User talk:RobertG
Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page (click here). I will respond on yours unless you ask me not to; please respond on mine so that I get notified via a new message box as I tend not to watch other people's user pages.
Please remember the five pillars and, in particular, please be civil.
your message
Dear Robert
You talk so much cool-headed sense. Yes, I have to move on and forget the angst; your psychological assessment is perceptive, although I never thought that WP was perfect; its failures were what drove me to work at it .
I'm still surprised that it marshals so much energy among so many unpaid contributors. I still haven't quite worked out the reasons for this, but it does augur well for the future of the Internet as an instrument of democracy. Perhaps WP what we all hoped the Internet might be, but it has taken nearly 15 years for it to become a significant force.
Thank you sincerely for your support. I've had a bad headache for the last four days, which has made it hard to concentrate; but that's subsiding quickly; I'm glad that Redwolf cut the trial short by a day. I must move on. If they significantly reform the RfA process, I'd feel a lot better about it; then the whole thing might not have been entirely in vain.
In future, I'd prefer to correspond by email. I'll send a copy of this response to the address from which you posted the scanned page from the Third Symphony.
I value your friendship.
Tony
Librarian here at this ip, mistaken identity
Hi, I am a librarian here at a college. I do not want the college to be known publicly because I am not going through the PR Department. We have had problems before with students apparently vandalizing wikipedia and then having our ENTIRE campus IP blocked. it is not fair to penalize a campus for the actions of one or two students, operating in their private dorm rooms outside the purview of the Information Technology Department. Do you have any suggestions? Because everyone on the campus is getting "NEW MESSAGES" and probably reading your reply. Thanks. (preceding unsigned comment by 198.209.13.253 (talk • contribs) 1 November 2005)
Vandalism Charge
Dear Sir, I am user 207.142.131.239, which you have claimed is adding nonsense to a Wikipedia entry. I would highly appreciate knowing to which entry you claim I am vandalizing. Everything I have added to Wikipedia is based on independent knowledge or research. From time to time, however, my computer does hang up on me, and it is possible that something may have been inadvertently deleted. I apologize if that is the case. (preceding unsigned comment by 128.190.62.54 (talk • contribs) 3 November 2005)
- The entry in question refered to as "vandalism" is completely true and factual. If representatives of Wikipedia refer to the truth as "nonsense", then I'm curious about any credibility Wikipedia claims to have as an authoritative source. (preceding unsigned comment by 207.232.184.102 (talk • contribs) 3 November 2005)
- I'm not sure how, but this message about posting nonsense to pages is getting to all sorts of people. I'm using tor, but I didn't think I had it set up for web browsing, but perhaps I did and forgot about it. Maybe this address is a tor exit point. I do know I've never posted nonsense to any wikipedia article, though.
- The only change I've ever made is to an article about tarantulas, pointing out that their hair is actually called setae. I added two or three words, and it was completely factual. (preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.8.34 (talk • contribs) 3 November 2005)
- Just curious, I created the article post anesthesia care unit (though I somehow wasn't logged in when I did), and my un-logged in identity got a message asking me to cease with the vandalism. Perhaps I'm missing some subtlety here, but how is a factual article vandalism? Thanks. Natalya 02:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Your vandalism message was sent to me also. I have written several biographies to a high standard, and have improved others with corrections and additions. All of my work includes sources and references, and I am very proud of my contributions. It is disheartening that after dozens and dozens of hours of research, work and writing, the very first feedback I recieve is that I am vandalizing Wikipedia. From reading the messages above, it seems fairly obvious that you have made some sort of error in sending out your messages. Please correct your error. S. D. (preceding unsigned comment by Stephen DeSilva (talk • contribs) 4 November 2005)
The answer is probably that you are all completely innocent of vandalism, and recipients of a message that was intended for a vandal. This is easy to explain for contributors who have not created an account, and who therefore edit anonymously. Your contributions appear to come from the same source as any other editor without an account who uses the same IP address. On some networks, the IP address through which you access the network may be shared by a large number of computers. The points you all raise above are important, so I will investigate them all and when and if I find the answer I will let you know. Meanwhile, my apologies for any inconvenience caused. I assure you I value all constructive contributions to Wikipedia. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have now investigated all the questions above. It appears that all the above users who were editing without being logged in have received the message erroneously. This explanation on the offending user's talk page may throw light on the matter. The edit which I was referring to as "nonsense" was this one, for which I think "nonsense" is a fair description. Once again my apologies to all innocent bystanders. I have communicated separately with users Natalya and Stephen DeSilva. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks For The Explanation
Thanks for the explanation! That makes lots of sense now (imagine a collective "Ahhh, I see"). I originally meant to be logged in when I created the article, but my computer decided it would be funny to log me out. Thanks again. -- Natalya 12:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Witold Lutosławski
Hi Robert! Yes, I will watch over this excellent article for you. I should be around much of the day on Sunday. (By the way, congratulations on getting it featured!) For what it's worth, main page articles usually are watched over fairly decently by regular RC patrollers, although since Lutosławski isn't exactly a pop culture icon, he could use with some extra attention, and I'll do it for you. Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Alleged vandalism
Dear RobertG, please explain why you believe I have been adding 'nonsense' to Wikipedia by pointing out the specific cases. I have no intention of adding nonsense to Wikipedia or of carrying out any form of vandalism. (preceding unsigned comment by 88.105.181.35 (talk • contribs) 4 November 2005)
- Sorry, you have encountered a bug in the Wikipedia software. You were not alone. Please see my comments above under the section "Vandalism charge". --RobertG ♬ talk 10:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Sandbox
i'll use the sand box now (preceding unsigned comment by 195.195.43.244 (talk • contribs) 8 November 2005)
Operation Defensive Shield
Thanks for pointing the user in the right direction, just the moment for my internet connection to fail! --pgk(talk) 17:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.
The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks!FireFox 18:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I think the introduction of "The art of the fugue" wikipedia page is not very accurate. Recent studies suggest that the Art of Fugue was composed in the early 1740's. Actually the statement "A 1742 fair copy manuscript contains Contrapuncti I--III, V--IX, and XI--XIII, plus the octave and retrograde canons and an earlier version of Contrapunctus X" in the second section ("The sources") seems to be in contradiction with the introduction. Cheers--Riccardo (preceding unsigned comment by 140.105.16.2 (talk • contribs) 9 November 2005)
I notice that you gave this user a warning earlier. This person comes in from the whole range of 4.242.*.* and edits. While one or two of the edits are useful most of the work is vandalistic in nature. For some strange reason they hit Circuit City and Pumpkin pie with edits that are easy to see. The big problem is that they also make sneaky edits to pages of the type 1986 to 1987. With the exception of someone from that range who was making proper additions yesterday I have taken to blocking the IP as soon as a vandalistic edit is made without a warning. Thanks CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)