Jump to content

User talk:RobertG

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.105.195.14 (talk) at 16:32, 24 June 2009 (Big Bang luminosity: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page (click here). I will typically respond on yours, although if it appears the discussion would be better kept in one place then I am likely to respond here.

Please remember the five pillars and, in particular, please be civil.

I goofed on warnings to 90.193.250.88

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

2) I see your block action [1], but there isn't any visible result. I.e., I don't see a third block notification. This is the second time I've noticed this happening to an admin in the last couple days [2]. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I don't think you goofed. I doubt there's a systemic problem. The person came back after two blocks and immediately did the same vandalism: he or she is apparently in denial about Wendy Richard's death. I thought enough is enough. The only thing I didn't get to quickly enough (real life intervened) was putting a "blocked" template on their talk page - I'll do it now. --RobertGtalk 08:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This well known medvandal IP promptly blanked the talkpage. I've reverted, but..LeadSongDog come howl 17:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

For reverting the Vandalism to my page, gotta love the satisfaction by changing the number in the vandalized userbox.--SKATER T. 04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! --RobertGtalk 08:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this image is appropriate for a {{subst:npd}}. I've removed the tag; feel free to list it at WP:PUF. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wikipedia implies that this is a contemporary likeness - which cannot be verified. It still looks modern to me. --RobertGtalk 07:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven's Fifth: Fate?

You asked in this edit at {{Beethoven symphonies}} and here at Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) whether Beethoven's fifth symphony is widely called "Fate". I can't answer that question with any authority for English usage, but in Germany that is definitely a very popular moniker, the Schicksalssymphonie (see lead of de:5. Sinfonie (Beethoven)). The English article about the symphony has a section on the "Fate motiv", but doesn't mention it as a nickname. On the other hand, Amazon lists a DVD using it (ASIN B0002C4GVK), and many other music related web sites do, too: googling allintitle:+Beethoven+fate+symphony seems to indicate that it is not uncommon. Upshot: it may be helpful to include it in the article and the template, but that's only my opinion, largely based on my German background. All the best, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Michael: I knew about Schicksalssymphonie. I think it might be worth mentioning in the article that it is popularly known thus in German, particularly if it's reliably documented somewhere! As the Wikipedia article comes top of Google searches for "Beethoven's 5th" the danger is that Wikipedia will create a popular nickname rather than documenting one. I think that if we are going to state Beethoven's 5th is known as "Fate" it should be backed up with unimpeachable refs. It's a question that's come up before - which came first, the recent neologism or the Wikipedia article about it? Best wishes, RobertGtalk 14:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

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

Big Bang luminosity

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

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