User talk:Robert Happelberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Robert, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have a lot of fun here. There are lots of resources around to help guide you. be sure to check out:


If you want add any images check out:


If you need any help try:


Don't be afraid of making the odd mistake, there are any number of others eagerly waiting for a chance to correct it!


Hi. I'm not sure of the benefit of adding supposed ages of biblical figures to number pages such as Fifty-two. -- Tarquin 16:17, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] RFNs

I got a Roman Friedman# for you: LXXVIII = ( XV - II ) * ( L / X + I ) You can credit me as [PF] if you like. PrimeFan 16:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

These are cheesy derivations, but I didn't see them on your list, so I'm letting you know about them: CXXXIV = XV * (XC/X) - I, similar thing for 136. Anton Mravcek 23:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In your user page you write "I mentioned applying the concept of Friedman numbers to Erich Friedman." Surely you meant "I mentioned to Erich Friedman about applying the concept of Friedman numbers to Roman numerals."? 141.217.41.218 23:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, 141.217.41.218. And thanks Anton for the RFNs. Robert Happelberg 20:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LXXXVIII=(X-II)*(X+I^LXV)
CXXXVIII=((C-XXX)-I^V)*II
CLXXXVII=(CX/X)*XVII 141.217.41.208 15:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the first two, because they exponentiate I, and the last one is missing the L in the expression. Robert Happelberg 20:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] [Sic]

Oops. My apologies, you're entirely right about [The South End]. I can only plea a momentary lapse of concentration, as it's pretty obviously meant to be a misspelling given the context. Cmdrjameson 23:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The South End

No sorry. I just reverted a vandalism on the article. :) Inter\Echo 22:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare overwiki game

Bob, I challenge you to add more links to this Shakespeare excerpt.

To be, or not to be - that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them. To die- to sleep-
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die - to sleep.
To sleep- perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub!
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th' oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th' unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would these fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death-
The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns- puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action.- Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia!- Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins rememb'red.
--Hamlet, in William Shakespeare's Hamlet

[edit] Your edit of 300 (number)

Regretfully had some side effects: [1]. Can you see to that? -- Egil 21:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. Robert Happelberg 21:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks. And I suddenly realized why telephone became teleph ;-) -- Egil 21:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stewielocks and the Three Griffins

See my comments here. I think it'll end up gone again....and in the not too distant future either. We'll take care of it. Rx StrangeLove 03:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Films about musicians

Hi, and Happy New Year. Some other films about real musicians/composers are:

Thanks for the list, gives me something to put on my Netflix queue. I'll also add them to the list I have on my user page. Robert Happelberg 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the acknowledgment. JackofOz 20:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Robert. How could we forget the inimitable Ken Russell, who, as well as doing Mahler and The Music Lovers, has also made either feature films or documentaries about: Bartok, Bax, Bruckner, Debussy, Georges Delerue, Delius ('Song of Summer'), Elgar (1962 wonderful; 2002 godawful), Gordon Jacob, Liszt, Martinů, Prokofiev, Richard Strauss ('Dance of the Seven Veils'), and Vaughan Williams. IMDB has all the details.

I also remember the movie 'Nijinsky' which had an actor playing Stravinsky. Cheers JackofOz 03:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about Ken Russell. I'll probably put the Elgar 2002 at the end of my Netflix list, but at least I have to give it credit for having an interesting title (Fantasy of a Composer on a Bicycle). IMDB lists The Diaries of Vaslav Nijinsky (2001) which has a part for Diaghilev but apparently not for Stravinsky. Robert Happelberg 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Math and Proof movie

I watched Proof. It's more about the psychological state of mathematicians than it is about actual mathematics. Scenes in the movie and DVD menu screens show a lot of intimidating-looking mathematical formulas fleeting by, but the dialogue contains very little beyond high school algebra. The bit about 33 1/4 years containing 1729 weeks was mildly interesting. I commented on the Sophie Germain prime mentioned in the movie in the talk page of the article about the movie. PrimeFan 20:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10061092961

Didn't you know? It's the smallest number that can be written in 17 fully different (i.e. mutually disjoint) ways as the sum of 17 squares of prime numbers. No, I'm kidding, and I was somewhat facetious, but I'm fairly sure that given enough time (a whole lot) and a good generator of potential interesting looking properties, for a number this big you'll hit sooner or later (make that: later) on some property that makes you say "wow" (the first few times around). It is actually remarkable that this number can be written with only five different decimal digits; the vast majority of numbers need all ten. It is also somewhat implausible that we have the factorization 10061092961 = 100297 × 100313, where all three numbers start of with 100. And the number was not chosen arbitrarily, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10061092961. --LambiamTalk 17:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Come and See

What commentary section were you talking about in the edit's description? -- Jokes Free4Me 10:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A commentary section that the article doesn't currently have but maybe it ought to have. The way I see it, statements like
"There is no closure - even after all of the horrible things that the protagonist has witnessed, he is not given any reprieve. It is implied that the war will go on forever."
don't belong in the plot summary, which ought to strive to be nothing more than a simple rendition of the plot which aids in comprehension of the cultural significance of the film. Robert Happelberg 22:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A small request

Before posting anything to The South End error log in the Talk page of the article, I would like to request that you please e-mail them about it first and wait at least a week. If you don't get a reply, then go ahead and post it. Thank you. Del arte 17:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaike Grossman

Robert, I don't understand your edit summary and comment about the Hebrew spelling of the subject's name. Isn't it standard Wikipedia practice to include the appropriate language version of a name for subjects (as in this case) notable in a non-English speaking country? I'd appreciate your elucidating this point. I would support including it also because the Latin-letter transcription of her name is only an approximation (see Discussion), and readers of Hebrew will appreciate the information provided by the spelling. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 00:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Answered at your talk page.

[edit] Anne Frank statue

Hi Robert, I found a link here [2] attributing the work to a Dutch artist, Mari Andriessen, and I have updated the image description page with this information. Rossrs 00:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franz Carl Weiskopf

I did notice that glitch myself. I only stubbed the article accordingly and it was you who created it. I let it be as it seemed a once off occurence. There's no signs of any other widespread problems with timestamps that I'm aware of. I guess a developer would be able to correct the problem if you wish for your edit to be attributed correctly. -- Longhair 23:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] confusion

well you dont seem to have a complete understanding of the situation, as it was discussed by wikipedia members who were going about cleaning things to determine the right order for categories, and it was decided in a group that it would be alphabetical. I dont see why people are so insistent on the notes being first anyways...if you are going to keep this format, then you need to follow through with it on all 100 or so episodes and not just the 20 or so you did. You could also form a discussion to get a standardized format settled for good if you want to be productive. Grande13 22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/b/User_talk%7ERobert_Happelberg_55bc.html"