and as you say, information re the asteriods should not be hard to find - I'll do some searching next week when I have a bit more time. I don't know much about the Heaven's gate stuff, but there is a link showing Tholen's response to the faked images, and the same site has more information about the incident. I'm not sure that it really deserves such prominance in the article though. - Nightingale


Thanks for your tip. I was asked to provide a reference for the sentence in question but couldn't, but I shall bear in mind your sage advice. Tim Riley 13:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Just because Lebrecht said it, that doesn't make it true. Lebrecht gives no source or basis for this opinion. It appears, from all the other references, that Lebrecht's opinion is dubious - rumour at best and possibly a spiteful lie. I don't think this source qualifies as a WP:RS. -- Ssilvers 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi S. Value judgments, especially about artistic matters, are inevitably subjective. That is why Wikipedia has the NPOV policy to ensure that comments and criticism are attributed to their authors rather than plainly asserted in the article. For this reason I'm not sure that it makes much sense to say that Lebrecht's comment is or is not "true" in any objective sense. To say that it is a "spiteful lie" would imply that Lebrecht didn't really believe that Sargent lowered the quality of the orchestra, but just said it anyway to hurt Sargent or his admirers. I don't think that there is any reason to believe that this is the case -- I've heard many people comment negatively on Sargent's skills as an orchestral builder.
If you disagree with Lebrecht's criticism, I suggest that you add other citations that contradict Lebrecht -- right now I don't see any. I suggest that we put further messages on this subject at Talk:Malcolm Sargent -- I'll be checking there for any replies. Thanks. Grover cleveland 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I don't want to clutter up the Sargent talk page any more. I respect your argument, but I do not think that all sources should be given the same weight. If you read the Lebrecht book (just the page you can see by clicking), it's just a bunch of purple prose and unsourced invective. I really don't think it is a serious source for this topic. I think we can say that certain sources are just not reliable enough to be quoted in Wikipedia. Let's see what Tim says. He as read all these books on Sargent. I agree with you that I, personally, have not done the research to properly refute Lebrecht, but his statements are patently outrageous and sensational. It is not easy to "wreck" an orchestra, and I think we should have more solid evidence than the Lebrecht book for describing his impact on the BBC Orchestra. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

When you have a moment perhaps you'd cast an eye over the para I've added as suggested on MS's C20th repertory, and see if you think it suitably balanced. Grateful if you could. Tim Riley 11:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Crucifixion eclipse[edit]

Deleting paragraphs without prior discussion is a violation of Wikipedia policy. You should have recorded your concerns in the discussion section prior removing the texts. A brief declaration in the edit summary does not constitute compliance with the Wikipedia policy. Such actions have the appearance of vandalism. I welcome discussions on such topics. With respect to my educational background in this area, I have earned a baccalaureate degree in physical science; a doctorate in Christian education administration; and have completed over a dozen graduate hours in theoretical physics. The material you had deleted has been restored. Tcisco 04:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I cannot accept your contentions about Wikipedia policies: there is, as far as I know, no policy forbidding deletion of problematic material without prior discussion. If you can point me to such a policy, please go ahead. You might want to check out Wikipedia's fundamental No original research principle while you're at it: much of the crucifixion eclipse article will probably be, or already has been, deleted for violating that policy. Your qualifications are irrelevant. If you have published material in peer-reviewed publications that would qualify as reliable sources then feel free to cite them: with that exception Wikipedia is not the place for your personal views, knowledge or theories. If you wish to share your views about the crucifixion eclipse on the internet I would suggest a newsgroup or blog, not Wikipedia. Sorry. Grover cleveland 05:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Rach 2[edit]

Thank you for your comments. I often find it difficult to phrase my objections in a neutral tone, and your measured response was refreshing. --Alexs letterbox 05:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul Article[edit]

I struck my statement, I really was not trying to imply IP’s were not welcome. I actually pride myself on not resorting to Wiki-rules when dealing with other editors. Sometimes I do bate a troll, which I know is bad manners, and usually results in me needing to apologize, but that is about as close as I come to enforcing community civility. Take care,--Riferimento 00:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if you coule be a little more careful about putting in the citation needed tabs. The information on the Council of Jerusalem comes most of it from Ogg in Peake. It IS cited, and it seemed otiose to put footnotes to the same article on every line. I wonder if you could read Ogg or just delete them. Roger Arguile 10:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is also more helpful to provide citations rather than point out their absence. It is, with respect, comparatively easy to note that statements need support; it is a much more helpful though laborious task to insert them. One of the problems I notice with WP is the small number of editors who make substantical contributions and the larger number who add information without always having read the article in full and who add inconsistent information. I despair at the retention of the 1910 CE. It defeats our intention to be credible. Roger Arguile 10:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Roger. Thanks for your comments. I agree that it is more helpful to provide citations than to point out their absence: indeed I have started to do this to the article (starting from the top). Just think of the "citation needed" tags as "to-do" notices that are useful markers for places that might be good places to add references. It does somewhat impair the aesthetic look of the article, which is a shame, but I think the point is that this is supposed to prod people into actually adding the citations. Adding the tags is very common practice in Wikipedia: just look at the first page ofo Category:Articles with unsourced statements since July 2007 to see that there are more than 200 Wikipedia pages to which this tag has been added so far this month that begin with the letter "A"!
You say that much of the content in the Council of Jerusalem section is supported by Ogg. If this is the case, then please add inline citations with page references so that this can be checked by any other editor. The tags can then be removed. Since there is a lot of controversy surrounding Paul, it's always good to imagine what would happen if someone reading the article disagreed with some of your contributions. How could they verify that the material is not original research but was backed by reliable sources? You can't really expect them to read the full text of every single book in the bibliography at the end of the article in order to verify a single claim. Inline citations with page numbers are much more useful because it enables them to verify the material very easily. If there's a web link to the page, as there is with most of the references I added recently, then it can be checked almost instantaneously. You might want to check out Wikipedia:Attribution#How_to_cite_sources for more on this.
You are probably right that the 1910 Catholic Enyclopaedia is obsolete today, but even an obsolete source is better than no cited source at all. Cheers. Grover cleveland 15:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I realise that you feel that books accessible online are better than nothing and, of course, Raymond Brown is a widely recognised scholar, but in the long run, there is no substitute for reading the books on the subject without limitation. As I have disocvered in other fields, the reliance on online libraries is not sufficient. White's assertions, such as his reference to Paul's bravado, are less than careful. Using his work may satisfy the strict adherance to WP guidelines, but there are plenty of maverick scholars around and a wider knowledge of the literature will provide a much better article than online 'scholarship'. Roger Arguile 11:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a good number of your tags. My contention is that it is not necessary to end every sentence in a reference. My preference for books rather than quotations on line is due to my belief that those who want to question can read the book rather than treat books, whether biblical or otherwise as a collection of quotations. You even tagged sentences in quotation marks. I assume that your own understanding of the Bible is such that you know where to find a chapter. I repeat: the purpose is to enlighten the reader. The requirement to assume good faith means also that one does not expect people to be trying to trip one up all the time. As for CE1910, your argument would be like saying that rather quote Newton on relativity than nothing at all. Roger Arguile 12:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to this at [[5]]. Grover cleveland 17:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

With great respect, you have not responded to it in a satisfactory way at all. Your remarks are general and nowhere refer to specific edits. You do not note the odd absence of standard books of reference in the editing or the use of McGarvey (online) or 1910CE (online). Far from my deserving rebuke, it seems to me that those who defend edits and requests for citation might helpfully show that they have read the literature. I hate repetition but I notice that you have not commented on this defect in the editing. I can't prove that I have sources for what I have added; I can deduce from the preponderance for online sources a preference for them, whose cause I can only guess at. I repeat my scepticism about inline references: they are inconsistent because they can only apply to certain books; they are likely to apply to books in the public domain (McGarvey) CE 1910); they therefore don't include modern works of scholarship. I assume 'good faith' but good faith can be tested to breaking point.

I realise that it is very tiresome to have your work unpicked bit by bit. I accept that you have responded to the request - your own and rightly - for secondary sources. The next step is that we give up on public domain stuff unless it justifies itself by its superior content. Editors must read as wellas write. Roger Arguile 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Roger. I have added more at the Paul talk page that I hope will provide the specificity that you asked for. Your remark that "I can't prove that I have sources for what I have added" is revealing. According to Verifiability, which is a binding policy on Wikipedia, if you do not have a source for material, and cannot, when challenged, provide a reference to that source, then you should not be adding the material in the first place. Any editor is entitled to demand a source: there is no requirement that they must have read any books on the subject in order to do so. I quote from WP:V:

Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.


The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

. If you cannot bring yourself to agree with this policy then I suggest that Wikipedia is not the place for you. Grover cleveland 19:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I have explained myself earlier. Roger Arguile 20:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul van Kempen etc.[edit]

GC, thanks for the kind note. It was actually fairly easy to Google-translate & paraphrase the German PvK article, so the rest was sort of duck soup. I haven't had much chance to find some more of the other neglected ones, but in due time, barring the end of the world. Best, DJRafe 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Musical Times[edit]

I've found the Musical Times links through JSTOR, not the same as Google books. I confess that I was remiss in putting links, because if one is at an institution that has access to full texts of JSTOR scanned articles, that's not the same as a private person who would have access to only the first page, if that. If you think it's best for me to add the links, I can start to do so. Thanks, DJRafe 05:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi DJ. I wouldn't worry about the links too much: most people (including me, unfortunately), won't have access to them. Keep up the good work! Grover cleveland 05:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


-WarthogDemon 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of comments on Maria Callas and Bel Canto[edit]

Dear Person,

I am sorry (Grover Cleveland) for my lack of understanding regarding Wikipedia's rules and instructions. I have read what you referred and understood.

I would like to honestly state my intentions were pure and I have contributed with the hope of informing a broader public of historic practices. The statement on Renata Tebaldi about Maria Callas, I considered public domain, such is my immersion in my field of opera. I simply don't have the time to prove everything simply on behalf of a statement on Maria Callas. I really added nothing that is not already there.

Self publishing is by choice because I like the freedom of it, and I prefer as an "educated and experienced professional", to have my own point of view. I do have personal friends who are editors at major publishing companies and my mentor is a noted writer of African-American history, but Callas is not along those lines, even if she exemplifies the scope of my work.

I should only hope that one day, as I am still rather fresh as a professional, my work will become sources matching the unique rules of Wikipedia. I think the time will come, and rest assured that your decision is not taken as an assault on my worth, which I prove everyday. In the meantime, I will refrain from contributing alas, for I have thoroughly enjoyed it.

My best to the Wikipedia community. --Jacocks5671 17:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bruckner 8 ii dm theme.png. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Bruckner 8 ii dm theme.png--david@andromeda mbruckner 8 ii dm theme.png. The copy called Image:Bruckner 8 ii dm theme.png--david@andromeda mbruckner 8 ii dm theme.png has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 06:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Joyce Hatto[edit]

Hi :-) I made an edit to the page to remove the references section you moved the New Yorker article into, I'll say why here as the edit summary box character limit was too short:

If it's not a good idea to put it in the intro, then IMO it is best as an external link (which it was anyway, I didn't notice the duplication) rather than in a references section, as that implies something in the WP article came from the page, but I don't think that it did, and if it did, it should be added as a reference to the specific quote, to make it more useful. It serves better as a "further reading" article - as it's so good I may move the link to near the top of the external links soon (they need a sorting out anyway, it's a very long list). Generally lists of "general" references (opposed to ones inserted into the text to back up key claims) should probably be avoided when there is already a long list of direct references, and perhaps incorporated into that list if need be.

Feel free to revert if this seems a bad idea, as I'm not hugely invested in it either way and don't want to tread on any feet :-) Lethe 11:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Grover cleveland 15:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Grover. It has been a while. I'm contacting you because User:Lverqlv has been running an edit war on the Joyce Hatto page and I see you've made some valuable contributions to that page. (I believe the same user was anonymously deleting material as User: Can you help me keep watch over that page to prevent any shenanigans? Many thanks.THD3 (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Consonant table[edit]

Thanks for noticing where I've goofed in the occurrence tables. I can be a real asshat sometimes. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 16:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures for Bruckner symphony pages[edit]

I was thinking that for the Bruckner symphony pages, we could choose pictures that are a little more contemporaneous to the time he wrote the Urfaßung. The Wöss edition of the 0th, for example, has a picture of Bruckner as a young man, while the same edition of the 9th has a picture of his death mask. Though on the other hand, if we did this, it could be seen as a kind of plagiarism... Anton Mravcek 21:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest adding such pictures in the article. For the template, it is probably good to have a uniform appearance. Grover cleveland 14:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta FA[edit]

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Vedic period[edit]

Tournesol.png thanks for helping clean out the substandard additions to the Vedic articles. dab (𒁳) 07:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenician brahmi ph a.png. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Phoenician brahmi a.png. The copy called Image:Phoenician brahmi a.png has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Musicians who left Nazi Germany[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Musicians who left Nazi Germany, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Microvillous inclusion disease[edit]

Hi Grover,

Why is microvillous inclusion disease non-diagnosable with amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling? (I'm asking 'cause I don't have access to Recent Advances in Paediatrics.)

Is it that the gene has not be identified?

(That's what I'm thinking, as there are only approximately two dozen identified cases world wide according to OMIM. If it is so, we should include that in the article -- 'cause it isn't that it is non-diagnosable by genetics, it is just that we don't yet know the gene/exactly where to look in the genome. :-) ) Nephron  T|C 19:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nephron,
You can go directly to the referenced source (Recent Advances in Paediatrics) by clicking on the link in the reference, which goes to Google Books. Hope that helps. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the source. It is impossible to tell what the references are for that statement, from what is available online. I'm not impressed by the textbook; saying it is only diagnosable by biopsy is a very weak statement for a disease that is genetic and appears to follow an autosomal recessive pattern. I found a better reference (Nestle Nutr Workshop Ser Pediatr Program. 2007;59:73-85; discussion 85-8. PMID 17245092). It states what I thought; the gene(s) are not known. Nephron  T|C 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hot off the presses in Nature Genetics, a large group of collaborating scientists from several countries have published this: MYO5B mutations cause microvillus inclusion disease and disrupt epithelial cell polarity, Nature Genetics, 2008 August 24. (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)MIDmom

Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Gospel of Thomas[edit]

I did not want you to think I was starting an edit war with the revert I just did. Here is my thinking. I went to that article to do some research on where the book came from and how it is viewed. The article did not help my cause much. I found the page I referenced and it told me exactly the info i was looking for. I understand that the sentance I addded was stated in the article but I believe it should be included in the intro so that someone can just read the intro and get a quick glimps of the issue. I do not have time now to look for a better reference but I will in a couple of weeks. If you feel it needs to be reverted I understand. I will also add that the whole article seems to be WP:OR and has very few references. Cheers - GtstrickyTalk or C 19:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful editing of Joyce Hatto[edit]

Grover, the comment further up this page from Roger Arguile seems very pertinent in respect of your recent editing of Joyce Hatto: "It is also more helpful to provide citations rather than point out their absence. It is, with respect, comparatively easy to note that statements need support; it is a much more helpful though laborious task to insert them." -- Jmc (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Indeed. And, if you read WP:V, you will see that both are vital things to do. If neither you nor anyone else wants to provide the citations, the statement should be removed, per WP:V. Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Furtwangler Bruckner 5 intro.ogg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Furtwangler Bruckner 5 intro.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeux edit[edit]

That characterization about Emile Vuillermoz is in the Berman article, but it's no big deal to take it out. The entry is fine w/o it. DJRafe (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it would be fine to say that "according to Berman, Vuillermoz is one of the work's few defenders", but stated as straight fact it leaves a very POV taste in my mouth. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mahler's Symphony Nº 8[edit]

Hi, Grover. I had never seen this image of the dress rehearsal of Mahler's magnum opus. Amazing stuff ! Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. I found it in Richard Specht's book "Gustav Mahler", published in 1913: it's a real Alladin's cave of illustrations, many more of which could probably be used in Wikipedia. You can view the complete book for free on Google Books: here's the link to the 8th symphony rehearsal picture. Grover cleveland (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Grover, you're right: the Specht book is a treasure trove (thanks for the link). The possibility of using material like this is what makes Wikipedia unique. I look forward to reading you future mahlerian contributions (by the way, your trimming of some POV stuff on his Symphony nª 6 was most welcome). Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing comments of users on article discussion page[edit]

Grover, thanks for the tip about changes I made on the discussion page of article English. It was an honest mistake, in fact I did sign it and put the comment in brackets so it should have been clear that I was interjecting not modifying, but I didn't follow the correct formatting. Now I have discovered and used the undo-edit feature; it is the simplest solution. Tim Richardson (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

clinton dosent call for ferraro resignation[edit]

i think the source i got adresses the issue. see the discussion page on the article. Cubguy83 (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Geraldine Ferraro[edit]

I have a few concerns about your changes to the referencing. Using the templates is good but I'm not sure CNN is really a stronger source than the Politico (which is journalistic blog so it has some credibility) and your change from the Baltimore Sun blog to the Reno Gazette. It's not that I disagree, necessarily but it seems rather arbitrary. gren グレン 02:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:V does allow that blogs under the full editorial control of a newspaper etc. may be cited, but surely a formally published piece by a major news organization is preferable as a source? Do we know exactly what level of editorial control and fact-checking goes on before a blogger on a site like Politico makes a post? I don't but I'm pretty sure that it is less than what would be expected for a essay or article. It doesn't seem arbitrary to me. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ureli Corelli Hill[edit]

Thanks for letting me know. I have put the places of birth and death back into the article. I think this situation is unusual because the infobox creator invariably takes information from the article, not the other way round, but I will watch out for it in future. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Classical music blogs[edit]

Thanks for spotting and removing the anti-Lebrecht rant. There had been so many changes to the article before I removed the blog links section that I never noticed that had been slipped in there too. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Florida Democratic primary, 2008[edit]

Thank you for your edit of my change. I had forgotten that SC was one of the four. Although I wish that could be referenced in that passage, it would be clunky wording. Charles Oppermann (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Victor de Sabata[edit]

Actually, I think it's a very high B, and added it to my watchlist to work on at some future point and nominate for GA, which is the next step. I think it has FA potential too, and would love to help you with it. Some quick suggestions:

  • There are a number of unreferenced statements and paragraphs. I'll go through and put cite needed tags on them.
  • Two images is slim for an article of this length. If there are more images out there, they should be added.
  • The anecdotes of musical abilities section should be changed from a list into straight text.
  • The selected discography should be changes from a list into a discography table (I can work on this - I have some experience with tables)
  • I'm not sure what MoS says, but it seems odd to me to have the media section midway down the page, with more text after it. How is this handled on other classical music pages?
  • The family connections and quote sections are unnecessary and should be folded into the biographical text.
  • Again, I don't know how this is done with other classical music biographies, but I think the selected discography, compositions, notable premieres, and even media sections might be able to fit as subsections of one larger 'Works' section.

Those are just my first thoughts. I think the best next step, after these changes but before GA nomination, would be to get Yannismarou or someone like him to take a look at wp:bio peer review. Marrio (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Herod Archelaus[edit]

Just wanted to say thank you for the answer. Do you have any idea what might have been in someones mind when they originally wrote Hyrcanus II? Best wishes. (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

School of American Ballet[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Grover cleveland. You have new messages at Robertgreer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

May 2008[edit]

Information.svg Regarding your comments on Talk:Chappaquiddick incident: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't quite understand what you are referring to. I don't think I have made any edits on that page that could be construed as a personal attack. Could you point me to a diff that contains the objectionable material? Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite sorry; while reviewing recent changes I somehow ended up at this diff, which I misread and improperly attributed some comments to you. My sincerest apologies. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
no problem. Grover cleveland (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"New" Bruckner images[edit]

Bruckner erhaelt Diplom.png

I happened to have a scan on my hard drive, so I just cleaned it up a little bit in Photoshop (mainly burning his sleeves a little bit and dodging his face just a smidge). I leave it up to you to decide if this is good enough for use here. Anton Mravcek (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! Grover cleveland (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusing(ed?) edit summary[edit]

Your edit summary here seems to be a response to my own restoration of sourced material in the "Urban legend" section, not to the anonymous IP address that you actually did revert. I think it is important to cite the fact that people from Berlin actually do refer to themselves as Berliners here. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops -- sorry. No offense intended! Grover cleveland (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
None taken. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated Reverts to Ich Bin Ein Berliner article[edit]

I question why you have repeatedly removed my edits to this article, updating the "References in popular culture" to reflect recent news reports both in the U.S. and Germany regarding a recent speech by Senator Barack Obama near the location of President Kennedy's famous speech, as well as those of Presidents Reagan and Clinton. Althought I realize that not "all" such "Ich bin ein . . ." references would be appropriate, the one with respect to Barack Obama is of particular relevance because of the location of his speech and the controversy attendant thereto, both in the U.S. and abroad. I believe media reaction to his speech, including the mere fact that he was giving a speech at the same locaton as those former Presidents, merits particular attention and relevance with respect to references in popular culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rburleigh (talkcontribs) 03:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. As far as I can see, the reference to Obama is simply one commentator on Fox News making a rather unfunny joke, which seems to have originated in the right-wing blogosphere. It's not as though Obama said it himself. I can't see how this is something to "merit particular attention and relevance". Even the Clinton reference to beer is arguably more notable, since the former president is alleged to have said the words himself (although I don't think the Clinton reference belongs in the article either). If you wish to pursue this further I would suggest using the IBEB talk page, since then other editors could then add their opinions. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


A good bit of your assertions on Chappaquiddick incident rely on Damore's book. Can you give me more information on why you think it qualifies as a reliable source, especially given some of the conclusions it makes? I'm not saying it's not reliable, I just want a little more information. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In nearly all of what is quotes, Damore himself gives further sources (e.g. the inquest testimony). I can go into further details if necessary. I have tried to be careful to put in nothing that relies on Damore's bare assertion alone, but I can double-check if you like. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of the assertions seem at first glance to be biased; while I don't doubt that Damore made the assertion, I do question his neutrality in all this and am not entirely convinced that he is an end-all authority on the subject (or that his assertions are correct). The most striking example that comes to mind is the assertion that the judge acted improperly. I can't claim to know what is true one way or another, but my formal education is in law, and in most cases judges have significant latitude and discretion. I'm just not entirely comfortable with some of the changes, and am hoping there are additional resources to be used. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I assuming you are referring to the claim that a suspended sentence was inconsistent with MA law for a failure to appear. I've reviewed Damore's references, and it appears that this is just the opinion of one Massachusetts attorney that the author consulted. I'm removing that claim, unless I can find some more sustantive justification for it. Thanks for checking! Grover cleveland (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Grover, Leo Damore actually appears on the BBC film on "Chappaquiddick"..I just wrote the following note for you on the Chappaquiddick edit site in reference to the question "Why no mention of the BBC documentary?":

Dear Grover, I just saw this question and your response. I was the producer/director of the BBC documentary referred to. As there are guidelines on wikipedia about special interest, I hesitate to add the ref to the article itself. But if you consider it useful you may wish to do so. The documentary is called "Chappaquiddick", made in 1994 for the 25th anniversary of the event and shown on the BBC's "Inside Story" series and in the US on A&E's "Investigative Reports".Produced by Otmoor Productions for the BBC.Directed by John Edginton.see to purchase from A&E. (i'm not sure of the rules on commercial references) The film has interviews with many of the key players including police chief Jim Arena, diver John Farrar,Kennedy aide Dun Gifford, writer Leo Damore ,one of the "boiler room" girls and others. New forensics and crash scene investigations informed the conclusion that Kennedy had left the car before it crashed with Mary Jo driving. I leave it to your judegement ,if any of this helps the article..Yours seabream Seabream (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)seabreamSeabream (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Barry Wordsworth[edit]

Hello Gc. I have some concerns about the weight given to a controversy mentioned in this article, and have raised those concerns on its talk page. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Chapdelaine - NPOV check request[edit]

Hi. I'm who (back in early July 2008) posted a couple of praise words in the Daniel Barenboim article, which you readily disciplined. Here are our entries in its revision history, for your convenience:

# (cur) (last) O 15:31, 2 July 2008 Grover cleveland (Talk | contribs) (41,354 bytes) (rv last edit.   
Addition of POV material. If you object to the NPOV policy, then persuade other Wikipedians to form
a consensus to change it.) (undo)
# (cur) (last) O 19:50, 1 July 2008 AVM (Talk | contribs) (41,712 bytes) (Better some praise than a
feeble introduction - if it's POV, then it's an international, unanimous POV) (undo)

OK, now I request that you please take a hard look at the Michael Chapdelaine article. What do you make of it? Thanks, --AVM (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed what appears to be the most egregious material. Grover cleveland (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Presidential heights[edit]

Actually, if you had reliable source for presidential heights and you had either a reliable source giving the margins of error or a common-sense, extremely-unlikely-to-be-false indication of the margin of error, you could still make a chart and indicate rank. You would just have to indicate when two measurements were within the combined margin of error.

For example: RS1: "Person 1 61 inches tall." Reasonable expectation of margin of error given the source: +/- 0.5 inches RS2: "Person 2 is 5 feet tall." Reasonable expectation of margin of error given the source: +/- 0.5 foot RS3: "Person 3 is 72.3 inches tall." Reasonable expectation of margin of error given the source: +/- 0.05 inches

The kicker over whether this in WP:SYN or WP:COMMONSENSE is how likely your "reasonable expectation of margin of error" is to be wrong in a big way.

For example, for contemporary scientific measurements taken in Western countries from reliable labs, the margin of error is +/- 0.5 of the least significant digit, unless stated otherwise. This is the common scientific and engineering practice and can be widely sourced. On the other hand, the margin of error for measurements done in antiquity is less certain.

If, instead of heights of presidents, it was masses of known asteroids in the Solar System. Let's say nobody had bothered to create a ranked list of the masses of known asteroids in the solar system, but that every known mass had published data including it's estimated mass and the margin of error, within a 95% confidence interval, of that mass. It would not be WP:SYN to create a chart with an ordered list of these masses, as long as it was clear when two adjacent items on the list had overlapping margins of error and it was clear what "margin of error" really meant - in this case, that the odds are 19 out of 20 that the actual mass is within the stated margin of error. To claim that such an article could not be created because it was inherently WP:SYN is WP:SILLY and demands an invocation of WP:IAR.

Where good records are kept, hereditary lists are even easier, assuming the cited source material is credible. If someone is the firstborn legitimate son, he is the first in the line of heirs, unless there are grounds to exclude him. As I pointed out elsewhere, assuming the newborn child of 2 Protestants is a Protestant for the purposes of succession is a safe bet, assuming otherwise will almost always result in an incorrect list. Likewise, assuming an infant has not yet married a Catholic is a safe bet, since such a marriage cannot happen today in infancy. I don't have to cite the marriage laws of all 200+ nations of the earth to say that. I could go on and on. The point is there are certain things in this world that can be assumed to be true unless proven otherwise, and no citation is necessary.

When it comes to things on Wikipedia, the general unwritten rule for citations is "if anyone could conceivably challenge the statement, be prepared to cite it; if a challenge is likely, cite it; if anyone could conceivably challenge the statement and WP:BLP applies, cite it." "Conceivably challenge" is assumed to mean "conceivably challenge with a sincere belief that the statement might be false or that someone else might sincerely think it is false" as opposed to "conceivably challenge knowing it is true and that nobody else will challenge it's accuracy, just to make busy-work." Much of what you are doing appears to be the latter. This may indicate that I'm too dense to see the real reason behind your challenges. Please enlighten me.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Many thanks for your considerate note! Actually in this edit I wasn't 'characterizing another editor's contribution as "ignorant amateur nonsense",' -- I was describing the book by Acharya S from which the stuff in question was taken (which is a fairly widely held opinion). But clearly I should have made that clear. (Any idea why, when I use four tildes, my name isn't hyperlinked? Does one have to do that manually?) Roger Pearse 09:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK: sorry for the misunderstanding. Anyway, nice to talk to you. As for the hyperlinked name, try going to "My Preferences -> User Profile" and make sure that "Raw profile" is unchecked. Grover cleveland (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


I just want to say thanks for various helpful edits you've made recently. Like this one:

"interpretation of Palin's information as 'political' threat rather than violence not explicit: seems to be OR"

I bet there's a smoother way to format this remark, but I don't know what it is. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

subpoena penalty[edit]

I agree that the info is relevant, IMO. However, including it is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Just a heads up. Homunq (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a WP:SYNTH violation if the connection has already been made by a cited reliable source. Here there are several such reliable source that have mentioned the subpoena penalty in the context of the dispute: e.g. Grover cleveland (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TimeMagazineRodzinski.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:TimeMagazineRodzinski.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

/ɔɪ/, not /ɔj/, in Blagojevich[edit]

You look like you know what you're doing but it is my understanding that the convention is to spell the "oi" diphthong as /ɔɪ/ wherever it occurs, even if there's another vowel. Wikipedia coverage of this is minimal, but see Diphthong#English and [6] (dictionary entry for "boyish" in IPA). Soap Talk/Contributions 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Bruckner Symphony[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:Infobox Bruckner Symphony 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. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 03:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Category:Orchestras in Monaco[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Orchestras in Monaco, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Orchestras in Monaco is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Orchestras in Monaco, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic[edit]

Please have a look at Talk:Fundamental_theorem_of_arithmetic#Detailed_proof_of_uniqueness_removed. --PST 13:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

I removed the {{who}} tag you restored yesterday, not because it may not be warranted, but because there is an additional {{who}} who tag just a few words before it in the same sentence. Feel free to move that one to a new location if you think it could be made clearer, but I think multiple duplicate tags in the same sentence is a bit much.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Te Deum laudamus[edit]

I just wanted you to be the first to know about the new article Te Deum (Bruckner). Hopefully you can edit it before the "Schalks" and "Lowe" try to have their way with it. James470 (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd still like you to take a look at that article and make whatever edits you deem appropriate. James470 (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to tango[edit]

You will recall removing an unsourced phrase in the last sentence in the first paragraph of this article:

"... [This] common idiomatic expression which suggests something in which more than one person or other entity are paired in an inextricably-related and active manner, occasionally with negative connotations. The phrase recognizes that there are certain activities which cannot be achieved singly -- like arguing, making love, dancing the tango[1] and editing Wikipedia."

You construed this as an unfunny joke.

I have restored the phrase because it was my main reason for creating the article. When I encounter an otherwise unavoidable dispute, I thought it might be a good strategy to use linked idioms like this one to say a great deal in very few words. Regrettably, I hadn't imagined that this small phrase might be seen as a joke.

If I were to associate a citation with the phrase, it would be unassailable in terms of WP:V; but my intent -- and the plausibly constructive usefulness -- is dissipated if others construe this phrase as you have done.

Can you suggest a way to re-write this paragraph so that Wikipedia's collaborative nature is emphasized rather than lampooned? --Tenmei (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm afraid I'm not sure how to help here. It isn't clear to me that editing Wikipedia requires multiple people in the same way that a tango requires two dancers -- one can imagine one (very busy) person making every single edit in Wikipedia, but it's not possible to imagine one person, however talented or energetic, performing the tango on his/her own. And the reference that you (or someone else) added doesn't really seem to claim that there is anything essentially communal about Wikipedia. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for giving this some thought. I'll try to find a more pointed citation. Please hold this in the back of your mind for a few days. Maybe a constructive suggestion will occur to you in an unexpected moment. I'd like to figure out a way to improve this introductory paragraph.
In any event, I do appreciate the feedback ... even though you're telling me that it simply needs more work. --Tenmei (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category talk:Locations visible on Google Street View[edit]

I have nominated Category:Locations visible on Google Street View (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of Leonardo Ciampa article[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Leonardo Ciampa, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe actually used a newbie template on you. Does he have any idea how long you've been editing? Also, BonGens thinks you and I are sockpuppets!THD3 (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if it's even worth the trouble dealing with Ciampa. According to this site (, it's mostly getting hits from the editors.THD3 (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it got Mr Ciampa coverage in a few books that reprint content uncritically from Wikipedia. Do a Google Books search and you'll find them. I understand if you want to bow out on this after tonight though. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The anon user is out of control. He just put my real name on the AfD page!THD3 (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
That should be enough to get him banned. I will support any application -- let me know. Grover cleveland (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. I have made the request here [[7]] and the administrator has already removed the pertinent information from the AfD history. What a way to ruin my night! I should know better than to edit Wikipedia after 8pm.THD3 (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added a little to your complaint. Bad luck with the violation: hopefully no one saw it (I didn't). This kind of behavior is reminiscent of User:LorenzoPerosi1898 who tried to fake that I and another user (who happened, fortunately, to live in New Zealand) were sockpuppets of each other. That's what got him banned. Grover cleveland (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm being accused of sockpuppetry! [8]. I'd appreciate any defense you can offer.THD3 (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Hopefully the page will get deleted at the end of all this, and the sockpuppets will go home. Grover cleveland (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


How likely do you think it is that BonGens is a sockpuppet of User:LorenzoPerosi1898 and GiovaneScuola2006, i.e, Leonardo Ciampa himself? I think it's very likely. He has a very limited editorial history, focusing on Ciampa and another organist from the Boston area. He also made an edit to Vladimir Horowitz that closely paralells a post Ciampa made to the Horowitz Experience Yahoo group.THD3 (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's possible, although if so he/she has made some (seemingly) out-of-character and reasonable edits such as this one. But then there's this one, which does make you wonder... Grover cleveland (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I remember reading somewhere that Ciampa now lives in Cambridge, MA, which would explain the fact tag. Orient Heights is a rather low-end neighborhood (right near Logan Airport - lots of jet noise) so Ciampa may no longer want to be associated with it. Then again, if I had a wikipedia article, I would NEVER want people to know where I live. By the way, I found two clips of Ciampa playing on youtube. [9] Whether or not Ciampa's worthy of a wikipedia article, as a pianist he's pretty mediocre, IMO.THD3 (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
A pianist wannabe named Hank Drake also has YouTube clips that are the very definition of an amateur without ideas. But I don't feel that personal opinions like that of Ciampa above or of Drake here are appropriate or helpful. Why engage in it? BonGens (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably best not to get into this type of discussion. Grover cleveland (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that User:LeonardoCiampa had his revenge. A wiki article was written about me (no doubt by one of his sockpuppets)!THD3 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Guess who's back: LeonardoCiampa. At least he's using his own name now.THD3 (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Vladimir Horowitz[edit]

You are invited to participate in a discussion going on at the Horowitz talk page regarding the Ukrainian/Russian question, which is being driven by ClassicalMusica, who appears to be a single purpose editor.THD3 (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance with the article. I really don't care whether Horowitz is listed as Russian, Ukranian, American, or Martian. But I don't want the article bogged down with qualifying statements which is where the other authors were leading us - I much prefer conciseness. It seems that over the past few weeks, we've had a popping up of editors who are approaching this page with an agenda. Namely, User:Galassi User:Bandurist User:ClassicalMusica. I can't help but wonder if they're the same person. But after the whole Leonardo Ciampa fiasco, I'm not getting into that again. (There have been further repercussions for me that I prefer not to go into here.) I make no pretensions about myself: I am a Horowitz fan (even met him in 1986), as I am of Rubinstein and a host of others. But I have tried to maintain balance in the article and included critical references. Have a great weekend.THD3 (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Giorgi Latsabidze‎[edit]

Hello User:Grover cleveland! I'd be grateful if you could have a look at this article. I am concerned about the general tone (Talk:Giorgi Latsabidze‎) and the lists used at the end of the article. The creator of the article has taken ownership of it and is working very hard to establish the notability of this pianist, but in a way that might not be following Wikipedia policies. Cheers!--Karljoos (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to this article. Previous comments have been almost exclusively in the form of added banners, which are far less helpful in reaching a final acceptable result. It is clear that the information presented in the article is not properly organized for an encyclopedia. For example, much of the reference material that you see lacking is actually present elsewhere in the article, but would require the reader to perhaps make more of an effort at making the connections himself than is customary in this context. It will take some time to restructure the material in an acceptable manner, but I will try to at least add any required references to the biography section as an interim measure. Please go ahead and mark the sentences that you feel require referencing, and I will remove the marks as I add the references. If there is no reference currently available, I will remove the sentence until a suitable reference can be found. Music43lover (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding comment on "length of Performance reviews" section - the intention here is to provide support for the statement in the biography that "Latsabidze is already regarded by many as one of the more significant performers of his generation". Do you recommend that I just delete this statement, or is there some other way to support it other than providing representative critical reviews that say so? Music43lover (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You have to delete it, since even with the quotations it counts as WP:SYN. Grover cleveland (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not heard from you lately, so I assume that you have lost interest in or given up on this article. But I have done a lot of additional work on it, totally revising and reorganizing the article, adding references, eliminating the separate sections for performances and review quotes, omitting some last peacocks, etc., largely in response to your suggestions, which I found very helpful. The article still needs work that I can recognize (e.g., perhaps more information regarding his music composition history), and probably other work that I can't. The main question that I have currently is in regard to some of the external links that other editors have added recently at the bottom of the article. They are not objectionable to me, but may not be considered to be appropriate in an encyclopedic article if they are considered to be excessively promotional. Are such external links acceptable? Any other suggestions that you might also have would be very much appreciated. Music43lover (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your work on the article:it has improved a lot. The external links look fine to me. I still have concerns about the lack of citations for much of the biographical material. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. Thank you for the reassurance on the recent changes. As far as the needed citations, I could really use some guidance here. There are just a few statements in the "Music Education" and "Performance Overview" sections that do not already have references. Some of these statements would appear too trivial or unsurprising to require substantiation - e.g., that he started lessons at age 6, but perhaps they still need a citation. His web site, which has not been well maintained in many ways for some time, should perhaps include such details in its biography page. I can suggest that to Latsabidze. Would that be a suitable reference if one is needed? Other statements in the same section are of course not trivial, but are already referenced. For example, the sentence that begins "While there, at age 10 ..." contains several claims. There is already a reference to the organization in Georgia that ran the competition and can verify the facts presented. Is this not adequate? Anyone can write or e-mail them and they can verify the facts stated. It would be better if some document already existed that could be referenced with a click, but the events occurred 20 years ago and it is unlikely that such an existing document would be on line. Could these facts also be referenced on his web site if they were stated there? (I realize now that some of these facts were obtained by me through direct correspondence and thus would constitute "original research". In my professional life, I get paid for original research, which is as natural to me as breathing, but I guess is a no-no on Wikipedia.)

There may be other statements that may require references that are not evident to me. (Remember this is my first article on Wikipedia and my first biography, period.) I realize that this would require some effort on your part, but it would be so helpful if you would go ahead and mark the statements that are inadequately cited. You could do so without excessively marking the article itself by instead marking the working copy that I use myself to try changes before I implement them, at User:Music43lover/Work_in_progress. (This would be very much appreciated.) If you would also add a comment on what kind of citation would be adequate (where it is not obvious), that would be even better. If I appear obsessive about this article, be assured that (much to my wife's dismay) I am like that with a lot of things that I do. I really want this to have a good result. Music43lover (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Discography and article links to product pages[edit]

The site "the" has been blacklisted because it has been observed that it is often linked by spammers. See this discussion MediaWiki As someone who has worked on discographies perhaps you have an opinion about providing links to product pages in articles and/or discographies, or know of a page where one could solicit opinions. Robert.Allen (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


We are not a collection of trivial or solely "interesting" information. We're an encyclopedia, and whether someone did or did not receive three months of technical support is not biographical. user:J aka justen (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

French Orthography[edit]

I have a printout from last year of quite a long text on grapheme to phoneme correspondences in French which you seemed to be working up as a draft article or possible update to French orthography. I found that quite helpful with my efforts on some French educational materials on Wikibooks, so I would be interested to know if you have put that work formally into a Wikipedia article. Thanks. Recent Runes (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Recent Runes. I'll glad it was helpful. It's not in a formal article, but it's still available at User:Grover cleveland/French orthography. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

iPhone app for watchlist[edit]

I see you asked about an iPhone app for watchlist a few months ago. Did you ever manage to find one? I'm looking for one too. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. Let me know if you find anything. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your recent edit to Hypercorrection: it arguably makes things clearer.

My point about the "Anglo-Indian spelling convention" was that the spelling "Punjab" is a relic of the OLDER Anglo-Indian spelling (like "suttee", "cummerbund", "thug", "Calcutta", "mulligatawny", "Juggernaut"), in which "u" does represent the neutral vowel. The mention of "cup" meant not that that was the exact sound, but that that was the analogy used in choosing that letter. It is only for this reason that the pronunciation "Poonjab" is a hyperforeignism rather than a mere mistake: it is assumed that "u" is to be sounded as in modern transliterations (Mumbai etc.). I agree it shouldn't be reinstated until we find a source. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the older spelling (in which words such as "Hindu" were spelled "Hindoo"). Thanks for your comment. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Grover cleveland! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 2,014 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Leoš Svárovský - Find sources: "Leoš Svárovský" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Alexamenos graffito[edit]

Ah, sorry - I overshot when removing the thicket of 19th century refs. Johnbod (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I think this was the very first article I created many years ago, when I didn't have such a good understanding of Wikipedia. Many thanks for your work improving it. Grover cleveland (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your good work policing the flim flam entries on the Reconciliation (United States Congress) page. -- Dauster (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to help. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Another good catch that last edit. -- Dauster (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

IPA: Cheshire[edit]

Hi Grover, I couldn't help noticing the brief question and answer on Kwami's talk page. I and several others do not agree entirely with the explantions provided by the Wikipedia IPA project, and consider the incursion of a final rhotic r to be misleading. Unfortunately, to get the background and the full story - and to draw you own conclusions - you'll need to do some reading. Don't worry it's not technical:

Good luck, and if you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you may misunderstand me. I fully support the inclusion of the /r/ in the IPA-en template for pronunciation. I just objected to the HTML comment claiming that RP pronounces the /r/ in Cheshire. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently not. The r in Cheshire is not pronounced - by practically anyone in fact - which you appear from your comment to agree upon.--Kudpung (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, obviously rhotic speakers don't qualify as "practically anyone" for you -- but that has long been apparent :) Grover cleveland (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rach maidens wish.ogg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Rach maidens wish.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


I have absolutely no intentions whatsoever of disparaging the Americans or any other nation. I have stated what I genuinely feel to be facts drawn from the comments of some participants in this saga, and a long attempt offline with one of them in the best of good faith to understand the intransigence and terse comments that abound in this topic that has been going on since December. If you would like some diffs for some real personal attacks, and downright incivility by some of the participants, I would be happy to supply them. The IPA discussion has an unfortunate propensity for bullying people away from it. Perhaps it's it's time I left too, and let arrogance, strong egos, and minority opinion have their way. I have no interest whatsover either of making my Wikipedia experience an unpleasant one, and have plenty of other areas where my work and contribs are welcome without me being stalked, hounded, abused, and slandered.--Kudpung (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Cruyff and what makes something a synthesis[edit]

Dear Grover, I believe that in applying the synthesis rule here you overlooked that the paragraph you restored twice is a synthesis itself through deliberate omissions, emphasis and selection of quotes. This paragraph, with "Dutch legend JC publicly criticised his countrymen", is meant to convey that even a complete Dutch partisan as Cruijff thinks that the Dutch were goons who deserved to lose. Apparently very few people, reporters included, know that he publicly and intensely rooted against the Netherlands before the game (It is Spain's game to lose but I will take intense joy if they win it). His bias is understandable, since almost half the Spanish team's players are in his own Barca and Catalonian teams and he is constantly credited for creating the current Spanish playing style, but he should not be introduced as someone who saw the game through orange glasses. What if Guus Hiddink, after the Netherlands-Russia game in the last European Cup finals had told a Russian newspaper reporter "The Dutch were no match for a superior Russian team"; would you allow the sentence "The legendary Dutch coach Guus Hiddink publicly had to admit that the Russians were far better than his own countrymen" without mentioning that he was Russia's coach at the time?

Further obvious position advancements are selecting the words "ugly", "vulgar", and "anti-football" from his statements and omitting things like him saying that the Spanish had played poorly (very few articles copied that tidbit) and the characteristically mangled and illogical, "yes it served the Dutch to unsettle Spain. If with this they got satisfaction, fine, but they ended up losing." This gets over 10,000 google hit, and probably translates to "If they had been able to win like this, fine, but they ended up losing"; Apparently, if Robben had lifted the ball a quarter inch higher Cruyff would have had to agree with the Dutch approach, which he claimed to be deliberately modeled after Inter Milan's style of beating Barcelona earlier this year.

Finally, I've tried but failed to understand what you could find wrong about adding that he said these things in El Periodico de Catalunya).

Feel free to move this text to the appropriate discussion page, if you want to discuss, though hopefully I've been convincing enough that you now jump to rectify the offending paragraph yourself ;-) There are an overabundance of source for this; best would be the original Catalonian newspaper if that's available online. Afasmit (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made some changes to try to address your concerns. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! There's a lot of flux in this article of course. It will be interesting to see it a few months from now. Afasmit (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Rand Paul[edit]

Please know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. We are not here to serve as the main vehicle for tantalizing claims on biographies of living persons. Truthsort (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation here. The information has been reported by just about every media outlet in the country (not just "tabloids" as you call them). Grover cleveland (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
So what? The content itself that is being covered in the media is tabloid fodder and we are not here to add unsubstantial allegations. All we have here is one unidentified woman's accusations. I'd like you to be more aware of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Truthsort (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Top 43 Sexiest Presidents[edit]

Can you please give me a valid reason or show me a page on the rules for wikipedia that states or suggests somehow that the Top 43 Sexiest Presidents is not a notable ranking? It sounds like Original Work for anyone to determine that not to be notable, just by the content of it. It's ranks 43 presidents. The Article is named Historical Ranking of Presidents. It does not define what types of rankings, just historical rankings. This is a valid ranking that exists and its from a reputable source.

So, I cannot see why this should be excluded. It ranks, it's just a different form of rank, which is why I did not include it in the chart above, it's a secondary section. The C. D. Strand that you removed as well, that is debatable whether or not that's a reputable source, but thats a different ranking all together. That I can understand if it must be taken down. But, I strongly feel a separate section for the Top 43 Sexiest Presidents adds value to this article. There doesn't seem to be many polls to compare and look at on this subject. The more the merrier as long as they come from reputable sources

As far as other additions to this article, as long as they come from a reputable source and cover at least 95% of all Presidents they should be included in the chart above. If there are not matching the criteria of the chart, they should have a separate article as long as they come from a reputable source. Which is why I still think the top 43 sexiest should remain as a separate section. TruthSort had already remove both my additions, I reverted, but only meant to keep the 43 sexiest section. I didn't want to start an edit war, so I hoping I could discuss it with you. Thanks. --Diamond Dave (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The list of presidents came from a personal website, contradicting WP:RS and WP:SPS. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
That I agree, however, the sexiest presidents list is from a reputable source, The is a reputable source. The Top 43 Sexiest should be ok. The C. D. Strand addition from , I wasn't sure if that was necessarily reputable, so I can understand that being removed. But a section should remain for the Top 43 Sexiest Presidents because it has a reputable source. It shouldn't be included in the chart, but should have a section within the article. --Diamond Dave (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

World Cup average attendances[edit]

I agree with your changes at 1994 FIFA World Cup, but I find it strange that the sourced average attendance for the 1950 tournament doesn't tally with the attendances given in the match reports. – PeeJay 00:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

1958 World Cup problem with goal average[edit]

Hi there. I've seen you've edited some phrases in the 1962 World Cup regarding the format change from 1958. I think it better as it was before, since there's only Wikipedians suppositions what lead to affirm that goal average was in use in 1958. I didn't want to undo your edit without your opinion on this, so I suggest you check out the discussion at the 1958 article and let me know what you think. Regards. Ipsumesse (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. I was assuming that what was in the 1958 article was correct. Cheers! Grover cleveland (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Are trills sonorants?[edit]

Hi – you removed the Welsh "rh" (voiceless trill) from sonorant, on the grounds that "A trill is by definition an obstruent". That goes against manner of articulation, which states "Voiceless sonorants are uncommon, but are found in Welsh and Classical Greek (the spelling "rh")..." Do you know a source that lists all the manners of articulation considered sonorant, to clear this up? Lfh (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:De sabata poster.jpg[edit]


Thank you for uploading File:De sabata poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Leoš Svárovský[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Leoš Svárovský, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from, and therefore a copyright violation... Plad2 (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't me! Grover cleveland (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
You are completely correct. I do apologise. I will be more careful in the future . The material was added later by an IP. Please delete the above if you would rather not have it cluttering up your talk page. --Plad2 (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian Portuguese talk[edit]

I replied to your comment on the Brazilian Portuguese talk page from 23 July 2010 entitled "Elision of final unstressed /i/". I didn't answer your question very well, but I gave you some links to a web site I thought might be helpful. It's a great web site for answering questions you may have about Brazilian Portuguese. (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 14:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Middle English phonology[edit]

Regarding this edit, I have to ask who is "Dobson"? Your edit also caused a "Cite Error" (fixed) as {{Reflist}} was missing from the references section. Regards, 220.101 talk\Contribs 11:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoops: fixed now. Thanks for letting me know! Grover cleveland (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Way to go! Face-smile.svg - 220.101 talk\Contribs 17:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:De Sabata Pearl BPO.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:De Sabata Pearl BPO.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Tarski's axioms, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Equality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Deck the Halls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative[edit]

Hi Grover cleveland,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Beecham and others[edit]

How pleasing to see you editing the Thomas Beecham article. You gave me valuable advice and helpful steers when I was first editing WP years ago. So good to see you again. Happy editing! Tim riley (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't have much time for Wikipedia editing now with two young kids, but I try to squeeze a little in here and there:) I'm very impressed by all the work you've done on the classical music articles! Grover cleveland (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Southern strategy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fourteenth Amendment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Two's complement[edit]

Your edits destroyed the correct typography for minus signs. Fix is please, otherwise I will restore an old version. Your improvement is cosmetic only, so you must preserve existing cosmetic features. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed: thanks for letting me know. Grover cleveland (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Jim Yong Kim[edit]

I've been a distinct part-timer on this article in the middle of its "spotlight" moment; but trying to bring some perspective to bear.

I was starting to poke through the history for the $30,000 coffee machine and happened to see I'd just "pushed [gently I think] back" on one of your edits re: the 2011 Security Report. I've addressed my edit in the talk-page bit and am hoping maybe my re-edit on the subject will meet your concerns. In any event, thought I'd draw it to your attention. You can address it at the Talk or here or I guess just reverse it. All told, I think the article has served well; 35,000 hits (7x my estimate y'day); even (or, moreso) with Politico .... Interesting for sure.

Cheers. Swliv (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Goal average[edit]

Where is the evidence that goal average was not used as a tie-breaker at the 1950 FIFA World Cup? All we have right now is one anonymous editor's word on the article talk page. He claims that goal average did not appear in the tournament rules as a tie-breaker until 1962, but where is the proof? – PeeJay 19:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a source: describing the 1962 world cup: "for the first time goal average was brought in as a means of separating teams with the same amount of points". Compact book of the World Cup Grover cleveland (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Phonological History of English Short A[edit]

As you may recall, you made extensive edits on the page entitled "Phonological history of English short A" over a year ago. I just want to know what your sources were for those edits. In particular, I'd like to know where it says that Irish English pronounces cast and cart as [kæst] and [kært], respectively. Obviously there is variation when it comes to these things, but I've never seen cast and cart transcribed that way for Irish English. When I click the superscripts it goes to Dobson, E.J. (1968). English pronunciation, 1500–1700 in the reference section, but I couldn't find anything about Irish English when I browsed those 2 volumes. Is there some book or online source you could show me where you got that information? Thank you. Accentman (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't from Dobson. It was a while ago, but I think it was from Wells, Accents of English but I could be mistaken. If you have better sourced transcriptions, please replace. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Great minds think alike[edit]

Sorry for stomping you at Keith Russell Judd! -- Kendrick7talk 03:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

no problem :) Grover cleveland (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Orchestras that claim to be the oldest in the world[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Orchestras that claim to be the oldest in the world requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. __meco (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Germanic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Law French, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Attorney and Estop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi! Nice work on the pronunciation fix! It took me ages to try and figure out how it should be, based on some sort of compromise between all three sources...but I think you got it spot on! BigSteve (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of football clubs in non-Anglophone countries with English names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franco (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iron Lady, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chelsea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sunnyvale Town Center Estimated Delays[edit]

Peter Pau's attorney has a strong bias in this issue, and he and Sand Hill's team have repeatedly made claims to the press about this project that have turned out to not be true (such as "Sand Hill owns the project", at a time when it was clearly owned by Wells Fargo). Quoting him as an authority fails WP:NPOV in a pretty big way. But I didn't want to get into an edit war with you over this, and I'm probably not a neutral source on this issue either. I'd suggest, though, that a less specific statement that there will be delays serves the article much better than a more specific WAG from an involved party with a motive for spin. Jokeboy (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The statement is now specifically attributed to Pau's attorney. Someone doesn't need to be "an authority" to be quoted, provided the quote is attributed accurately. If you want to add context where the attorney has made previous misleading statements, then go ahead. Also, if you have quotes from other people estimating a shorter (or longer) delay, then add that too. Grover cleveland (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MiFi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jailbreak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of football clubs in non-Anglophone countries with English names[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article List of football clubs in non-Anglophone countries with English names has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced cruft.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


Much enjoyed your addition to the Sabata/Callas article. I rather respect Karajan for his unabashed willingness to learn from his colleagues. Regards, Tim riley (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

In your edits to Elisha you keep inserting "YHWH"; but the English-language source does not say that. It is original research on your part to substitute "YHWH". If you think that the English-language source is wrong, then please find secondary sources that say this in clear unambiguous terms, and cite them.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laches (equity), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jon Huntsman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of U.S. state name etymologies, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Greek and Persian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Test. Grover cleveland (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shepherding (Australian rules football), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


So weird how you noticed the liberal tag in the knock out game lead but didn't take exception to the conservative label in the body of the page? Have four sources listed as media analysts-which one is not liberal? slate, daily beast, NYTimes and the civil rights reporter who happens to be a African american female-where's the NPOV one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV a value judgment like "liberal" needs to be attributed to a cited source. There is no attribution or citation in this article. Grover cleveland (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I've deleted the "conservative" on the same grounds. Grover cleveland (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Taking the conservative label out will not stay. I tried that first but was told all the sources were unquestionably conservative, I merely applied the same standards to the lead

Plan on adding the race of the other perpetrators besides the white one? As the no race or all races of the attackers won't stick either. That article is anything but informative or neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You were told wrongly. WP:NPOV always requires an attribution and citation for any value judgment that "is likely to be challenged". Grover cleveland (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

Sobo 1909 589.png
  • Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Lastly, why not try and strive to create a good article! Anatomical articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages!--(Sorry, I know you're not a 'new user', but we only have this one template :DLT910001 (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-PR edit warring[edit]

I do not know your "position" on Wiki-PR, so this is not a canvassing attempt. I would just like more eyes on the edit dispute taking place here and specifically here. I get the feeling that (as usual) Smallbones and Coretheapple are tag-teaming to keep a particular "revenge" POV in Wikipedia about paid editing, to the detriment of a wider NPOV perspective. Do your own analysis of the situation, and please weigh in on whatever side your conscience dictates. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Bill of Lading[edit]

I undid your edit. The word "key" in reference to the bill of lading is not misplaced in this situation because of the role it plays; every other document is subordinate to it, in effect, and it is the only document that is needed for every shipment. Davepoth (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luis Suárez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luis Enrique (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henny Penny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scots. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of football clubs in non-Anglophone countries with English names for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of football clubs in non-Anglophone countries with English names is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of football clubs in non-Anglophone countries with English names until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 02:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Grover cleveland. You asked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of football clubs in non-Anglophone countries with English names for an explanation of how the list might violate the 'No original research' policy. The section you linked to, WP:SYNTHESIS, is indeed the relevant bit.
For example, the lead section of the list suggests, "Many association football clubs were founded by British expatriates in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries," and " Football clubs whose English names reflect their English founders include A. C. Milan". The book Modern Italy, 1871 to the Present is cited as a source for this. However, as far as I can tell (and I don't actually have the book; I just searched through it on Google Books), that book does not say that the team's name is a consequence of its British founders. If, in this example, we have one source that says Milan is the English name for it:Milano, and another source that says A.C. Milan was founded by two Brits, then the suggestion that the latter is the reason for the former is a conclusion based on synthesis. It may not be an unreasonable conclusion, but it's still controversial from the standpoint of Wikipedia policy. That is the reasoning you would want to either argue against at AfD or fix in the list article. Hope this helps. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks -- I appreciate your taking the time to reply. Grover cleveland (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)