Jump to content

User talk:Modest Genius/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


I just realized you changed the recommended colwidth from "30em" to "25em" on {{Reflist}}. I'm asking because I've added {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} to a couple of hundred if not thousand articles over the past months, assuming that this recommendation would not change over night. Whose decision was this? Has there been a poll I wasn't aware of? --bender235 (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry for the slow reply, I've been away) That was entirely unilateral on my part. I did have a search for any discussion as to the best value for the default, but was unable to find any. Having played around with the sizes on various different browsers and window sizes, 25em seemed to provide much better layout on non-maximised browsers over a variety of different articles; I've changed a decent number of individual articles to 25em myself. Personally, I think it's better for the number to be tailored to the individual article, rather than a single value adopted across the project. If there's any more substantive discussion anywhere, please point me in its direction! Modest Genius talk 16:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I could not find any discussion about this, either. That's why I was stunned by the fact that it changed over night. Personally, I think we should leave 30em as recommended, since it has been implemented on so many articles by now. That doesn't mean that you can't use 25em where ever you want to. Cheers. --bender235 (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a certain number should be recommended merely because it is commonly used. Perhaps the best option would be to get the Usability people to look at it. Modest Genius talk 22:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I've started a discussion there. --bender235 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Userbox Question

So why are you waiting for someone to delete your userbox? -Vcelloho (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Some years ago there was a some controversy over userboxes, with mass deletions, copies springing up in user space etc. That was my tongue-in-cheek attempt at a bit of humour at the time. Now it just gets vandalised on occasion. Modest Genius talk 17:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that was pretty soon after I'd joined Wikipedia. I actually have the best story from that time, too. First look at this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Disavian/Userboxes/No Evil Boxes. Then look at what he wanted to delete from my userspace. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok that makes sense. At first I was thinking that this was some non delete-able user-box so I copied your user page to my sandbox to see if I could delete it. After figuring out that it wasn't impossible to delete I was a bit confused. I had forgot that happened with user-boxes. -Vcelloho (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
That would be some impressive coding, to create some wikitext that was impossible to delete! Pretty sure it would be impossible without modifying some site-wide code. Modest Genius talk 00:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Some wikis are configured to have special tags where you can protect certain text by using <protected> and </protected> quasi-html tags. Or something along those lines. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Whenever you get some time, mind looking at James E. Boyd (scientist) again, by the way? I've made a lot of changes, and I think I've accomplished everything but I'm always up for suggestions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, RL intervened, taking a look now Modest Genius talk 00:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem! RL happens :) And thank you so much for making improvements to the article, some reviewers *cough*FAC*cough* list a thousand tiny nitpicks and expect the nominators to read their minds and/or fix all of them, and that's really hard! *high five* —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Specific impulse in km/s

Hi! I reverted an edit of yours. Just thought you should know in case you object. --Doradus (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I switched it back: although the two quantities tell you the same thing in two different ways, they have different units. Specific impulse has the dimensions of impulse, which are T, measured in seconds under SI. Effective exhaust velocity has the dimensions of velocity, which are L/T, measured in metres per second under SI. The two are related by ie. a factor of the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface. To quote from Specific_impulse#Units (emphasis added): 'By far the most common units used for specific impulse today is the second [...] The effective exhaust velocity of m/s is also in reasonably common usage' Modest Genius talk 15:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. Works for me. --Doradus (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Taking another look, the specific impulse article could probably do with improving to make this clearer. Modest Genius talk 16:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that the Parliamentary, Chief, Financial, Economic, and Exchequer Secretaries to the Treasury are junior Lords of the Treasury? The first has long been the Chief Whip, and the others have long been ministers at the Treasury. As far as I'm aware, none of those positions has ever been part of the Commission. -Rrius (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

From the Great Officers of State article, which states: 'Some offices are put into "commission"; that is, multiple commissioners are appointed to collectively exercise the office. The office of Lord High Treasurer has been in commission since 1714: the First Lord of the Treasury is the Prime Minister, the Second Lord is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the remaining Lords Commissioners are Government Whips.', in combination with Lord of the Treasury which states 'In the United Kingdom, there are at least six Lords of the Treasury who serve concurrently' but only lists 2 of them (the usual four treasury secretaries would make the numbers up to six, with the current extra secretary making seven). They may well be in error, or I might have misunderstood - due actual 'third lord' 'fourth lord' etc positions exist? If so, Great Officers of State also carries a list that will need updating. Modest Genius talk 19:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The others aren't listed because they haven't been appointed yet. Other than the PM and Chancellor, the five junior lords (five because the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 says only five can be paid) are whips. At this point, the new government has only announced its Chief Whip and two Deputy Chief Whip. In addition to the five junior Lords Commissioners, they still need to add a Vice-Chamberlain of the Household and seven Assistant Whips (perhaps more, if unpaid). Also, they need to add five Lords-in-Waiting (House of Lords Whips). Once the government finishes appointing whips, we'll be able to fill in Lord of the Treasury and some other related articles. -Rrius (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


You can't put up a box that says I dare someone to delete this, and then get upset when someone deletes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CampbellSinnett (talkcontribs) 01:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I don't mind once, but repeatedly gets a bit annoying. Modest Genius talk 02:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering...

Have you ever considered requesting adminship? Your name came up in a thread at WT:RFA and another admin around the Main Page would certainly not be a bad thing... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I had considered it, actually, and it's nice to see my name being mentioned. However, real life means I don't have time to devote to an RFA right now, and I'd like to get my rewrite of William Herschel Telescope finished first. Maybe I'll give it a shot in a month or two. Modest Genius talk 12:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Glad to hear it's not a flat "no". :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Any reason that you know of why you shouldn't at least have rollback in the meantime? I see someone's just given you "reviewer", after all. BencherliteTalk 13:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'd probably never use it, but otherwise no! Reviewer has been handed out willy-nilly to just about anyone in an attempt not to generate a massive backlog when the trial is started tonight. I never knew anything about it until I was given the flag. Modest Genius talk 13:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Done. WP:ROLLBACK for guidance, incidentally, but you're sensible enough not to start rollbacking people because you disagree with their content changes, I'm sure! BencherliteTalk 14:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I gave you reviewer on the off chance you might find it useful. Rollback's useful for reverting yourself, too, because of course, no admin would be stupid enough to bugger up ITN! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

--I'll stick the PM up when it's confirmed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, hardly, I just copy-pasted prose & refs from the other article! Modest Genius talk 22:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You recently added {{Globalise/US}} to this article. It would be helpful if you would explain on the talk page what steps you feel could resolve the issue. Thanks! cmadler (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

--Given any more thought to an RfA? I'm not badgering, but ITN could use another admin. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably as good a time as any for it I guess. I'll run if you nominate :p Modest Genius talk 15:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a question.

Genius, I often notice you on WP:ITN as a regular there and you seem to spend a lot of time during the day on Wikipedia in general. You often make diligent and influential posts so I read through your bio; you're a post-doctoral researcher. How do you do it? That's a job description I would think would be fairly demanding, and yet you spend an awful lot of time here daily. Given you're status in the real world, how do you find the free time to do what you do on WP? Honestly, I'm going to become a doctoral student myself shortly but I love this project as well and I can't seem to find enough time consistently. What's your secret? Cwill151 (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I pop on for 5-10 minutes at lunch or tea break, it doesn't take long to glance at my watchlist and take a look at WP:ITN/C. It's probably not good for my productivity, but no worse than checking facebook every now and again. Besides, I think you're under some misapprehension over my real-life status - I'm very junior! Modest Genius talk 19:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William Herschel Telescope

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

--And just before the timer turned yellow! Nicely done. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Say What?

They found C60 in interstellar space? That's amazing! I knew that spectral models had predicted it's spontaneous existence as many as 30 years ago, but if they actually found measurable proof that's a huge step forward... Wow. Cwill151 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well Harry Kroto first made it in the lab when he was trying to simulate the atmospheres of carbon stars, so it's certainly expected to be present. The paper is here, though good luck accessing it (even my university had to pay to get me a copy). Modest Genius talk 12:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey thanks!... Fascinating stuff. You're right, I can't access it from this terminal, (but there are ways around that :) ). I'll be sure to check that out. Cheers! Cwill151 (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a BBC News article about it too. Funnily enough, several other authors have published spectra of this target showing these emission bands, but hadn't realised what they were. Modest Genius talk 22:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again! BTW I posted a video of the WP:ITN CME in the article (Took me bloody forever to upload a .mov file to commons and license it)... Just in case you were interested. Cheers! Cwill151 (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of T:MP

A tag has been placed on T:MP, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That redirect has been discussed several times, consensus was to keep it and protect it by {{go away}} for the express purpose of stopping it getting caught in automated deletion sweeps. For some reason User:Bsherr removed the template, the page was nominated for speedy deletion by a bot hours later, and by the time I saw this notice it had gone. I have re-created the page with {{go away}} back on it. Modest Genius talk 00:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

-- tariqabjotu 00:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

For all your hard work

The In The News Barnstar
For your seemingly never-ending and always useful effirts at WP:ITN/C and WP:ERRORS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Modest Genius talk 15:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

--On behalf of Tone. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review on Pleione

  • Just a short note of thanks on your review of the Pleione article. Sorry I haven't been able to jump on it. I hope to do so in the next week or two. Casliber and I have been pretty focused on the Betelgeuse article. Once we've submitted that one for GA Review, I will shift my focus back to Pleione and address each of your comments. Thanks again, --Sadalsuud (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I never actually finished the review anyway! I'll try to find time in the next couple of days. Modest Genius talk 14:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe that all issues raised in your initial and subsequent reviews have been addressed. I will not make any substantial edits until you've had a chance to look over the latest version. Thanks again for your insightful remarks. Detailed comments can be seen at Discussion of GA Review--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been extremely busy IRL. I'll try to look through in the next couple of days. Modest Genius talk 22:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Take whatever time you need. I'll check in every once in a while. I look forward to your updated comments.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Just completed all the edits pursuant to your Second look observations. I look forward to your final thoughts.--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Chess Olympiad as recurring item

Hi Modest Genius. I've already made a proposal to add the Chess Olympiad as e recurring item of the field of chess on the talk page about the recurring items in the ITN template. May I have your attention for a while to discuss about the proposal? Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on WT:ITNR. I should point out that I have no more say of what goes on ITNR than anyone else involved in the ITN process, so I'm not sure why you specifically contacted just me. Modest Genius talk 18:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is cheeky for me to make the change, and I found you on first as an interested user in the ITN template, though you're not an administrator.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Pros and cons of adding 1,000,000 articles to the list

I've opened a discussion to discuss the merits and flaws of reporting French and German Wikipedias as having one million articles.

See Talk:Main Page#Proposal: Add million-article level to Wikipedia Languages section.

The Transhumanist    05:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Eta Carinae

Just curious. I know what NGC is. What does UGC stand for? It's not in Wikipedia or Wiktionary. I assumed it was some previously undetected vandalism from the past - there's a lot of those. Slightsmile (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Uppsala General Catalogue of Galaxies. It's a lot bigger and goes far fainter than NGC does, plus is limited to galaxies only (NGC includes nebulae, clusters etc). Here are the original and most recent papers defining the catalogue, whilst UGC 4904 info is here on NED. I'm not sure it's widely enough known/used outside the extragalactic research community to warrant an article, though I could probably throw together a stub if you think that would be useful. Modest Genius talk 16:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
If it would be only three lines long I don't think it would be worth it to have an article. Maybe could slip a section about it into an existing article such as Galaxy and make a redirect to that section? Whatever. I was just curious what UGC stood for and now I know. Slightsmile (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

--Fast work! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Question for RfC

If you think the issues of domestic-ness and local-ness are two sides of the same coin (a reasonable supposition), how would you frame the question to be asked in an RfC? Thanks -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a simple question. It would be better off to state some of the issues and ask for a way forward, rather than looking for yes/no type answers. It's also important to note both sides opinions in any RfC (some editors feel X because Y. Others point out Z etc.) Modest Genius talk 19:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

--Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Simon de Montfort

De Montfort married Eleanor of Leicester, who owned the manor of Sutton Valence at the time of the marriage, having inherited it from her husband William Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke on his death in 1225. De Montford became the owner of the manor of Sutton Valence either at the point of marriage, or on the death of Eleanor (not 100% sure of the law as it relates here), and possessed it until his death at Evesham in 1265, which is why he appears on the template and I added the template to the article. Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

None of that information appears in the article - please go ahead and add it (with a suitable reference). Was the manor his main residence? Or simply a minor property holding? If the former, then fair enough, but if the latter then there's no need for the template to appear on de Montfort's article. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the template, but if we added a template for every single house he owned there would be dozens of them. Modest Genius talk 13:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It's referenced in the Sutton Valence article (source). Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but there's no mention of the place in the de Montfort article, which makes the template incongruous and confusing to the reader. Modest Genius talk 13:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I've added the fact that the marriage brought the manor of Sutton Valence into de Montfort's possession. Maybe you'd consider re-adding the template now. I'd like it to be there, but it's not worth a fight over. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Alpha Cassiopeiae to GA

I've decided to take a new article to GA in the next month or so and with all the help you provided on the Pleione article, I was hoping you might be able to help me with an obstacle I just encountered. It has to do with conflicting reports on the visual magnitudes of Alpha Cassiopeiae versus Beta Cassiopeiae as discussed in the Variable results section of the article and the Conflicting magnitudes subsection of the discussion page. If you have a moment, can you point me in the right direction so as to resolve the confusion? Thanks.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page. Modest Genius talk 16:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I have responded likewise on the Talk page. Your question triggered a useful inquiry. Probably, the best place to focus this discussion is in upgrading the apparent magnitude article. If Van Leeuwen is measuring something different than ASCC, that's material, don't you think, and could in fact serve as a useful example in that article? I read the first page of the Bessel 2000 article. The distinctions drawn therein could be instrumental in getting this "high importance" article to GA status. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Upgrading AppMag article

Well, there's a paragraph towards the end of that article (the one starting 'Magnitude is complicated by the fact that light is not monochromatic') which sort of explains the issue - magnitudes can only be compared if they're measured through the same filters. The majority of measurements do indeed use the standard UBVRI filter set, but not all. In particular, space-based studies often do not, since those filters are not well suited to operation in the harsh environment of space. Other projects (eg the SDSS) choose a different filter set because they're trying to do some specific science, rather than just measure magnitudes. The article could do with making that more explicit, certainly. However, I'd advise caution in doing so if it's not something you're familiar with. Modest Genius talk 16:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
What I've done in the past and could do here is import the apparent magnitude article into my personal sandbox, make some edits, invite your suggestions, then post to the main article. This is how the Betelgeuse article was done. Would you be willing to collaborate with me in this fashion? If so, I think I can get to in in about 1-2 weeks, and will let you know as soon as there is something worthwhile to look at.--Sadalsuud (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'll have a look at it if you like. But don't be surprised if I end up editing it beyond recognition! Modest Genius talk 00:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC) PS you know the MOS doesn't apply to talk pages, right?
That's fine with me. I'll let you know when I have something for you to look at. It will be in a week or so, when I can free myself up from other commitments.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

All-Sky catalogue?

I also notice that there is no Wikipedia article on All-sky Compiled Catalogue of 2.5 million stars. Do you think this catalogue warrants a stub?--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, it's just a convenient grouping of various other major catalogues, and made no measurements of its own. Modest Genius talk 16:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

sudan referendum

theres a message on the talk page for why the tag was on (it was posted eons ago). after that feel free to remove.(Lihaas (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)).

I thought that talk page discussion referred to the text which was moved to the talk page below it? That would certainly make sense, and was indeed inappropriate. I don't think the article currently merits the tag you have added to it, but since I've made that position clear I'll let others decide whether to remove it or not. Modest Genius talk 22:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
If you take a quick a review as another pair of eyes at the section then fell free to remove it ;)(Lihaas (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)).
I did read through the whole article at the time. You don't think I would remove a tag without reading the article first, do you? I don't have time to read it again now (sleep beckons). Modest Genius talk 02:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
then remove it. I didnt seem like you made any changes though so i asked for another pair of eyes to go through it.(Lihaas (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)).

Like your opinion on this

I am not nominating this for ITN but I would be interested in you opinion on whether this is legit... [1] Are we really gonna be this spectacular? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that article is riddled with so many errors it's amazing. It's almost as if they deliberately tried to include as many as possible in one article! But on the brightness thing they're not THAT far off. A typical Type II supernova has a peak absolute magnitude of about -19. The distance modulus to Betelgeuse is 6.5. I don't know the dust extinction, but it'll be less than a magnitude to such a nearby star. That gives a peak apparent magnitude of a putative Betelgeusean supernova of about -12. By comparison, the Sun is at -26.7 (about a billion times brighter), but the full Moon is about -12.7. So in principle it would be about the same brightness as the full Moon - enough to see where you're going at night, but not enough to read and certainly not daytime. Plus it would be a tiny point no bigger than the apparent size of the star at the moment, rather than a large disc. The spectacular bit would last for a month or two - it would ramp up over a few days to a fortnight, then gradually fade over months.
However, what doesn't make sense is the idea of it exploding any time soon. There's absolutely no evidence for that. Eta Carinae is a much better bet for that, but it's a lot further away. I could go through pointing out the other mistakes in that article, but it'll just annoy me...
EDIT: I was just finishing off writing this reply, when I discovered that many of the same conclusions are drawn in Betelgeuse#Approaching supernova. Modest Genius talk 23:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nott logo.gif


Thanks for uploading File:Nott logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The image was removed from the article with no reason given. I've replaced it in the article. Modest Genius talk 13:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


Okay, we've now got a page up at Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Events with more details. Sign up if you're coming and want to help out! Regards, Ironholds (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I remembered your userpage said you're in Notts and came to ping you about this, but it seems I was beaten to it. It'd be good to see you there if you can make it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I need to be in Newcastle that evening, but can probably show up if it finishes before about 4pm. Unless there's anything else I've forgotten I need to do... I'm still not entirely sure what the event actually is though. Modest Genius talk 14:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, just to let you know, we're putting up all of our event information and times and dates, when the budget is approved which should be in the next few days. Don't worry though, we'll let you know as soon as that happens! Thanks for your tentative sign up! :) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Algerian ITN item

Responding to your now-archived comment here, the nomination was up for 32 hours, not 18 hours. Obviously, considering I posted the item, I think that's enough time to allow people to register objections. -- tariqabjotu 00:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I was counting to the point where Martin offered to post and Passerby raised his objection, not the time of actual posting. I was agreeing with his objection at that point. Modest Genius talk 00:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


Hello, Modest Genius. You have new messages at Talk:International Space Station.
Message added 08:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anything to add to this discussion?--Chaser (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm supposedly on wikibreak, but I left a comment. Modest Genius talk 02:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Orphadeus

I'm starting to think it would be best if we just ignore him. Pretty much all of his actions have been mistakes or fighting people correcting those mistakes. I'm sure that I could be nicer to him, but the sheer... I can't even describe it because of WP:NPA... extraordinary misunderstandings, deliberate ignorance, and refusal to heed advice regarding them... just keep me from having any intellectual respect for him whatsoever. (I'll readily admit that astronomy is not my field, but at least I can admit that and will seek to change my understanding if it isn't supported by professional astronomers). I have worked with middle schoolers more capable than him. If he knows what he is doing, we should leave him alone. If he doesn't, then talking with him isn't going to help. Either he'll give up and leave, or he'll do something block-worthy. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I was away for a few days, and it looks like he he was blocked in that period. I'm not sure what prompted that, there doesn't seem to have been any particular request made. It'll be interesting to see if he behaves any differently once the block expires. Modest Genius talk 22:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)