User talk:RobertG/Archive-01

Archive of talk page to 31st October 2005

Initial welcome

Greetings, and welcome to wikipedia! Noticed you augmenting and diminishing some of the music articles, and groaned happily at the pun on your userpage. (As a side note, I'm a music major, and about one class off from a CS minor, myself.)

Seems you already know what you're doing, but just about anything else you could hope to read about editing Wikipedia is linked at the Wikipedia:Community portal. (The Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset is a good overview, though.) Always delighted to see someone else editing in the classical music sections. I hang around a bit around Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, myself; Wikipedia:WikiProject Music might also give you some ideas and jumping-off points. Happy editing, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another welcome

Hi, fellow newbie! I am the culprit who, trying to rehabilitate half-forgotten piano concertos from the Romantic era, has been adding entries to the repertoire list without having found the time to research and comment on their historical relevance in the main text of the article. The list now has a new home of its own thanks to you.

By all means keep writing quality pieces for Wikipedia in your personal key. There is no such thing as an overdose of encyclopedia editing. --Defrosted 12:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

And thank you for your support on my admin nomination! I shall attempt to put the shiny new buttons to good use; also, if you're ever still feeling clueless newbie-ish, my talk page is open. I love what you've written on your user page now: strange that it's so easy to just walk into a project like this one, no? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Robert -- just wanted to extend a greeting from another music editor. I love the Abel Muzorewa quotation on your user page; he's evidently a very wise man. I hope you stick around here! We need good music editors, and there really aren't many of us (and besides, Lyadov needs an article!) Best wishes, Antandrus 04:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eavesdropping

Greetings again! Noticed your question on Antandrus' talk page and figured I'd butt in. meta:Music markup might answer a few of your questions about the possibility of using something like Lilypond in Mediawiki the way math already has TeX for notation entry. Basically, everyone agrees that it would be a good idea, it's just a matter of developer time to put into it. I asked one of the devs about it a few months back, who said that yes, it is on the to-do list, but it's not a high enough priority for there to be a definite time attached to it... in other words, Real Soon Now. For the meantime, as you suspected, save a picture from your notation software of choice. I believe I've seen people using Sibelius, Finale, and Rosegarden for such; don't know anything useful about any others. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rebecca Clarke

Actually, I think the FAC page is a pretty good place to do it, since it gives other people a chance to come in and comment on your comments! The whole discussion will eventually be linked from the talk page, anyhow. I'm just checking my messages before I go do other things for the afternoon (signs of wikiholism?), will address Taxman's and your comments there later when I have more time to address them properly. Thank you for them; I do like it when people look at the picky things, and you can be bold and fix some yourself even if it's on FAC—IMHO that's largely what the process is there for! (Truthfully, this is my first go-round with FAs and I didn't expect much support at all; I'm surprised.) I'm glad you like it even in its imperfect state. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lutosławski

Hi Robert -- I'm happy to hear you are taking on Lutosławski (and Messaien!). Don't worry, you're not duplicating any effort of mine at the moment: I've started writing articles on major standard rep pieces that are missing, and then I'll probably go back to medieval and Renaissance composers for a while. Regarding images, I can't help you there: I'm yet to find any source for usable images of 20th century composers (barring "fair use" of copyright images, which is controversial, and which I never do). Best, Antandrus 15:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Clarke

Hi, I noticed your recent edit to Rebecca Clarke. While it is fine that you don't believe that sentence belongs in the article, it is not fine that you have chosen to crap-up the sentence to cause it to be removed. It is not acceptable to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. If you disagree with the presence of material in an article, please remove it. If something prevents you from removing it, then please do not convert the material to junk just to create cause for someone else to remove it. (please leave any reply here, I'll find it, Thanks!) --Gmaxwell 18:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry my edit displeased you. I had already corresponded with Mindspillage on this and she exhorted me to be bold. If I had disagreed with the presence of the sentence I would have removed it. Since I thought the sentence was trying to make a valid point I edited it to say what I thought it should say.

I note that Mindspillage has edited the passage again, and it now reads with much more relevance than the original version, and says roughly what my edit said (which I suspect is what Mindspillage was driving at too). I do not accept that I "disrupted Wikipedia". On the contrary, I feel that what has been arrived at is much better, and would not have been achieved without my edit.

I found the coarse tone of your comment completely inappropriate. I am not quite so devoid of ego that I enjoy being told I've "crapped-up" something, and written "junk". I take it that crap-up is a term in common use in USA and wasn't meant to be offensive? And your facts are wrong - I have not caused the sentence to be removed. Please assume good faith. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I looked through the history and saw that you had previously removed it, which is where my assumption of good faith ended. I am sorry for coming off so coarsely, but the specific phrasing you used 'work of foo pretensions' would far more likely be found in mockery than in earnest use, at least in the part of the world that I inhabit. It's interesting to note that I don't consider the current text to in any way resemble your edit, a further indicator that I've misunderstood you. I came across your edit only after reading the article, noticing that text, then going to chastise Mindspillage for her ridiculous prose... before I noticed that this text had just been added, and wasn't her fault. :) As far as removing the sentence, I posted that message long before Mindspillage's update, and actually would have removed the sentence myself if I hadn't spoken to her and found out that she was in the process of making a long edit. I wasn't claiming that removal had happened, but rather that it would happen and that it was your intention. I hope you can forgive me for jumping to that conclusion. I think the current text in the article is good, and I am sorry for assuming that you were trying to achieve anything except an improvement. --Gmaxwell 17:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe aspirations would have been better than pretensions.

I more than forgive you: I thank you that you made me think long and hard about what I was doing here in Wikipedia. See my user page. No hard feelings. But I hope you don't ever do the same to anyone else. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving

Hi Robert,

Thank you for the kind compliment, and I am very sorry to see that you may be leaving. I do understand, though: in the last ten years I've been a member of maybe a dozen internet communities, and except for Wikipedia, at present, I have left them all. If you do decide either to stay, or to return, I for one shall welcome you warmly. We need people with your knowledge and your standards. Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I share your hope that Wikipedia might rise above the level of mediocrity you fear, and I'd like to thank you for your contributions towards this goal, and in particular your help with hammering out some sort of system for the composition listing. It is this sort of co-operation, I feel, that will help Wikipedia continue to improve. Thank you for your time, regards, Mallocks 21:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Occasional or not, glad to see you return. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed, but it looked like you wanted to keep your secret identity under wraps (although I'm not the only one who caught on!). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of Jokes and Pillars

File:Wikicookie.png

For humor in the field of music

Thank you for the joke; here's my usual award for viola humor. I also see you added a five pillars notice to the top of your talk page. I discovered these guidelines for Wikipedia use a short while back, and was shocked that no one had told me about these earlier. If everyone just kept these pillars in the forefront of their mind, we'd have a much better encyclopedia, and much less confrontation in the community. Regards, Bratsche^{talk random} 03:49, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Thanks for posting the compliments last week in appreciation of the efforts I made to wikify your piece on Lutoslawski. I was persuaded to take on the task of wikifying such a long entry because of the comprehensiveness and excellence of the research that you undertook in writing the article.

Honored to have you (and your British spellchecker) working on Wikipedia again.--Defrosted 12:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Wilkinson

Re: the pseudonyms - looking at the contrib's edits, he's an Australian with an inferiority complex. I think they can safely be ignored. Average Earthman 11:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 14:42, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Beethoven symphonies

Hello! I noticed the changes you made in the Beethoven sonatas' articles. Would you mind looking at Category talk:Beethoven symphonies? --Missmarple 19:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks for supporting my candidacy to become an administrator, and for the good words! Schissel : bowl listen 17:29, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Grawemeyer Award (Music Composition), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hello there. All I can say about the Vegemite Vandal is that WE'RE ONTO HIM! He won't get away with it for long, no siree. Little worker bees from all over come and patch up what's broken. Quite splendid, really. Brequinda 09:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lichtenstein

re Lichtenstein:

Glad you enjoyed, it was fun to do, I thought I knew a bit to start with and now I know even more =:-). Lots more changes this evening so hopefully it still looks ok.

--John-Nash 20:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jig

I changed the link on Ronald Stevenson because (as I read on Gigue) Jig is a folk dance and Gigue is a dance, commonly used in suites. Maybe Ronald Stevenson only decided to spell Gigue in another way, but was still thinking about Gigue? --Missmarple 28 June 2005 14:51 (UTC)

Your editing speed is unstoppable

Beat me to it, RobertG re: "most difficult"... I like your wording better even. :) --bleh fu talk fu June 28, 2005 14:41 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll want to tackle this. My brain hurts, and nothing comes to mind. --bleh fu talk fu June 28, 2005 14:54 (UTC)

Looks peachy, well done. --bleh fu talk fu June 28, 2005 16:00 (UTC)

As for editing Lutoslawski, I guess I was decrying my own laziness and lack of willingness to wade into a morass of prose, which would probably consume and hour and a half of my time. --bleh fu talk fu June 29, 2005 18:57 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the very kind welcome - I'm glad you were happy with my edits on Lutoslawski (I was a bit nervous, it being my first edit of a 'real' article). Overall I thought it was a really good article though; I was astonished to see an recent composer tackled so extensively and so well. There are one or two other factual additions/quotes I might put in once I can verify them, but I need to decide if they're really valid contributions first (for example, a quote from him about the course on musical forms with Maliszewski being 'the most important [course] in my conservatory studies', and its specifically dealing with psychological aspects of musical form). Thanks also for the 'five pillars' link - I've whacked one on my talk page too - such a good idea!

Oh yeah, also - isn't De Stijl ace? I don't know if the recording I heard was the same as yours, but I'd say it (and 'Hadewijch') are perhaps my favourite works by Andriessen. Hutchies 28 June 2005 16:58 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support on the occasion of my RfA. I promise to continue to uphold the Five pillars of Wikipedia. Thanks, Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} June 29, 2005 16:19 (UTC)

Lutoslawski and other images

Hi Robert. In response to your question - I wrote to the webmaster at PMC (http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/), and recieved an answer from the manager, who answered that the images they use are in the public domain. I have this email archived. I have added other images from their website, for instance to Grazyna Bacewicz and plan to add more - but these are only Polish aritsts, of course. I have no idea for Messiaen, but I will look and let you know if I find something. Karol June 30, 2005 08:48 (UTC)

As to Messiaen, we could potentially use any image found in google hits, after makign sure its not against copyright. Karol June 30, 2005 08:57 (UTC)

Panufnik - if you like it, then go ahead and add the image at PMC. PD gives the right to anyone to use these images. I havn't got around to editing Panufnik's article, but someday I would, so if yo udon't add an image I probably will at some point. Karol June 30, 2005 09:10 (UTC)

La mer

I'm glad someone is appreciating that. It actually took quite a bit of untangling, because there were references with capital and small "m" to both the Trenet and Debussy works, and I had to disambiguate both while redirecting so both forms worked. And after the last couple of comments I'd gotten on similar work I've been doing (mostly negative) it was starting to look like a thankless job. -- BRG July 1, 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Witold Lutosławski/archive1

I appreciate your attempts to reach the compromise - I am sure we can reach it. Replied. As for images, look here - I am sure many of them fall under Polish PD template. Don't be afraid of fair use, it is, after all, fair. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

Messiaen

Wow, nice job on this rewrite! This must have been brewing for a while. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Bach greatness"

Hi Robert. I've replied to your comment on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 17:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Lutosławski

Hi Robert! Thanks for the note; I'll have a look and tell you what I think. Wow, I haven't been watching FAC at all recently; I had no idea there was a composer article being considered (I've been wasting far too much time on sterile RC patrol ... ack.) I'm not entirely sure how to handle images; it's always dicey when you have to get them from other sources. Why don't you write to USC yourself, if they claim their images are PD? Anyway I'll read the article as soon as I have a few minutes! Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this discussion (I happened to have Antandrus's talk page in my watchlist). If you want another peer review of the article from an Internet-savvy expert, you might try Margaret Mikulska. But she really is an expert, so be prepared for a real criticism. Here's why: go into Google Groups and search "Mikulska Lutoslawski Wikipedia". Towards the end of her posting she refers to the article as it was before you started the major upgrade. Actually I wrote to her about 6 weeks ago asking what she now thought of it, but she didn't reply. You may get a response. David Brooks 22:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. make sure her expectatations are set right. This is an general-audience encyclopedia, not a master's thesis. David Brooks

OMFG

Seriously now. ;) —RaD Man (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, etc.

Thanks Robert! Really appreciate that.

Yes, I really wanted to write about Richard Strauss this morning, not mop up the spilled bits of Willy, but ... so it goes. Your article on Lutosławski is superb; it'll get to FA status sooner or later. Keep up the good work yourself! Antandrus (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

quintuplets

LOL, you probably could (indeed should?) put in something about unmetered, free music prior to the late middle ages. There's a bunch more quintuple meter examples between the 16th and late 19th centuries, but they're all just sections of pieces (and I can't think of any septuple or more ...) Oh, and I'm sure there's a lot of 19th century Russian music in five, but I don't have a good way to look it up! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luto

Sorry about my boo-boos. 'Toe the line' was too colloquial for that register. Thanks. Tony 11:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lutoslawski.jpg revisited

Hi Robert. I added the relevant fragments of two email to the image description. Hope that works. I don't know if I formatted them right, though. Take a look. Personally, I would give more credit to the photographer, a link or so, but can't really find much on the internet about her. Hope Lutosławski finally makes it up there, 'cause he sure does deserve it. Karol 16:24, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Mathematics FA template

Hi RobertG, definately no hard feelings. Thanks for the bird :) --MarSch 10:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bach photo

Robert—thanks for fixing it up; I'm only just learning the image thing. Tony 10:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the image tutorial, and still got it wrong. Is there a tutorial for uploading sound files? Tony 11:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project page changes: now that's what I wanted to write! Tony 00:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

congrats!

Robert: congratulations on the promotion of your Luto article; your tireless work has paid off! I'd still like to make some changes to the music section. And a photo of his notation and a sound excerpt would be just great, not only for this article, but as an example to other composer articles. Is it worth contacting a recording company? Tony 02:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wikibreak

Hi Robert: have a great Wikibreak, come back rested and refreshed; you're one of the best editors we've got, and I look forward to whatever you're working on next. Take care! Antandrus (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon vandal post

Here's the anon vandal posting I reverted earlier, but I enjoyed its lack of neurosis and its inscrutability, so on reflection I am putting it back in case it amuses anyone else. --RobertG ♬ talk 20:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't experimenting, I was vandalising, you fool!

Do not assume good faith with me. I have more mothers! (preceding unsigned comment by 81.152.55.77 16:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The above

made me laugh; I'm glad you kept it for others to stumble across. And I have to echo Antandrus' statements above: you're a shining asset to Wikipedia, and I hope you're enjoying the relaxation of your Wikibreak.

When you come back, would you be interested in becoming an admin? I've noticed you doing quite a bit of vandalism reversion lately and thought you might find it useful. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not reading too much in; of course it is an offer. And I'd be honored to do so. Hope you're well, then, and that you have time to catch some leisure time on the wiki sometime soon! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've decided to accept. :-) Whenever would be good for you is fine—a time when you'll be able to post answers to the questions shortly afterward would be best. Today or tomorrow, maybe? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I figured we were offset a bit. Last thing tonight is is perfectly convenient—especially as I am something of a night owl. No hurry, just best to do things while they're fresh in my mind, else I forget! I'll drop you another message when it's posted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) (Update: nomination posted, while I'm still awake enough to catch my typos!) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The charter is here. (Relating to Esperanza)

Hello RobertG, the Charter for Esperanza is up. Take a looksie :) R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More on Luto

Robert, are you back? What about swapping the bottom and top pics of the composer? The bottom one is just beautiful, and would be nice at the opening. Tony 08:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took that photo of the score myself; never done one before, and I'd like to know what the trick is for getting a white background. Not helped by the small notation. Tony 10:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza made less bureaucratic

Hello again, I have (unilatterly) taken away the 'assembly' idea, as per my reasons at that edit summary and per Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Charter. I have left the admin general, as some leadership is good. Now, all you have to do is be a member to establish consensus, the whole assembly idea is gone. Also, I have added an advisory committee, of four members, with limited power besides watching over the admin general and making sure he doesn't do anything stupid. Please look at the ammended charter, and I would love a comment. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

emailing you now

Tony 00:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've overwritten the excerpt (so much nicer), but the old one still shows in the article. ??? Tony 12:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I'm spamming you all with Esperanza stuff

Hello RobertG. As you may or may not know, there have been some troubles with Esperanza. So now, as a last ditch to save the community, please vote at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Reform on all neccisary polls. P.S. I'm very sorry for spamming you all with these messages, and this will be the last time. I recommend putting ESP on your watchlist. Cheers and please look at that, let's stop the civil war then. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Congratulations! Consesus being reached you will now be given the admin's tools. However there is a bug in the system and hence we cannot set access rights as of now. Special:makesysop is used to set admin rights and currently an error: "page not recognized by Wikipedia" is being displayed. If this is rectified, you will see "you do not have permission to access...". Bureaucrats will be checking this page periodically, if you notice it resolved before a bureaucrat does, please feel to contact any one of them (special:listusers). Thank you for your patience. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure: hope you didn't mind my disrupting your request too much. ;-) I trust you will use your powers well, once you get them; welcome to the nonexistent admin musicabal! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure as well, and I hope the bug is squashed soon; that's rather a bad one. I think you'll find admin rights to be quite useful! Take care, Antandrus (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palazzo Pitti

Thanks for your support on the above page's FA. I have responded to your comments on the FA page. Regards Giano | talk 21:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're a sysop!

Hi, RobertG, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=

Your Adminship and more

Hi RobertG: Thank you for your kind note. Yeah, I was just a bit stressed with school, work, and more, and just didn't want to add any Wikistress to the pile. Right now, I'm feeling better, though am spending less time here in order to concentrate both on my studies and life in general.

I am quite glad that your RfA passed, and look forward to working with you more. I always respected you as an editor, and now welcome you to the ranks of janitors/admins/cabalists etc. Regards, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 19:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luto opening para

Hi Robert—Are we going to use my proposed opening to the article, or do you have problems with it? Tony 11:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Can you leave it with me? I don't have lots of time at the moment, but will after 12 October, so perhaps then I'll propose some additions to body of the article that might solve this problem. Tony 12:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the words of encouragement. They help, and they are appreciated. Peruvianllama 18:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind taking another look at Saint Francis High School, and the history of changes, 'twould also be appreciated. The situation seems to be just as bad as before, and I don't see things improving until admin action has been taken. Cheers. Peruvianllama 20:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Francis High School vandal

Hi, Fvw. I've been keeping an eye on this editor, too. When they persisted after your final warning, I blocked them for 48 hours - is this long enough? - too long? (I'm an as-yet-inexperienced admin.) You may be aware that they have also threatened further attacks on another IP address - I suspect this is just bluster, but perhaps we should keep an eye out. Regards. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

48 hours is fine; I would have probably gone for 24, in most cases you only have to block for the length of their attention span which generally isn't all that long. They're on a pac bell dynamic IP so they can easily get a fresh IP, as indeed they did after the block. I've vprotected the page instead. --fvw * 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. RobertG, as you've probably already noticed, I was frustrated enough with the situation to list it on Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#IP_Severe - not an attempt to go "over your head" or anything, but just to make sure it was listed for the right people in the right places. Once again, thanks to all who helped out - seeing my picture with a circle-and-cross through it was becoming tiresome. :) Peruvianllama 16:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment - obviously this situation can very easily return once the Protected status wears off, and we're back at square one if it does. In the process of all this, it's occured to me that a third article policy in between 'Open' and 'Protected' would solve problems like this one. This third policy would block anon. IPs from editing, but allow registered users to edit freely. Is there any currently on-going discussion forum on WikiPolicy where I could bring this up? Peruvianllama 16:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Magellan vandal

Thanks for the catch on that vandal, I missed his last change :) You're an admin, right? He used up his limits for warns, you got the block? 70.60.56.30

Nevermind. You already got him. Things sudo move fast around here! --Irixman 16:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - New Message

Hi Robert, I'm loving Wikipedia!! I'm sure i will be coming back for help as am still a rookie .. Please can you delete the other uncopywritted Guy picture you mailed me about, was a mistake. Thanks,Amycrowther 16:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Amy[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for your congratulations: I'll do my best to be just and well-tempered. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for blocking 205.235.35.52, a little slow there ;) (just kidding!)

Prodego 14:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another who seems to have stoped I am now leaving Wikipedia keep an eye on this one for me please, Thanks.

(204.184.214.1) 2 blocks in past

Hi Robert

It went well; I had one done and I performed one for someone else. Thanks for the welcome back! I didn't think anyone would notice, and it's pleasing that someone did. :-) Take care, Antandrus (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

R U home?

If you are in Wikipedia, 66.100.118.66 might will need to be blocked.

Prodego ^talk 17:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd's RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Tito xd^(?!?) 18:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luto

Hi Robert That's good news that the article is to appear on the front page! At what point in time is the lead 'snapshot' taken for that appearance? I'd like to have another look at it. As well, I wanted to include a few audio excerpts ('fair use'), which will involve a visit to the library to borrow CDs, which I'll do early next week (I thought one or two 30-second excerpts from Symphony for Orchestra, one from the Symphony No. 3, and one from Parole Tissee (I've spelt it wrongly) - any other thoughts on that? I'm keen to promote the use of short excerpts in composer articles, and this is a good opportunity. At the same time, I'll check references on the composers who influenced L, for the lead. Tony 23:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS Just had a look at the lead: it's fine. Thanks for your vote. Tony 00:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, I suppose that you're aware of the fiasco that my RfA has become. It looks as though the nomination will fail through a concerted attempt at character assassination by several people whose article I critiqued. Now that the ball has started rolling, more are joining in the feast.

I feel utterly destroyed by this process: never before have I been under sustained personal attack by a group, and my instinct is to defend myself in those rare situations, rather than retreat from tension as I normally do.

So, my purpose in writing to you is to say that if/when it fails, I'll be trashing my personal page and won't return to WP; it's just too unpleasant and embarrassing to go on. In that probable case, I hope that your Luto article goes well next Sunday, and please accept my best wishes; it was nice to work with you. Tony 00:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your nice message, Robert. One of the really bad things will be not being able to work with people like you. Tony 13:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]