User talk:RobertG/Archive-08

Delius thanks

RobertG

Please accept this star as a token of thanks for your help in getting Frederick Delius to FA standard. This was truly the work of many hands, and your particular contribution was much valued. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Article expansion or new article?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Operation Magic Carpet#Service points. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

My article

Dear RobertG,

I noticed that you are an amateur pianist, me too actually, more precisely I am a professional professional violinist but I do play piano too. I have created sever articles here in Wikipedia and I must say I enjoy it.

This is an article about professional young pianist I have created. I noticed you made some minor correction before, thank you! I added a small newspaper review section today to the article i hope it's ok. If you have any general suggestions about this or other articles I am open to take it. Very best Sausa (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Only Fools and Horses cast members

The article List of Only Fools and Horses cast members has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unencyclopaedic (per Wikipedia is not a directory). Redundant vis-à-vis List of Only Fools and Horses characters.

While all 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. Ringbang (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Witold Lutoslawski

Hello RobertG! Nice to meet you in Wikiverse! I think that info about Maliszewski' students is important for Lutoslawski bio. Vilinsky was a teacher of such celebrities like Emil Gilels, David Oistrakh and Yakov Zak to name a few. Here we can talk about Witold Maliszewski teaching approach that was noted by Lutoslawski himself and some researchers of Lutoslawski and provide further details. I would be glad to know your opinion. Also I need to ask you for your help - maybe you can advise me on Wiki rules for photos and images. Thank you! Semimartingale (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too. I think Lutosławski's opinion of his teacher and his methods - and information about how those methods affected Lutosławski's development - would be relevant if it comes from a reliable source. Otherwise, information about Maliszewski and Vilinsky should live in the articles about Maliszewski and Vilinsky. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert! Sorry for the delayed response. Actually that source is very reliable - it is a big newspaper serving millions of people in Ukraine and abroad in 3 languages with the strict editorial policy. The author is an American pianist and researcher from New York. Incidentally I am involved in research on Maliszewski and Lutoslawski formative years and I have many sources handy and I would like to collaborate with you. It seems to me that we can add some other info from Rae (p.4-7). Lutoslawski before entering the conservatory as a composition student was a private student of Maliszewski. On Maliszewski's advice he quit the violin and switched his attention to the piano. Also I would like to restore info about Vilinsky (he was Maliszewski's another famous student) with a proper footnote. In my view it is important info that provides further details on the Maliszewski school. If you wish we could discuss some other composers - Josse Boutmy for example. Thank you for your attention. Regards, Semimartingale (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert! This is from Lutoslawski's interview - do you know the original source? At least in my book (1981 ed.) Stucky does not provide a proper reference. On the same page he made a mistake stating that Maliszewski was the director of Odessa conservatory since 1908. In fact the Conservatory was founded in 1913. Who are your favorite composers? Regards,Semimartingale (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Once again! Let's discuss this topic. Or if you are busy or not interested, please let me know. Best wishes, Semimartingale (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, busy! I am certainly interested in seeing the Lutoslawski article extended, but haven't time or inclination to devote to collaborating on it. I remain keen to ensure that the only information in the article should relevant, and not be about other composers - and that the relevance of the information is made plain, and not left up to the reader to infer. I am not sure that Vilinsky's influence on Lutoslawski was deep or formative, but am willing to be convinced. I am also not sure that a Ukraine national newspaper is an appropriate source for an English Wikipedia article - depends who the author of the articles is. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 07:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert! I am also very busy with my "math-n-comps" projects, so I understand you. In my view the section on Lutoslawski Family and Early Years requires some attention, mainly because it lacks precision. I wish to clarify some facts and to add at least a couple of inline notes, but not too many. As for composer Vilinsky, I think he should be mentioned, because it is necessary for the comperative studies on Maliszewski's school and teaching approach and its influence on Lutoslawski (btw vs. Szymanowski's very limited influence). And once again, in my view the Ukrainian source provides important information (incl. the unique Maliszewski 1908 photo) and it is logically justified because Maliszewski had been working in Ukraine from 1908 and until 1921. The author is the American musician and researcher, who collaborates with Connie Crothers and Bud Tristano and who wrote series of invited articles for the newspaper. Finally as I have shown before some "reliable" standard sources could be wrong. So for what reason should we ignore a valuable publication as an additional reference? I hope that our discussion has switched into high gear and it would not remind us the old Thurn und Taxis postal service :). With kind regards. Semimartingale (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Waffle

Heya Robert, I like your edits here. Just curious, what is 'waffle'? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I use the word to mean writing as you would speak, with phrases that are perfectly natural in conversation but don't add anything. Having looked it up in the dictionary, I see it has a slightly more pejorative meaning so I may stop using the word in case I upset someone. I was interested in the project, and I wondered if there was some way I could use my iPad to record some articles. Best wishes, --RobertG ♬ talk 17:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case, it seems like a fine word to me! Glad to hear that you have an interest in recording. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Films based on the works of H. G. Wells

Category:Films based on the works of H. G. Wells, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

pls undelete my biograph

Hi pls undelete me from wikipedia my name is fortunate egbuchere. Wikipedia said u deleted me.thks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.164.211 (talk • contribs) 5 November 2011

Hello. I don't remember deleting you. I assumed from your comment that an article about you on Wikipedia was deleted, so I checked the Wikipedia deletion logs for November and can find no article called anything like "Fortunate Egbuchere". Please can you be more specific about what you would like me to do? Thank you. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Music from Manchester

Category:Music from Manchester, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

List of compositions by Herbert Howells: copyright violation?

Hello - List of compositions by Herbert Howells article that I think you split off from the Herbert Howells article a while ago turns out to be have been cut and pasted (and reformatted) from the list in Grove Music Online, which is a copyright resource. I appreciate it wasn't you who did the cut and pasting, but I thought you might like to know I have recommended it for speedy deletion. Kind regards, Wilus (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Executon by Elephant

Yeah saw that probably I hit save as you hit protect, either way that'll give the editors a rest from the garbage for a while. Gnangarra 10:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yay, an admin!/"What Does This Mean?"

Hay thar! SmallCheez here. I saw you edited the Wild Kratts article (which needs help, as you saw). I was just wondering if you were passing by or planned to stick around a bit, as we have a problem editor (lately, they've been quiet, thankfully). Unfortunately, Wikipedia says I've also been a problem editor (hey, Wikipedia, I was just following YOUR rules! You said "ignore, revert, discuss", but the other editor won't discuss, so I ignored and reverted...). I claim juris... ignoramus (or whatever that other word is).

That's what everyone else was doing as well (ignore, revert, discuss), but I looked through the history and found 30 of the same edit by this person in the last 6 months (I've been an editor for only 1, and most of that time was spent offline taking care of my grandma, so it's really more like 2 weeks). To be fair, the IP (other editor) hasn't really been talked to but twice (once by me, once by a third), but still ignored our notices, and I really don't know what to do with it, besides bring it to their attention (that they're crossing the line with respect to behaviour and not editing standards [that was my next step, if needed; I was just going to point out "Hey, wikipedia says this and this, and you're not doing this, and it's a problem" {because it's all I CAN do}]).

And honestly, I was wondering why there needed to be a funding list, and I knew my PBS station wasn't using the sponsers listed for funding, but I added my two cents anyways. SmallCheez (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, SmallCheez, pleased to meet you. I think Wikipedia says "BOLD, revert, discuss", not "ignore"! :-)

I was just passing, really. I tend to keep an eye on featured articles, of which Sesame Street happens to be an example, and since this edit seemed to be much less than an improvement I reversed it. I then, as is my habit, looked at the editor's other contributions, following them to several articles which had a seemingly inscrutable "Funding" section.

I have no expert knowledge in the area. "Funding" may well be a well-recognised feature, understood by anyone who knows anything about US children's TV, but to us uninitiated a bare list of seemingly random, unrelated wikilinks under the heading "Funding" means nothing whatever. It seems to me that a bare list which doesn't mean anything at all to the uninitiated reader (me), and an unreferenced list at that, doesn't earn its keep in an article. If "Funding" is a field of interest among those who study US kids' TV then by all means document it, but in prose I think, and in such a way that the context and significance are explained.

There, that's my two penn'orth. So because I clearly don't really know what I'm talking about - and since I am not really particularly interested in US kids' TV - I am reluctant to get involved.

From what I see, you are a relative newcomer, so welcome! You are obviously eager to learn about how Wikipedia works - keep it up! Provided you stay WP:CIVIL and communicative, and understand the WP:Five Pillars, I expect you won't have many problems. Very best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 10:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, crud, it IS BRD, not IRD. XD Oh well. I have a userbox stating I have one too many screws loose, so all were warned. XP

Honestly, I don't think ANY of us know what we're doing. I think everyone editing that article is either a newbie, or even if they've been here a while, have the knowledge level of a newbie. I'm trying to follow the rules, but as usual, I always wind up following my butt (like with BRD). On the one hand, my intuition leads me to the right thing even before I knew what I was doing, but then I read the rules and my memory is what screws up. Maybe I should stop reading the rules...

That, and I seem to be THE most active member of the Wild Kratts community, honestly. I'm usually the one monitoring the article (although "montioring" doesn't show up on Wikipedia"); I'm about to add a buttload of tropes over at TVTropes; I have more stories stored on my computer than the entire page at Fanfiction combined... eh, waddamI gonna do. XD Wait, there was a point in that... oh yeah, that none of the other editors (IP or not) seem to want to discuss anything, if they even check the article anymore. Even 30 Edits (that's what I named the IP detailed above XD) doesn't hang around much anymore (but that's probably a good thing). Eh, I'm blathering.

Final point, I'm no expert on children's television by any means. XD I just know a lot about the actual show. XP I seriously have no idea why the funding would be important in any respect. *innocent glance*

SmallCheez (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Moon-related films

Category:Moon-related films, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Good Call!

But many left to go: "as such" in WP. See you around — Wegesrand (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Harawi

Regarding Messiaen's Harawi: Messiaen was the one who described Harawi as "Tristan and Isolde, with Peroutchka as Isolde". — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradyBeans (talk • contribs) 6 February 2012

Union Army regiments category discussion

Since you created several of the categories currently under discussion, please comment on the proposals at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 13#Category:Union Army regiments. Thank you for your time. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear RobertG,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Georg Solti

If Solti is a subject that might interest you, I should be glad if you would look in at the peer review of the article. Quite understand if not, naturally. Tim riley (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky

Thanks very much for copy editing—I greatly appreciate someone tidying up my occasional sloppiness and loose ends. I'm not being sarcastic by saying that, just genuinely appreciative. Jonyungk (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the Talk page. Jonyungk (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the green light. Left some final comments and, as usual, I'm open to suggestions. Jonyungk (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the apology. I was a but ticked about the paragraph being taken out but agree with you on the reason for doing it. As I mentioned on the Talk page of the Tchaikovsky article, it seemed in retrospect too densely packed and not "user-friendly" enough, for lack of a better term, for the average lay person who would want to read the article.

Hopefully, the passage below reads better. Since you're more thoroughly trained in musical intricacies than I, it seemed logical to run it by you to make sure all my ducks are in a row before I strip it into the article. It takes up more space than I'd intended but maybe that's worthwhile in the long run. I've included the opening paragraph of the section, in which there was no problem, simply for context. Jonyungk (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky struggled with sonata form. Its principle of organic growth through the interplay of musical themes was alien to Russian practice, which placed themes into a series of self-contained sections with no interaction or clear transition from one section to the next. Without organic growth, building a large-scale, evolving musical structure would be daunting, if not impossible. Nor did sonata form take into account the heightened emotional statements that many Romantic-era composers were inclined to make since it was designed to operate on a logical, intellectual level, not an emotive one.

According to Brown and musicologist Hans Keller, Tchaikovsky found his solution to large-scale structure while composing the Fourth Symphony, by sidestepping thematic interaction and focusing on juxtaposition. Instead of offering "a rich and well-ordered argument," he integrates "new and violent contrasts" between musical themes, keys and harmonies by placing blocks of dissimilar tonal and thematic material alongside one another. An important part of this process, Keller states, is that "thematic and harmonic contrasts" are "not allowed to coincide." Mozart, Keller writes, evidently preceded Tchaikovsky in this tactic of modulatory delay and may have helped give Tchaikovsky the impetus in attempting it himself, although Tchaikovsky develops this form of contrast "on an unprecedented scale."

Keller offers the second theme in the first movement of the Fourth Symphony as an example of how this process works. In sonata form, he writes, the first subject enters in the tonic and the second subject follows in a contrasting but related key harmonically. Tension occurs when the music (and the listener with it) is pulled away from the tonic. Tchaikovsky "not only increases the contrasts between the themes on the one hand and the keys on the other," but ups the ante by introducing his second theme in a key unrelated to the first theme and delaying the transition to the expected key. In the first movement of the Fourth Symphony, Tchaikovsky introduces the second theme in A-flat minor. Since the symphony is written in the key of F minor, sonata form dictates that the second theme should go either to the relative major (A flat major) or the dominant (C minor). By the time Tchaikovsky establishes the relative major, this theme has finished playing. Thus, Keller says, "the thematic second subject precedes the harmonic second subject" (italics Keller).

This process, according to Brown and Keller, builds momentum and adds intense drama. While the result, Warrack charges, is still "an ingenious episodic treatment of two tunes rather than a symphonic development of them" in the Germanic sense, Brown counters that it took the listener of the period "through a succession of often highly charged sections which added up to a radically new kind of symphonic experience" (italics Brown), one that functioned not on the basis of summation, as Austro-German symphonies did, but on one of accumulation.

Yes, I think that makes much more sense, you really have been digesting your sources! Only a minor suggestion: sonata form doesn't dictate, not to the best composers, it is merely an analytical convenience for musicologists, and arguably the greatest examples depart from the basic conception :-) Perhaps say that Tchaikovsky chose to avoid the norm, or expected course? I really like that you've captured Tchaikovsky's achievement here: too often we read that he somehow missed the point, whereas he actually brought new things to the form, extending its range like other great masters. I don't like all Tchaikovsky, but this I do admire, and you have expressed it very well. I didn't know of Brown's writing before, thanks for sharing it. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 22:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

FA status in Piano music of Gabriel Fauré

Does this article deserve FA status? Please see this comment. Best wishes, Gidip (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel Fauré

I've put Gabriel Fauré up for a second peer review, but am now more or less Wiki-less until 12 April as I'm away in the countryside, with little access to the internet. If, despite my abandoning my post, you could find time and disposition to look at the much-expanded article and add such comments as occur to you, I'd be most appreciative. – Tim riley (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, RobertG, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 22:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Sting songs

Category:Sting songs, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Karen Russell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Karen Russell 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/Karen Russell 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 template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Need Help Updating a Wikipedia Article

We need to update a Wikipedia article, and we need someone experienced who can insure that we do it correctly. We will pay you for your time and expertise. Alec Schibanoff aschibanoff@generalpatent.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschibanoff (talk • contribs) 16 July 2012

No, thank you. RobertG ♬ talk 06:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:U.M.&M. T.V. Corp. acquisitions

Category:U.M.&M. T.V. Corp. acquisitions, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hurricanes

The strongest storm for 2002 is actually Lili (Category 4), not Isidore (Category 3). 4 is stronger than 3. --Sarahkat00 (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Sarahkat00

From the lead section of that article: "The most intense hurricane of the season was Hurricane Isidore with a minimum central pressure of 934 mbar, although Hurricane Lili attained higher winds and peaked at Category 4 status on the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale." But I'm not an expert. Sincerely, RobertG ♬ talk 11:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Vingt regards

Hi Robert—such a long time since we've spoken. There's a WM Australia editing fest on French music articles at the moment, centred in a big library (I'm not there, so sourcing is still a problem—I'm just copy-editing for them). I went through the threadbare article on this wonderful piece by Messiaen, and wonder whether you're interested some time in expanding it. Tony (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right, the cloth is cut very thin there, isn't it? I haven't expanded a Wikipedia article for a while now - other fish to fry in my spare time (writing programme notes, among other things - one day some of that might find its way onto Wikipedia), and repairing damage to featured articles has been about the only activity I have done here recently. Still, that's important too <grin/>. Perhaps I will tackle that Vingt regards article at some point. Hope you are enjoying music listening: I was at a marvellous concert last night given by Imogen Cooper - she's terrific. Good to hear from you again, Tony. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 19:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Robert, I listen a lot (iPod + dogwalks). Recent expansions of reportory have included Bruckner's symphonic scherzos, by pact with user:Noetica. B is a composer I've been leaving until later in life (which is upon me). Tony (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Square dance

Thanks for your quick revert of the apparent vandalism to the square dance article's talk page. I tried to revert and found that you had beaten me to it. Tparkes (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. I followed the editor there - see WP:FNORD#wiki-stalking... --RobertG ♬ talk 15:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Icelandic Phallological Museum TFA nomination

In the comments on my nomination of Icelandic Phallological Museum for TFA, another editor has suggested Feb 13th as an alternative date. Would you support the nomination if it was switched to that date? Prioryman (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant what I said, so wouldn't oppose its appearance on another date. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

List of ODI international records

I have nominated List of One Day International cricket records for featured list candidate here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status.--Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 05:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

S'Cool Life Fund

are you still and editor for Wikipedia? I noticed you deleted a page on S'Cool Life Fund back in 2006, but this registered charity has done many great things. here is a Bloomberg article that you may want to cite in restoring the page... http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=axFh1IUuUbuQ ...thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.245.132 (talk • contribs) 27 April 2013

The article was deleted back in 2006. Here's the text approximately as it stood when it was deleted:

I hope you can amplify that a bit, with some references. Go to it! Best of luck. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Awards lists in play articles

Based on your past editing activity, you may want to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre#Award enumeration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell's Army Chaplain?

Who was he? Do you know? He's the source of the quotation on your userpage: "Let us not assume any power of infallibility towards each other, for another's truth is as dark to me as mine is to him—until the Lord enlighten us both." From WP: Jeremiah White (chaplain) was Cromwell's chaplain while Richard Baxter served as chaplain of the New Model Army between July 1645 and July 1646. One of these two? Contact Basemetal here 10:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

My source was slightly vague, wasn't it? I find it was probably John Saltmarsh (clergyman). Just found this. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 10:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's your quote: «Let us not being under no further degree of the revelation of truth and coming out of Babylon, assume any power of infallibility [towards] each other so as to soar up all to our light or degree of knowing or practising; for there lies as much on one side for compulsion as on another, respectively to one another, for another’s [truth] is as dark to me as mine to him, and mine to him as his to me, till the Lord enlighten us both for discerning alike.».

It's to and evidence. But great job. I much prefer the quote as edited by you. Saltmarsh sounded like a terse and powerful speaker with an amazing ear for great rhythm. Congratulations. You should become a speech writer. Unfortunately, the real quote is, umm, a bit, well,... yet full of good intentions, mind you. Incidentally, how did you find the site? Not by Googling for the quote obviously. Contact Basemetal here 18:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I did exactly that!- simply searched (being in the UK, I use google.co.uk) by pasting in the text of my quote: that website comes third on the results list. Best wishes. RobertG ♬ talk 14:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Olivier Messiaen at FAR

I have nominated Olivier Messiaen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Copy edit question

Hello RobertG. Back in 2012 you were kind enough to do a thorough copyedit on the article about Frederik Magle. I have expanded the article a little more (mostly done in this edit), and nominated it as a Good Article. But I think the expanded text could use a copyedit with fresh eyes by a native English-speaker. Could I persuade you to do that once more? It would be much appreciated. --Danmuz (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, happy new year. I've done that: I didn't think much work was required on your additions. Good luck with the GA nomination. Could you perhaps add IPA for his name? - the very little Danish I know makes me guess "Magle" is not pronounced as an English speaker would read it: is it closer to "Mahler"? --RobertG ♬ talk 12:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too! Thanks for doing the copy edit, I'm happy that it didn't require a lot of work. I'm not really familiar with the IPA, but I'll see if I can figure it out - correctly. You are right, it's closer to Mahler than how I think English speakers would read it. The "Ma" is pronounced exactly the same as in "Mahler". I'll see what I can do, but I would not like to add an incorrect IPA so if in doubt I will probably try to find someone with more experience in Danish IPA. --Danmuz (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The Danish IPA has been added by a user, proficient in its use, who was kind enough to do so. The article hasn't been reviewed yet, but in the meantime it was suggested to me that the more recent history wasn't covered well enough, so I've expanded it a little. I'm almost embarrassed to ask, but if you would do a final copy edit of the expanded text, it would be great. I think this will be the last larger expansion for a while, unless there are other significant things that needs to be improved during the GA review. --Danmuz (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! --Danmuz (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of state highways in the United States shorter than one mile for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of state highways in the United States shorter than one mile 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 state highways in the United States shorter than one mile (2nd nomination) 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. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yellowhammer

Hi Robert, I've just begun a very long process to work Yellowhammer up to FA. I started with the "In Culture" section because it's the area I know least about. I wonder if you would mind having a look to see if what I've said about Messiaen and Beethoven makes any sense. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Linnean Society of London

Category:Members of the Linnean Society of London, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. DuncanHill (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:National Football League summer camp sites

Category:National Football League summer camp sites, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. DexDor (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Rochester area high schools

Category:Rochester area high schools, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. – TMF (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Second City alumni

Category:Second City alumni, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. SFB 14:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 12, 2015

• Thank you for your edit to the draft. However, there was a reason for having the full lead there. Dank, one of the TFA coordinators, writes the TFA synopses based on the leads of the articles selected for TFA by the other coordinators (in this case, me). Having the lead copied in full allows him to more easily draft his text. He has not had a chance to reach June 12th yet, since there are still other TFAs which are being refined. It certainly wouldn't have run on the main page in such shape.

I don't know if Dan wants to work from scratch or polish the text you've written, but if the latter is the case I should note that we need to lose another 125 characters of prose to keep the main page balanced. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. The answer is: both ... first I'll work from the lead text without looking at what Robert has done, then I'll take what he's done into account. I'm happy when people participate. Of course, TFA standards are based on WP:FAC standards, and the best way to learn those is to participate at FAC, as a writer or reviewer. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

History of American football

The featured article History of American football, an article you have edited significantly in the past, is currently at around 160 kb in length. The maximum allowable article size per WP:SIZE is 100 kb. While some bits of information could probably be pared down, most of the article is still surprisingly well written and referenced (despite growing in size by 2/3rds since being promoted to FA status several years ago). The article will need to be brought back to a smaller size, a discussion is underway at Talk:History of American football to decide the best way to handle that. We want to preserve all of the good information there, but the rules require us to split the article up somehow. If you are interested in helping decide how to do that, please come by the article talk page where the discussion is currently underway. Thanks! --Jayron32 12:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Media from The Legend of Zelda series has been nominated for discussion

Category:Media from The Legend of Zelda series, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, RobertG. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi RobertG.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Political pundits has been nominated for discussion

Category:Political pundits, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Anime-influenced animation has been nominated for discussion

Category:Anime-influenced animation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Media1

Template:Media1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Science ministries has been nominated for discussion

Category:Science ministries, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Shyamsunder (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Schools of medicine has been nominated for discussion

Category:Schools of medicine, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Paul_012 (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

13 years of editing, today

Hey, RobertG. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, how nice. Goodness, time flies. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Howard family (English aristocracy) has been nominated for discussion

Category:Howard family (English aristocracy), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleted page: Conjoint_R

Hi,

Can you write me what I should change or just remove from my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tomasz.bartlomowicz/Conjoint_R to be accepted?

Regards, Tomasz.bartlomowicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz.bartlomowicz (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry, but I do not have time to look at this in any detail. I glanced quickly over your draft article, and I think the most obvious thing missing is any indication of why the software package is notable. It appears to be the product documentation, rather than an encyclopedia article. If there is coverage in journals or the press where someone else has said it is significant or notable, then I recommend you include a section on why and how it has been used in important projects. Otherwise, I doubt the article would survive on Wikipedia, particularly as it is obviously written by one of the software's developers. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Resident Evil composers has been nominated for discussion

Category:Resident Evil composers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. --woodensuperman 11:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Légion d'honneur recipients has been nominated for discussion

Category:Légion d'honneur recipients, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Nobel laureates in Economics has been nominated for discussion

Category:Nobel laureates in Economics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Störm (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Portrait der dreizehnjährige Beethoven, Bonner Meister

Dear RobertG,

Are you the person I should talk to about "Portrait der dreizehnjährige Beethoven, Bonner Meister?" The portrait is alleged to be of Ludwig van Beethoven, but there seems to be no documentary evidence to support this claim. Yet the image is described as having been "authenticated." Can you discuss this with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by dnedwards (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you, dnedwards. I took that photo of that painting in Die Sammlung alter Musikinstrumente, Kunsthistorisches Museum, in the Hofburg in Vienna, and uploaded it to the Commons. The text there is a simple copy of the label that was displayed with the painting when I took the photo. I rated that as a reliable reference. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Penderecki

Look, you are editor No. 10 for Penderecki, - thank you, and see also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)