User talk:RJHall

These are archive links to copies of my talk page just prior to a cleanup. 03/18/05 07/03/05 12/14/05 05/14/06 07/13/06 10/21/06 04/05/07 09/06/07 11/11/07

float

Friendly messages are much appreciated! Please add new conversations below. Thanks! —RJH

P.S. Obviously uncivil comments will be expunged with extreme prejudice.

ACID Atom

The article Atom, which you voted for the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive on August 30, and was removed on September 11, because on one got around to choosing it as the winner, has been renominated and needs votes. Zginder 16:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks. -RJH (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Atom as this week's WP:ACID winner

Zginder 00:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Shades of Chicxulub Crater

Hey, I've renom'd it at WP:FAC here... so now that the peer review's done ;), mind giving your opinion? David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've addressed your concerns... David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Cc etrusca.gif

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cc etrusca.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Vega

I meant exactly that the luminosity as viewed from poles is twice the luminosity as viewd from equator. Aufdenberg et al (2006) say that the (apparent) pole luminosity of Vega is 57 Solar (p. 670). This overluminosity of of Vega was a big problem in the past. They resolved it. The true luminosity of Vega is about 37 solar, which is the same as luminosity of a non-rotating main sequence star with the same mass. In fact Aufdenberg et al (2006) say "Here we assume Vega’s rapid rotation has no significant effect on its interior in relation to the luminosity from nuclear reactions in its core." (see the last paragraph on p.670 in the left column). They actually use luminosity-mass relation for slowly rotating Sirius to derive mass estimate for Vega.

Unfortunatly they did not calculate the value for equator luminosity. However the temperature at the equatot is 25% less than at poles therefore the difference is 1.25⁴=2.3 times. Taking into account 20 % decrease in the surface area we arrive at the value aroung 2.8 times. This value is an upper limit. As for the real value, my reasonable guess is 2 times, which is compatible with their figure 9. This estimate gives equator luminosity about 30 solar. Ruslik (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to calculate the equator luminosity using model from Aufdenberg et al (2006). I may do this in the future but not now. I am too busy with other activities. Ruslik (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again. It's one of those pieces of information that would be nice to have, but I think the article can get by without it at the moment. I temporarily moved the paragraph on the topic to the article's talk page. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Carbon as this week's WP:ACID winner

Zginder (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Asteroid belt

Hi RJ. I don't know if you noticed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Asteroid belt. It's Serendip's nom. I did a ce but it's still in limbo after a few weeks on FAC. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marskell. Although it has undergone a lot of changes recently, I did a fair amount of work on the original article in order to get it up to GA. So I think I may be a little biased. — RJH (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Bernard

I've translated this article from French, per your request... just a couple of archaic titles which I need to make sure I translated correctly. Please proofread and make any corrections as you see fit :-) ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. It looks good to me. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this one was pretty straightforward and mercifully short compared to many of the French biographical articles. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 23:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mechanisms and processes of evolution

i think the lead is perfect. the length is enough. Jogaila is a recently featured article. don't you think it needs a proper lead. their are hundered of articles which don't have sufficient lead. i think that lead should not be touched since all the imp. aspects are already discussed in the lead. i have addressed some of the points. though i don't agree with your one more point. anyway i have replied on nomination page only. thanks a lot for reviewing the article, i highly appriciate your efforts, Sushant gupta 14:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

i have addressed all the points. kindly give your opinion please. thanks, Sushant gupta 14:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the FAC page. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry, Sushant gupta 06:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Main sequence

Hi Bob. The article on the main sequence is in need of fixing up. You have done such a great job on other astronomy pages, do you have time for that one? I can't spend much time on it, but am happy to pitch in or offer advice if needed. Timb66 10:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for the suggestion. Yes I can try to expand it. — RJH (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay I have expanded it. There's still some references needed and I'll work on that. When you have a moment, could you look through it and see what needs expanding, clarifying or even removing? I'm sure there may be some corrections needed and a bit of fine tuning. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

You voted for and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse _work 13:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Scorcher

Hey RJ, given I am a neophyte when it comes to astronomy, are you happy that everything possibly technical and star-related has been added to the Sirius article? Have you seen the book by Holberg? It's got good background and analysis on the 'red sirius' and the issue of a 3rd body as well as some nifty stuff on the heliacal rising and I can play with all that. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Yes I think the article covers the salient details about Sirius reasonably well. I haven't been able to find anything else worth mentioning with regards to astronomical details. I think the page compares well with the accessible articles by Prof. Jim Kaler and the SolStation page. Unfortunately no I haven't read the book by Holberg. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a fantastic read, borrowed it from uni library but may buy a copy one day. Just thought of something - maybe a sentence or two about the Sirius Supercluster may be good but I don't have any book refs or anything. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You got it. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I just thought - it may be good to note how high it gets from some average northern cities such as London or New York as I have a note from St Petersburg (Russia not Florida!) in, but couldn't find it webwise. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's actually pretty easy to calculate. The maximum altitude of a star at culmination is equal to 90° + the star's declination − the city's latitude.[1] So (if I did my math right) the maximum altitude of Sirius is 73.3° − N. latitude. For London (+50.5°), this would be 22.3°.—RJH (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for that (should have remembered from years ago..) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tireless contributor barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your endless efforts in space-related topics, such as Planet and asteroid belt, I think you deserve a tireless contributor barnstar :) Serendipodous 13:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceres is on the way up (Tony opened with support! That has never happened to me in ten featured articles). Neptune is going to need some SERIOUS work. I'm not really in a position to get a hold of the right data at the moment, but it needs to triple its citation level, at least. Serendi^podous 16:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Star

Hello RJ, I think the reference I had given for Sanskrit etymology of star already states that star derives from Sanskrit although it doesnt mention Sitara explicitly. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello FMT. If the sentence had only said it was derived from Sanskrit then I wouldn't have a concern. But I can't be sure that it, historically, was derived from "sitara". That's why I'd like to see a reference for that point. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

An Engraved Invitation

Hello RJHall, based upon your work and interest related to space manufacturing and role playing games I hearby extend an invitation to you to check out v:Lunar Boom Town at Wikiversity. We intend to support a range of educational, planning and venture related activities such as electronic games, tech paper review, venture planning, etc. to learn more about space tech and settlement issues and how to get profitably involved with them. I hope you will find time to stop by and at least comment at some area of interest. It is a pretty rough lump of coal at the moment but I think some aspects of diamond facets may become visible soon. I did some role playing with my nephew using and creating materials there and he is now persistently looking for more. This has led to dialogues regarding chemisty, life support systems, mass and metrics, and long practice sessions on lunar lander and asteroids improving his understanding of what airless maneuvering requires with and without a large g-field. In v:Lunar Boom Town/Cargo Imports we are preparing to do a little green sand casting to create physical rocket models of our own design. I hope you can visualize how this might grow some individuals, organizations, and activities beneficial to private ventures in space. Remember both Goddard and Braun started with small model rocketry. Thanks for your time and effort here at Wikipedia. We shall be utilizing your efforts even if you do not choose to stop by v:Lunar Boom Town! Lazyquasar (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Open your card >> >> >>

Happy Holidays from V's Shop.

Send an E-card to someone else

Credits: This card was inspired by Macy's123, assistant of V's Shop

Alnitak, sorry Zeta Orionis on the main page...

If you're on in the next 4 hours you'll see Zeta Orionis in the DYK section of the main page.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Censorship and talk pages

Please don't cry "censorship" when people try to keep talk page discussions on track. It's every editor's job to make sure talk pages are for useful discussion of how to improve the article. Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech, it's an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments, "Do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission." This is exactly what was done; repeatedly. To censor is defined as removal of objectionable content. I believe the verb correctly matches the action performed. In future, please respect the talk page guidelines.—RJH (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look further down, you'll see that removing material not related to improving the article is specifically mentioned as a case where it's OK to edit someone else's comments. Friday (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw that, and to me the discussion as relevant to the article content. It was not off topic, and concerned the content of the lead paragraph. So that case doesn't apply. Frankly this is the first time since I've joined Wikipedia that I've seen somebody out and out yank an entire on-topic discussion out of an article talk page. It was unnecessary and, to me, antagonistic. My preference would be to archive the discussion and let those who want to read it do so. But we clearly disagree completely on this topic, so lets leave it at that.—RJH (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 747

Thank you for your comment. We or I am working on this and hope you will change your oppose in the near future. I began a lengthy discussion on reference formatting but see that it's not quite there despite a vast improvment from the past. Archtransit (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to remove my opposition to this article's promotion once that is done. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

After an extended discussion, the editors in the article decided not to use reference templates. WP guidelines makes the style of references up to the editors.

Can you help us? What is the correct way to do references. Either that or point to a certain one in the article that is 100% correct and we'll copy it. Help! Archtransit (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Archtransit: In theory, all of the FA'd articles should have satisfactory citations. The format varies depending on whether it is a web page, news story, book, journal article, &c.I prefer using the cite templates as they give consistent results and remind me about missing information. Information on citing sources is available at Wikipedia:Citing sources.—RJH (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you look at citation #1 Boeing 747 and let me know if this is acceptable? Having to do 180 citations over and over and repeatedly correcting them is wasted effort.Archtransit (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As a web page, I normally format it to look like this using a cite web template:

Staff (2007). "747 Program Milestones". The Boeing Company. Retrieved 2007-12-17.

—RJH (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What if The Boeing Company is in italics. There was an extended discussion and the result was to use dates like "Retrieved 17 December 2007." not the 2007-12-17 convention. Do you find these style choices acceptable? I'd prefer not to fix 180 references incorrectly!Archtransit (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The cite web template uses italics to designate a work, rather than a publisher. (Some examples here: Template:Cite_web#Examples.) There are some people who are sticklers for the date format, and I think the linked dates had something to with the display based on an individual's date formatting preferences: Help:Preferences#Date_format. But personally I only care about consistency.—RJH (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of our references are webpages. Anyway, the job is tentatively completed. I really feel unqualified to do references so please look it over and let me know if the job is done. Thanks. Archtransit (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay I took a look through the references and came up with a few suggestions:

• I was able to find an author for notes 3, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17, 28, 33, 35, 60, 65, 66, 73, 80, 85, 141, 146, 149, 151, 157, 166, 169. Those should be added.
• Note 20 (a book) is missing an author and ISBN number.
• Note 102 doesn't give a publisher.
• URL to note 127 (Interiors, Airchive.com. Retrieved 17 December 2007) wasn't found.
• URL to 150 is just a google search.
• Note 173 includes a link to a URL but no indication of what is being accessed. The "see also" should be properly formatted as a reference.
• By the way, the "External links" section should be at the end of the article, rather than before "Related content".

Thanks—RJH (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done All done! Please give your stamp of approval before we become insane from these references. It has been a learning experience. I used to be clueless about refs (except that I knew to get references) but now I know a little. Archtransit (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Calculus - Thanks

Hello RJHall. I want to thank you for your work on Granville's Calculus. I am doing some further work on it, uncluding posting some typos in the discussion of those pages. I don't know your email but if you want to communicate, my email is on http://www.opensourcemath.org/. Thanks again.

more thanks

Hi -- I, too, want to thank you for digitizing Granville's calculus. I've grabbed a few of Granville's problems for use (with credit to Granville) in my own free-as-in-speech calculus textbook at lightandmatter.com. -- Ben Crowell, --76.93.42.50 (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately it is going to take some time to complete the digitization. I try to do a few pages each week.—RJH (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Pulling out all me old white dwarves...

(sneezing from dusty mags)....the magazine kind to bolster independent refs for D&D/Runequest material. You've seen this here and on the talk page? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got a copy of the "Heroic Worlds" book, which I use for referencing old modules and such.—RJH (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

File:Chemistry-stub.png

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is . You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse _work 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for dealing with Tony1 over at Europa. I've had little access to a computer over the last few days so I was afraid that Tony's curse would doom the FA. I owe ya one. :-) Serendi^podous 16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Ruslik did most of the work. I actually no longer mind giving or receiving negative feedback during the FAC process because the end result is usually a better article, and I often learn something in the process. But sure, glad I could be of some help.—RJH (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Award

I Cas Liber, hereby award RJHall the Flaming Joel-wiki for raising our collective consciousness for work on a Featured Article highlighted by the Übermuse Billy Joel in his great song We Didn't Start the Fire...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Err... thanks, I think...? :-) —RJH (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For earth - have a look at the lyrics and what they link to. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hilary Duff Peer review

Thanx for ur comments on the peer review page...did u mean that citation formats need to be uniform throughout the article?? like either <ref></ref> or {{cite}} throughout the article??....can u elaborate on this a little more and be a bit more specific.....thanx ???? Gprince007 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, to take an example, the first reference "Forbes Magazine's Richest People Under 25" should probably look like this:

Mimon, Diana (2005). "Forbes Magazine's Richest People Under 25". About.com. Retrieved 2008-01-13.

Another example is the Hilary Duff Lines Up 32 Summer Dates references:

Harris, Chris (May 20, 2005). "Hilary Duff Lines Up 32 Summer Dates". MTV. Retrieved 2006-08-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I.e. wherever possible it's a good idea to list the author, date published, the publisher and an access date for the link. That way the reader knows more about the source, and also if the link goes away you have a better chance of retrieval. It also looks a little more polished. The "cite" templates are not manditory (between the <ref>{{cite ... }}<\ref> tags), but they do help give a consistent appearance. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nepal's Rivers

At some stage you have contributed to Nepal's river pages. I have added substantial texts to the Gandaki River, Mahakali River and the Kosi River. But nobody seems to be interested in these pages. I have not seen any comments on the additions made by me. May I request you to have a look at them?--Nvvchar (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that was in support of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. Thank you for adding more content. If you are in need of further comments, you might try Wikipedia:Requests for feedback.—RJH (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC: Ununoctium

Thanks for the suggestions on ununoctium. I have tried to incorporate them into the article and I hope it reads better now. If you have time, you can go through this newer version and let me know what you think. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Atom

I was going to peer review Atom, but before doing so, I wanted to ask a question. What audience are you aiming for? What background knowledge are you assuming? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 08:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably an educated adult who hasn't taken physics in college. Or possibly a knowledgable high school student. Otherwise I was expecting that the wikilinks would be used to fill in knowledge blanks. I did try to avoid formulae and heavy physics jargon. Does that sound reasonable? I think a vital article should probably address a wide audience.—RJH (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the FA status. Thoroughly deserved! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I was expecting to have a little more difficulty getting it through the FAC, but it went fairly well.—RJH (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes—I wonder what happened to User:SandyGeorgia ... Mind you, there weren't many opposes, so she may have just let sleeping dogs lie (or whatever the atomic equivalent is). --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey congrats on getting Atom through to FA. It looks great! Furmanj (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Craters on the Moon

Hallo RJHall! I’m a Swedish Wikipedian and I’m working with the translation of the articles in the List of craters on the Moon. However I’ve found some strange things in a couple of the articles and I have left a question on the talk page. The articles are Talk:Al-Biruni (crater) and Talk:Aitken (crater). I hope that you can provide the answers for me:). Thx. 81.233.181.241 (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The first (Al-Birundi) was vandalized and has been fixed. The second was an error, so I'll work on getting it corrected. Thank you for pointing out the problems and for translating these articles.—RJH (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! Thank you for your quick response! Jopparn (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Last lookover for Sirius content-wise

G'day RJH, I rearranged Sirius a bit - trying to put ancient observational uses of the star in the first section, and leaving the religious ones till the bottom. The only other 2 things I can think of are whether the whole Red Sirius rebuttal needs more detail, and ditto for any search of Sirius C. I also made a modern cultural bit at the bottom but will remove anything I can't find cites for. If you're happy from an astronomical point of view I'll make a start on copyediting and ask for a couple of oter folks to give it a lookover. I was planning to run it through GA but noted it has already been there. (d'oh!) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, but, compared to a star like Vega, there doesn't seem to be a lot of additional things to say about Sirius from an astronomical perspective. So I think this will have to do. Anyway, apart from awkwardness of the merged paragraphs at the start of the System section, it looks good to me.—RJH (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh there is perhaps one more thing. The following paper:

Kuchner, Marc J. (2000). "A Search for Exozodiacal Dust and Faint Companions Near Sirius, Procyon, and Altair with the NICMOS Coronagraph". Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. 112: 827–832. Retrieved 2008-01-21. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

makes the suggestion (just prior to section 2) that the redness was caused by interaction with a faint companion star. You might want to mention that as another possibility, even though no third companion has yet been observed.—RJH (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: JSYK, Sirius is at FAC..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Little question

Hi RJ. I'm trying to give Sirius a decent review and I'm doing some comparison to Vega. When it notes "The pole of Vega—its axis of rotation—is inclined no more than five degrees from the line-of-sight to the Earth" I assume this means an inclination left/right as we view it. What about inclination toward the line-of-sight? (As always, sorry if that's silly.) I think similar info should be in Sirius. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC: Planet

I went through your comments in detail and except for the Magnetosphere, I dealt with all of them. Let me know what you think now. Nergaal (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

References for Vega article

In response to your query about Vega on my talk page, here is a more complete complete reference: Jocelyn Tomkin, Sky and Telescope, Volume 95 Number 4, April 1998, pp. 59-63. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 11:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Craters on the Moon, again.

Hello again! I have another question that I would appreciate if you could take some time to answer! In the second piece in the article about Alphonsus (crater) it says: "This pyramid-shaped formation rises to a height of 1.5 km above the interior surface. It is not volcanic in origin, but rather is made of anorthosite like the lunar highlands.".

As I have understood it anorthosite is of volcanic origin. Could you please explain what you mean? Cheers. / Jopparn (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The rise was not created by a volcanic eruption.—RJH (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Earth

Hello... thanks for the note, and the information on where it is considered appropriate to use "we". Any thoughts about how we might rework the line to include "we" and still make it a bit more formal? (Part of why I removed it was because I thought "we know life exists" was a bit casual.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

re:Triton

RJ, I always appreciate your support but do you mind if I take that down? The entry is currently the standard used for the Solar System's moons, featured and not. Yes you may have a point that pronunciations should be cited, but since this issue is one that covers all of Wikipedia and not just this article, I think it is one best suited for the higher boards. As it is, the might unfairly affect this article's chances of being featured, and I'd rather not lose an FA over something common to every other featured moon article on Wikipedia. Serendi^podous 18:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be resolved for now by moving the unsourced entry to the talk page. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK, but to be fair you'd have to do that to every other uncited IPA on Wikipedia. Serendi^podous 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been doing it on the few pages I watch and references are being added. So I think it's fair.—RJH (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I put in back, and am removing the tags from other articles. These pronunciations can be found in most any dictionary (dictionary.com will usually give a couple), so I don't see the point. Traditionally Wikipedia hasn't bothered with citing such things: the only pronunciations we've been citing are ones that are difficult or contentious, like Charon. kwami (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I used the pronunciation from Marrion-Webster in an article, along with a citation, and it was promptly reverted. I was informed that they must use IPA pronunciations, such as in in the Cambridge dictionary. So I put in citation requests where they do not match Cambridge. Under these conditions the fact tags are perfectly acceptible.—RJH (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I seriously don't think we need fact tags on the pronunciation of 'Earth' or 'Mars', but you can get IPA transcriptions from dictionary.com. You also can convert the Webster transcriptions to the IPA using the help key that's linked through the word 'pronunciation'. kwami (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The IPA transcriptions from dictionary.com do not match what is on the Triton (moon) page. So you tell me, what do I believe? It is unacceptible that the pronunciation guide should be able to bypass the standards that the remainder of the article is required to meet in order to satisfy FA criteria. An editor's word is not sufficient evidence.—RJH (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do: they list /ˈtraɪtn/, which is equivalent to what we have. The other pronunciation is covered under our comment 'or as in Greek xxx'. kwami (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. You just said "manual conversion of pronunciations would fall under WP:OR." Then don't cite the pronunciations. But that's a bit like saying you can't use any source for the article on 'theater' if they spell it 'theatre', because assuming those are the same thing is OR. kwami (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Equivalent? Do you mean you manually converted it? Well my browser doesn't display the characters you are showing, so I can't tell. But the dictionary.com shows a nu-like character before the final n, while wikipedia shows a backwards 'e'. If it is a consistent character set, why do they show up differently?—RJH (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no nu-like character, so there must either be something wrong with your browser or your fonts. If you go to the help key, you'll see that we chose to write syllabic consonants with a schwa. That's a convention used in some dictionaries but not others. People find the IPA confusing enough without us using half a dozen different IPA conventions. If we have to find an exact match to use a citation, then we're not going to be able to cite very many pronunciations. kwami (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

RJ, please see the talk page on Triton. You're not looking far enough down. The first cited pronunciation is not the moon, it's a subatomic particle related to tritium. Like all subatomic particles, it's pronounced with a heavy accent on the -on, like proton or neutron. Look further down beyond the advertising and you'll find the mythical pronunciation, which is what we have now, or an equivalent version thereof. Serendi^podous 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lady Houston and the Supermarine Spitfire

Just reading the archived Wikipedia:Peer review/Supermarine Spitfire/archive2 there are some interesting comments from you about the contribution made by Lady Houston to the Spitfire. While Lady Houston made a significant contribution to the Supermarine S6B her link to the Spitfire was fairly indirect. Her patriotism and salvation of the British Schneider Trophy effort are described in the Wikipedia article on the S6B and in the Lucy, Lady Houston article. Many other people who are not mentioned contributed more directly to the success of the Spitfire (eg: Ralph Sorley, who devised the eight Browning armament scheme, Captain R. N.. Liptrot, who was the principal technical officer at the Air Ministry, who evaluated many of the designs presented to the ministry), to describe them all would make the article extremely long and dense.Minorhistorian (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well then perhaps a link in the "See also" section would suffice.—RJH (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! I was thinking a list of "Prominent people" or similar would be a worthwhile addition to the article; however, the list could end up being extremely long! Another "spin-off" page?Minorhistorian (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For bringing Atom to FA status, chosen the ACID and the science collaboration. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 16:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ganymede

FYI: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ganymede (moon). Marskell (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent Peer Review

Thanks for the input! I'll try and get those changes in as soon as I can. Could you help me out a little with the first few points about the manual of style?

Thanks!

Katanada (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm glad I could help. I'm a little busy with some other pages at the moment, so I'll have to decline. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine. Thanks for the review! Keep it on your watch list and comment as you see fit. I'll try my best to implement what I can... Also, the Main Article: stuff that I put in there was just to not have a floating section that just seemed like it made no sense. A lot of the "in text citations" would come from those main articles. I've just re-worded some stuff from other Wiki articles so that it made some type of sense as to why it should be in Gas . I'll try to add a few though. Thanks again! Katanada (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Islam and the arts

I see you have a history of working on the article Islam and the arts. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The only change I have made was to remove a PROD. Sorry, it's not really my cup of tea.—RJH (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

hahaha Today's FA idea.....

Now when exactly is the heliacal rising of Sirius this year? Should be today's FA on that date....[[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 07:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure

I'm going to be pretty busy over the next couple of days, but I would like to see Neptune raised up. Serendi^podous 19:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Study at UW

Hi! I'm part of a group at UW in Computer Science trying to make editing in Wikipedia easier. I'd love to talk to you and other Wikipedians in the Seattle area about your practices. You can find my webpage at [2] and email me from there or you can post on my talk page. Kayur (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'll have to decline.—RJH (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Uma estrella do celeiro para voce

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		I may be jumping the gun, but it looks like Neptune is about to get promoted, and if it is, it will be because of the huge amount of work you put into it. So let me say, well done! Serendipodous 21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I also owe you an apology. During Triton's FAC Sandy told me that the "First/Last" fields made the authors' names disappear in the "cite" format. So I changed all the names to "author=" format. I was attempting to do the same to Neptune, got about 15 citations down, and then fell asleep. Serendi^podous 07:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. They only disappear when the field cases don't match. I.e. "first=" works but "First=" doesn't. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Neptune

In order to give RaveDave what he wants, Neptune is going to have to have an atmosphere section, much like the one Ruslik gave Uranus. I've gone looking, but I can't find anything like a broad overview of where the troposphere begins or ends, where the stratosphere begins or ends, or what's in each, like Ruslik's section has. Unfortunately, Ruslik seems to be on a wikibreak, so I can't ask him. Not sure what to do. Serendi^podous 16:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to just withdraw the nomination then so we can address that issue.—RJH (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruslik is back (yaay) and says he can get going on it tomorrow. Still, no need to withdraw the nom; we're probably going to get promoted anyway, but this needs to be done. I've started on a stub section, though the source Ruslik gave me is WAY over my head. Serendi^podous 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's good news then.—RJH (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've reworked the article just enough to answer RaveDave's objections. Let me know if you think I went too far. Serendi^podous 21:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is now too much redundancy between "Atmosphere" and "Clouds".—RJH (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Eeep. Yep. Sorry about that. Merged it. Serendi^podous 21:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That picture's beautiful. :-) I think we've dodged a bullet. If they liked it before, they'll have to pass it now. Serendi^podous 21:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes but there's always room for improvement. I'm sure that Ruslik will have some interesting additions. =)—RJH (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out that ref issue. You stressed yet? I'm stressed. Serendi^podous 20:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Me? Nah, I've been working on another article. =) Thanks for all of your trouble.—RJH (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Aw. Thanks! :-) That's very sweet. Serendi^podous 21:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Spaces in scientific notation

You may want to join the discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Common_mathematical_symbols:_spacing about the spaces in scientific notation.--Patrick (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Hullo, Bob -- I'm a physicist, working in high-energy astronomy for long, and lately in IR on Spitzer space telescope in Pasadena. I have enjoyed and appreciated your labors lately on Cygnus X-1, which is an old friend of us gamma guys. I am fairly new to Wikipedia (& maybe a slow learner to boot...), so looking to meet the more experienced professionals working the turf. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wwheaton. Thank you very much for your comments on the Cygnus X-1 article. I'm hoping to make the page more comprehensive and bring it up to FA quality, but it may take a while. Unfortunately my professional field isn't in astronomy, although I have had a life-long interest in the subject so hopefully I know enough to make it an interesting read.

Most of the astronomy-related discussions take place over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Astronomy and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects, so you might consider visiting. I'm sure they'll appreciate your comments. Thanks again.—RJH (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on the Cygnus X-1 article. It will take a long time to review it (and the references) as carefully as they deserve. We are still working with the earth-occultation BATSE data, and now have the full nine-year stretch of the CGRO data for it. We seemed to see a ~1 MeV flare in [HEAO 3] data in 1979, and our BATSE occulation project at JPL was above all motivated by the desire to try and find other similar instances. Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Good luck with your search. I hope you find some interesting results.—RJH (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for setting me straight on Big Bang helium on the Jupiter discussion. That was my first Wikipedia post (and it shows) I'm an old timer and never came very up to date on Big Bang theory. My thinking was that most helium was generated from fusion reactions in stars. I edited my post with a proper signature. You can delete both the post and your reply if you wish. (aside...I was sorry to hear about A.C. Clark's demise yesterday. He was the last of the 3 author heros from my teenage years. Other 2: Heinlein and Asimov.) FrodoGem (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I too enjoyed the works by the authors you mentioned during my teenage years.—RJH (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cygnus X-1 (disambiguation)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cygnus X-1 (disambiguation), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.cassiopedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Cygnus_X-1. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I was in the middle of a merge. The merge is complete now. The listed external URL is a wikipedia clone, so it is not a copyvio.—RJH (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prague Spring

I believe I've addressed your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prague Spring, could you please take another look? Thanks, The Dominator (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the spelling error and readded the template to lead. The Dominator (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be obnoxious, but could you take another look, I've addressed your requests to my best ability, thanks. The Dominator (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you, or perhaps do you know someone who could...

give Oort cloud a copyedit? Everything on its FAC page has been addressed, but it needs a going over by someone who hasn't worked on it. If you know someone who could spare the time, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. :-) Serendi^podous 11:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to go through it when I have a block of free time available. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'm done.—RJH (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony's back and apparently neither you nor I were good enough to pass the article. I've accepted that I'm not a good editor (I miss details); Tony asked me to find a good copyeditor in the field, but the best I can find in the planetary area so far is you. I really don't know who to ask about this. Are there any expert copyeditors who know astronomy? Who should I ask? I don't really know what to do. Serendi^podous 14:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I have no good suggestions to make.—RJH (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. Thanks for everything you've done. Serendi^podous 22:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Serendipodous but I find myself having to withdraw my support after another read through. Some changes have been made to the article that are not beneficial. I listed more comments on the FAC page.—RJH (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you yet again for helping me get Oort cloud to FA. As usual, I couldn't have done it without you. Been a bit busy (That perennial thorn in my side, Formation and evolution of the Solar System is acting up again), but I wanted to let you know I appreciate it. Serendi^podous 21:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thank you for the note.—RJH (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict on "Accretion disk"

Hi, I left the raw text of my version on the talk page. BTW, I have been trained (? ApJ style, I think) to hyphenate "X-ray" when it is used as an adjective, but not as a noun. No idea how this fits with external conventions. -- Bill Wwheaton (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my edit summary is lost, but you'll figure it out I guess. I started with the figure caption & couldn't stop once I got going. B Wwheaton (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've asked at the reference desk about the correct usage of the hyphen. It wouldn't surpirse me to find that it may have already been discussed at some point.—RJH (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

X-ray(s) is always hyphenated. Gamma ray(s) isn't, except in adjectival form e.g. gamma-ray burster. Skeptic2 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Proper citations

I see you care about these, and I am guilty, very guilty I'm sure, of not doing it correctly. Today Amazon delivered Wikipedia, the missing manual, and it lead me to a citation generator at [3] -- in your opinion, does this generate proper citations? If not, what should I be doing? I've read around various Wikipedia pages and am still confused. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

I usually prefer to use Wikipedia:Citation templates for the purpose. The full topic of citations is covered on Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the citations on the Sirius page. I was going to draw your attention to these but I guessed you'd find them soon enough. As with the correspondent above, I find several different styles used through Wikipedia and don't know which is the best. The lack of a decent style manual and worked examples doesn't help. You may have noticed that we have had a jolly dispute about the Dogon and Sirius on the Dogon people page. Seems that some people just can't leave this Sirius Mystery business alone. I dumped most of the controversial stuff onto the page about Temple's Sirius Mystery book so all the edit wars will probably move over there now.

If I can be so bold as to correct a spelling error in your comment on heat from Sirius: there is no word "miniscule". It's minuscule. Skeptic2 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Army Fortresses in Japan proper

Thank you for your interest in List of Army Fortresses in Japan. Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Army Fortresses in Japan proper I have made an attempt to find references for the article and could find nothing to support the assertions made. Consensus is leading to keep and improve, but I am not seeing where improve is an option. If I am mistaken and there are references available please add them to the article. Jeepday (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Planet

Please go over there to help resolve the weird argument. I don't think I can do this alone. Serendi^podous 19:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination of BY Draconis

Hi. I've nominated BY Draconis, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on April 18, where you can improve it if you see fit. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

4/24 DYK

On 24 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article BY Draconis, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 04:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration?

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Serendipodous RfA

Hello there. As you know, Serendipodous has been working very diligently over the course of the past months, and I am thinking about nominating him for adminship. I would like your advice on the matter. Please reply at my talk page because as busy as it is on this page, I will not be checking it anyway. Thank you. Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 15:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear why you need my advice on the matter. Personally I've declined past nominations for adminship because I wasn't interested. So I don't have much to say really.—RJH (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Misleading link?

Hi, Is that even the case for a link to a section?! Doesn't seem reasonable. (There is even a subsection for sounding rockets, but I wasn't sure how to link to that.) Live & learn.... Bill Wwheaton (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. In the past I've had criticism for wikilinks that appear to point to one article but instead go to an entirely different article. So I'm careful not to make that mistake. In this case, the intended subject of the "suborbital rocket launches" link seemed like it should be pretty clear: rockets that do not reach orbit. Instead you had it changed to the topic of X-ray astronomy observation. I'm very sorry, but I tend to be a little aggressive in my editing when a page is up for FAC; the reviewers are super picky about every little detail. Anyway, I tried putting in a compromise statement.—RJH (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just trying to find a graceful way to respond to the comment on the GA feedback without cluttering up the article. I could tell that you were bending over backwards to be compliant with policy. I saw the link you put in as a compromise. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd bot edits

Thanks for your comments on DOI bot. Just to let you know I've replied on my user page (to avoid duplication!). Feel free to reply there if you still have qualms. Regards, Smith609 Talk 17:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

File:Chemistry-stub.png

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is . You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse _work 08:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

use of Navajo Generating Station photo

I would like to use your photograph of the Navajo Generating Station to illustrate an article that is going to be published. Please get in touch with me as soon as possible to let me know exactly how you would like the photo credit to read. Please email me via my wikipedia account - Jpold.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpold (talk • contribs) 19:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cyg-x1

Hi there, I've been following your work on Cygnus-x1 since I did the GA review and I'm most impressed. Anyway, I was going truh the article again today and I noticed that the costallation map was missing cyg-x1 itself, so I made a guesstimate version based on these two images: [4] and [5], obviously its a crude estimate since I didn't take the scales into consideration, but it atleast gives a general idea. Anyhow I leave it up to you to use it or not. Its located here - Acer (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Eta and Cyg X-1 are separated by 26 arcminutes, so they're real close together on a map of that scale. As you can see by the image, Cyg X-1 is a little difficult to see when the map is scaled down.—RJH (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I figured I had spaced them more than they actually are but I decided to go with it anyway for clarity, as for the size, I was kind of hoping people would click on the image :P, are you suggesting I make the caption bigger or just scrap the idea alltoguether? I'm happy eitherway. Acer (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For that to work, it may require a blown-up sub-image, such as on the IK Pegasi page. You could probably just overlay the Lyra part of the image. Also you might consider shrinking down the resulting image a little so it is easier to download.—RJH (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont have photoshop, I tried doing it with what I have available but the end result was erm.. not very good.. (terrible in fact) so I'm pretty much throwing in the towel on this one... Acer (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiCookie

Just stopping by with cookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Life discovering scientists

Re Talk:Earth: Fair enough; perhaps I should go back to my natural habitat so life can observe me tapping away at my real work.... ASHill (talk | contribs) 16:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Returning a book to the library

I borrowed Richard Hinkley Allen's book a whiel ago and have to return it next week to the library. I just thought I'd drop a not in case you wanted to get any info from it for any star or constellation article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I purchased a copy from a used book store a few years back. I keep it handy for referencing star articles. But thank you for the offer.—RJH (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Black Hole Barnstar
		For bringing Cygnus X-1 to FA status. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(chuckle) - just had to do it..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks Casliber.—RJH (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hip, hip hooray!! Congratulations, RJH!! Bill Wwheaton (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!—RJH (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Whirlpool Galaxy

During your celestial considerations how about taking a look at the new Hubble pics of the Galactic Center and speculate on the recipe of matter that is involved in the observed accumulation process which I'm sure you agree qualifies as a significent physical event. I was trying to provide a concept re that event when I contributed an article in Talk Nuclear Model under a category heading Real Physical Models but I keep getting tossed out. Could you help me with this? WFPM WFPM (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm an old dog and it's hard to learn new tricks. I thought maybe the article setup person could help me but I'll work at it.WFPMWFPM (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait till you get older but thanks, WFPMWFPM (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I cant believe you guys would have an article on astronomy without reference to Dr, Asimov. WFPMWFPM (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Mercury's FAR

Do you know when that will be wrapped up? I need to know because I was wondering when to start work on the final Solar System FT article (Scattered disc), but didn't want to be right in the middle of it if Mercury was suddenly downgraded to B-class. Serendi^podous 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know because that is up to the FA director. But why would it matter? You can always work on the Scattered disc article first.—RJH (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Because if Mercury were downgraded to B-class, then the entire featured topic would be on three months' probation before it was removed, whereas Scattered disc can remain up there for good, since it's a GA. Serendi^podous 15:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The featured article removal candidates last for 2-3 weeks. It appears that Mercury was moved May 4th, so that would make it next weekend at the latest. But nobody has stated keep or remove yet, so I don't know.—RJH (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You can also nominate Mercury for a good article after it demoted, which seems inevitable now. Ruslik (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it satisfies the GA criteria any more, as that requires references to all the information.—RJH (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to genetics

Hi there, I've written this article as an attempt to introduce the articles on DNA, Gene and Genetics in a completely non-technical and approachable way. I was looking for some good editors with no background in biological science to look this over and give some suggestions on the talkpage on how it could be improved. Would you have time to help with this? All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Mount Baker Peer Review

• Could you give some information on modern climbing activity? Also some information about the environmental status of the surrounding land would be beneficial.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

By this you are referring to the Snoqualmie National Forest, and the wilderness area, plus the ski area? ~Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 19:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice Atom article fixup

It's a pleasure editing with you; you do all the hard work! SBHarris 02:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!—RJH (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Alpha Lyrae

Hello,

sorry for the mistakes I make. I am translating the article into French and there is a sentence I don't understand : " Models fitted to the dust distribution around Vega indicate that it is a 120 AU-radius circular disk viewed from nearly pole-on". I don't understand what the "viewed from nearly pole-on" mean in English. Is the disk seen transversaly or is the line of sight parallel to the disk plane ? Does pole designate the "star's pole" ? Thanks for your help. Poppy (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. "Pole-on" means viewed from along the axis of rotation; perpendicular to the disk.—RJH (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Pretty obvious afterwards :). Poppy (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Photographer's Barnstar

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Stunning photos old BEAN! Angelic Raiment (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the correct editor? I'm not quite sure what photographs you mean. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Earth changes

Hey, where is the consensus to have that creation myth link in the top dablink? I looked at the discussion archives and found nothing about it. So I looked through the article history and it seemed it was put there because of one user who was causing trouble and that no one agreed with. If this was talked about on the discussion page could you link me to the discussion and if it wasn't I really think it should be deleted. It does not help for navigation purposes at all and it also does not help to clarify anything, which is all the top dablink should do. It basically just gives undue weight to creation myth, which is already mentioned and linked in a section of the article. So I really think this should be taken off.

We have had many discussions pertaining to the Creationism topic. For example: Talk:Earth/Archive_8#About.com_link_removed. So no, I don't think it should be taken off, in part because it reduces the need to keep endlessly debating the topic. If you don't like it there, I suggest you raise the topic on the talk page first.—RJH (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay I read the whole archived section above that one you just linked earlier but I didn't think the hatnote would be mentioned in the section below. Anyway, I was right about what happened though, one user was making trouble so one user just decided to add that into the hatnote. There wasn't really any big discussion or consensus on it. In fact another user deleted that addition to the hatnote in just the same way I did a couple days after it was added. The user complaining was just asking for the religious beliefs to be mentioned in the article some way and they certainly are, in their own section. Adding that creation myth link to the top is not an appropriate response, dablinks at the top are for navigation and clarity, not to settle disputes. I think it should just be deleted right now but I'll copy this text into the Talk:Earth page in a new section if you want me to. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've expressed my opinion.—RJH (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the "See also" section, I agree with your concerns about having the section too cluttered with too many links and making the navigation box at the bottom is a good idea. The problem with that is many users won't notice that navigation box and I'm sure many users find see also sections useful. The four links I added are all articles that contain a list of a lot more articles which is kind of like putting a navigation box (but more comprehensive) into one link. I think perhaps an article could be started titled "List of Earth-related topics" or "List of basic planet Earth topics" or something like that and all those topics in the navigation box could be listed in that article plus any other topics that are Earth-related. The only problem with that is it would share a lot of the same articles in the "List of Earth science topics" but that's not such a big deal. Then we could add that new link into the see also section and it would be like putting that navigation box there as you suggested. If you like this idea I could start making that article when I have the time or you could if you're interested. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the new section on the Talk:Earth page, I'll post this idea there. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Usage of "strong"

Hi, I just copied our exchange on the subject (including your remarks) to the strong (source) and strong (relative detectability) talk pages, hoping to catch suggestions and opinions for outside editors. I don't know if they will then pop up on your contributions, but they might. Hope this is OK. Thanks, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Mercury

I'd like to help with this article, but I don't really know where to start. Could you give me an idea of what is still required? Serendi^podous 18:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Serendipodous. The FAR has some useful comments. I think that the bar for meeting FA has simply been raised since Mercury was passed and the article is in need of an update. My concern was that, compared to the other planet articles, this one is insufficiently cited. Ruslik also had some valuable points about lack of comprehensiveness.

I've been trying to add some citations and corrected a few (to me) significant errors, but I think it needs much more work to be satisfactory. Also the Messenger mission will undoubtedly provide much more information, so that will need to be merged in as well.—RJH (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Many of the issues raised for Mercury are also true for Venus and Mars. Should they be considered for FAR? Serendi^podous 18:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Both of those articles appear well-referenced, compared to how Mercury (planet) was a couple of months back. Perhaps they just need some light housekeeing? If there particular issues, maybe those could just be mentioned on the respective talk pages for now? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms

Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Gavin Collins (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WFPM

Hi! could you please tell me what's wrong with my attempt to edit Alternative Periodic Tables. I cant get my references to go to their appropriate locations??????Thank you WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)