User talk:Nergaal/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

GA Promotion

Hi. I reviewed your GA nomination for Plutoid and everything checked out, so I promoted it to GA status! Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Metallic bond

Hi Nergaal

I gave this page a rather thorough make over. I'd appreciate some comments Jcwf (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I will leave comments on the metallic bond at the peer review page. In the meantime could you do me a favour and take a look at User:Axiosaurus/draft1 this has been hanging around for a while, (I tinker with it occasionally!),ever since metallic crystal first appeared. A summary page like this could be useful but is it suitable with some polishing, and if so is it a new article or an addition to metallic crystal?

--Axiosaurus (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

citations

Here's a link to astronomer Phil Plait's blog, in which he discusses the barycenter issue. Because this was only an issue for a very short amount of time, tracking down more "official" citations will be hard, but I'll look into it.

I'm still looking for info on the other comment. I can't find anything so far, and I'm not sure it's all that relevant anyway. I think you could just ditch the whole sentence.Serendi^podous 11:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Makemake

I've revised the satellites section to make the meaning clearer, and I've asked Ruslik provide a cite for the formula he used. I think he may have to step in on the other two as well, since I'm not an expert in physics. Serendi^podous 23:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

FAC: Makemake

Hi and thanks for the feedback! I have crossed out the suggestions you left here and which were solved. I also left some comments for the other ones. Nergaal (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: it's not considered appropriate to cross out a reviewer's critiques; they may not necessarily agree that you have satisfied the issues.—RJH (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

for getting 2006 definition of planet up to GA! Serendi^podous 22:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(N)MRI

Hi Nergaal Would you care to put your point of view at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Magnetic_resonance_imaging#Article_title_dispute_-_page_move_protected regards Brownturkey (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I just got an email from Steven Soter

and he recommended that we recalculate his values for planetary discriminant based on DiSisto & Brunini. 2007. Icarus 190, 224, which gives a value for the mass of the Centaur population 30 times higher than the one he initially used. Therefore the true planetary discriminants for the outer planets are: Jupiter: 23000; Saturn: 6800; Uranus: 1000; Neptune: 1200. Serendi^podous 08:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Emails are personal comunication. Non-citable. We need a verifiable (according to the technical definition) source. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 11:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I usually dread it when one of my watched articles is listed on the mainpage

Because it means staying up for 24 solid hours arguing with creationists and reverting the witty musings of junior high schoolers. But, if you're willing to take it on, I'll go with it in the interests of public service. Serendi^podous 11:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, vandals will be the least of your problems. Are you prepared to face the full force of the "Pluto is a planet!" battalion? :) Serendi^podous 11:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hey, could you please use an edit summary when replacing the infoboxes to the chemical elements? When a huge chunk of ~2kb of text disappears without an edit summary, the natural reaction is that it is vandalism. An edit summary would help to resolve this problem. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review of Crystallographic database

Hi! I have completed the review of Crystallographic database, which can be found at Talk:Crystallographic database/GA1. I have put the article on hold for seven days to deal with the concerns that I raised, mainly regarding sourcing. If you have any questions, please contact me on the review page (which I have watchlisted) or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yttrium

Could you sort out what's happening as per my comment on the review page? I'm quite happy to do the review, but not clear if some one else is doing it, since review page has been started, but nothing showing at GAN apart from my hold jimfbleak (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Jupiter

Ii is better to remove—the article is not ready yet. Ruslik (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

your stalker

I have a degree in chemistry and I'm interested in astronomy, so that's why I'm breathing down your neck. But in fairness, I'll give you a break after this one. I try to review to a higher standard than GA, since you'll go to FAC with most of these anyway. jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job with the FT subtopics

I've been a bit overwhelmed trying to figure out how to break the topic up. I think your "baby steps" idea is a good one. Serendi^podous 14:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Spider-Man

Please be bold and nominate the page yourself if you believe that it is ready. I have not edited that page for some time, and do not know the quality of it since my last edit to it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: History of Microsoft & Paul Allen

Won't pass in their current condition, for sure. Gary King (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I see that you are really interested in just pumping out FTCs – especially seeing that you are contacting people for FACs so FTCs are complete. Please. Don't. Gary King (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of your nominations do not yet meet the criteria of their respective processes – and you have never edited some of them. Also, what I meant above is not to ask people (especially formulaically) to submit articles to FAC. Gary King (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

To be frank, I see you hijacking topics that I have been working on, and don't like it. Gary King (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So just because most don't meet criteria means you have to do it? You're an experienced editor here. So you're saying that I never edited Noble gases before submitting it for FAC? Check the history – I was working on it, then you and itub both helped out LATER – which I appreciate dearly, but I planned on working it before. Feel free to check.

"You should submit the asticle for wp:FAC." – Looks like a rushed message to me anyhow. And, "you should submit" doesn't imply that you will work on it at all. Gary King (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hijacking isn't mentioned anywhere on that page? I'm fine with help, but immature nominations don't ease my mind. However, I'm always happy to see nominations, such as your planetary featured topic nominations – which are very useful indeed. Gary King (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I just saw Bignole's reply on your talk page. I've worked with the three guys – Alientraveller, Bignole, and Erik – on film articles and such before, and knowing them they will only submit articles to FAC that they are really, really certain is ready – far more than most people I know. Again, I'm happy to see you productive in articles in general, especially planetary stuff, but going to my Goals page, copying them over, completing them by contacting others to do some of the work (which many will not want and are probably wondering why the message came out of the blue – like me, on my talk page), and then SUBMITTING them to FTC (while I'm asleep, for instance), is something that I don't sit well with. This is like the Periodic 1 elements, for instance. This started when I was interested in building Noble gases to FA, then realized that it could complete a Topic, then also realized that Row 1 could be an FT – I then made it my goal to complete the topic. It is gut-wrenching when someone else submits it. The fact is, with the way I see it, submitting FTCs, even those that have FAs already, is fine. When the FAs were built separately and someone has the ability to notice that a topic can be made by completing several more articles – then that's great! Mostly because it's possibly fair to say that it would not have been submitted otherwise. When an active goal is taken from someone and then submitted, however – then that's not so good – someone was actually already working on it and planned to submit it. Gary King (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that at this point, you are beginning to do it for the sake of submitting topics. Premature nominations are DISCOURAGED for a number of reasons, and I even implore you to ask what others think – especially the directors who manage the processes, specifically WP:FAC, WP:FLC, and WP:FTC. And again, the fact that you submit topics that have been someone's personal goal is a problem. Topics can easily take a person months to build. Gary King (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I was never aware that it was a topic that was already planned. I don't think I delayed submitting it – if the time was less than 24 hours, then things such as sleep need to be factored in. And AGAIN, my primary concern is that you are spreading yourself out too thin, especially with premature nominations. I'm fine with you helping out in articles, but taking goals and then working on them just to get the nomination – that's how it looks like to me. Gary King (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, no, that isn't my issue – my issue is that you are just trying to get FTCs as quickly as possible. Premature nominations, notifications requesting that articles be submitted to FAC, and whatnot. Frankly, I'm fine with your topics before, but then going to my goals page – which contains articles that I am very interested in editing – submitting some prematurely, I'm not too keen on. And again, I was never aware that Noble gases was a goal – and I don't believe the topic was being actively worked on for months – sorry, make that roughly a year and a half. And as more minor issue, I don't want to have to keep asking for myself to be added as a co-nominator for the bot to understand. Gary King (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

← Reading up on your talk page, I now realize that there have been more premature nominations than the ones in the past 24 hours, which is really disturbing. Gary King (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that you selectively chose topics – I assumed you only chose the ones you were interested in. But please, please don't do premature nominations, for ANY of the four major article processes. Frankly, this is new to me – I have worked alone on every article and topic since I've been on Wikipedia. Which is why I consider it a hijack in some ways. I'm fine with having help, but when I jump in to a topic or article, and then help comes along, improves the article, then does the nomination – then, I hope you understand, it is not how I would prefer it to go, and I'm sure most people would feel the same way. Gary King (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And your point was...? I'm assuming it was that you simply waited for someone to begin the work, then submit it? Gary King (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about this. Gary King (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I undid your premature nomination. Gary King (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No – I'm fine with you letting me know that you dislike that. What I'm not happy about is that you are still dancing around what I have mentioned above. Gary King (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And frankly, I'm letting you know what I think, and giving actionable solutions that I believe are the right way to go. The links you post on my talk page are just to make a point, and nothing more, which doesn't help anyone. Gary King (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is that you are submitting far too many premature nominations for an experienced editor as yourself. And while we're at it, please, PLEASE use edit summaries; I implore you. I think I mentioned this during Noble gas; if not, though, then I am asking now. Gary King (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

FLCs

A minor thing but FLCs don't need to be substituted; just {{FLC}} needs to be added to the page. Gary King (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

GANs

For future reference, please also copy GA reviews to the article talk pages per the instructions. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm I see these are "just comments"; they belong on the talk page if you don't plan on completing a review. Gary King (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

On a related note — thanks for nominating Usain Bolt for GA status. However, I'm still kind of in the middle of writing the article: I hope that the GAN still passes without any "stability" problems due to my changes. Cheers. Ps I've been watching the Planets FT with anticipation. Excellent work. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence

Hello Nergaal. Sorry, I had to undo your move of this article, as these regions have declared independence not this year, but many years ago. Check individual articles Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Regards, Húsönd 01:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, removing the 2008 will leave "International reaction to the Abkhazia and South Ossetia declarations of independence", which is not exactly what the article is about. The article documents only the current state of recognition of these regions after Russia's recognition, not the reaction to their declarations of independence since the 90's. What grammar in the current title do you find wrong? Húsönd 01:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds terrible, but "Portugal" can never used as an adjective. Some countries, such as "Kosovo" for instance, can (as in "the Kosovo parliament", even though "Kosovan" or "Kosovar" would sound much better). Same for Abkhazia and South Ossetia I guess. But then again, "Abkhaz" and "South Ossetian" could be better options. You could address this on the talk page. Húsönd 02:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Imitation

Imitation. It is indeed the sincerest form of flattery. Gary King (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I realize that you are new here, but there are a few things that I need to point out:

• There is a limit for the number of Peer Reviews you can have open at the same time.
• Don't use graphics in FACs/FLCs.
• Don't cap other people's comments (as that's the same as refactoring someone else's comments).

Cheers. Gary King (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

At {{FAC-instructions}}, it says "Graphics are discouraged". I didn't have a huge problem with your capping of my comments; I was just letting you know. If you had asked me I would have capped them, anyways. And again, you know why I am reacting to your recent contributions – because of hasty nominations, and opened peer reviews just to find the minimum that needs to be done to get the articles in shape for Feaatured Topics. Frankly, I've told you before that your article contributions are good and astounding, and appreciated your work on Noble gas (and which several false accusations about that were made against me), but outside of those articles – which you collaborate well with others – it appears that other articles are just rushed. I don't mind if you choose a large number of articles to work on, but as a regular FAC/FLC/GAN/PR reviewer myself and from comments by others about these processes since I've been here, people don't like it when editors stretch these resources without spending some time of their own. Gary King (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I would more than appreciate it if you would pitch in with Featured Topics that I've been working on. I know you collaborate well with others when you put the effort in it (although it would help if you used edit summaries for the first time), and it appears that you've got a lot of time on your hands, which is always helpful. Gary King (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I am telling you now, then, that they were rushed. I would personally recommend at least one reference at the end of every paragraph as a general rule-of-thumb to ensure that referencing is covered. Both explanations – that you found them because you were looking for topics, and what I said that they were nominated to complete the topic more quickly – essentially results in the same goal. You're right – GA reviews do vary widely, which has been brought up many times before as you can imagine, and there isn't much that can be done to resolve this beyond making it like FAC – which would defeat the purpose. Gary King (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I can also understand that you have not worked as extensively with topics outside of astronomy and chemistry, so I can see where that could be a problem. I strongly suggest working on one article outside of astronomy/chemistry at a time, preferably until you get it to FAC/FLC, or at least until you get used to things around here. Should only take a week or so. I can also understand the dislike for MOS issues – most people don't like to do that, either, but it still has to be done. When you collaborated with others, including myself, there were others to handle the MOS issues which is why you were able to work on other things. There isn't that luxury when collaboration is not available. Gary King (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you realize that 9.0: Live is a live album, and so it has different requirements from a typical studio album. Gary King (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Jupiter

I am now busy is real life, but I will review you edits tomorrow. The article needs three sections written: vertical structure including cloud layers, introduction to belts, zones and jets, and dynamics. You can try to write them yourself using, for instance, this book chapter. Ruslik (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Summer Olympics medal table

The article should definitely be for User:Scorpion0422 to nominate, which I imagine he will. Gary King (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I know; this is just a reminder. Gary King (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Moons of Jupiter

I don't think I'm the best person to consult on this right now, as I'm rather busy with other things and don't get much chance to work on Wikipedia. Try one of the more recent contributors. RandomCritic (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Formation and evolution

Not sure. Maybe User:Deuar, but I don't know if he's available. There are some other users who do or have done a lot of work on Solar System astronomy pages: User:WolfmanSF, User:Ckatz, User:Urhixidur, and others. RandomCritic (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Class Bt?

What does it mean to rate an article "Class Bt"? Or was that a typo? - Jmabel | Talk 02:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: FLC

Zap2It should be fine, as long as the linked page is an article written by a staff member there. Gary King (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox krypton

Hello, I see you have reverted my removal of the picture in Template:Infobox krypton. I have serious doubts if this picture carries any useful information to the reader. IMHO from this one can imagine krypton in vials forms a bubble that casts a brownish shadow or it is itself an unclear brownish substance or it is a brownish stain on a fabric. There is no way to photograph a colorless gas and any trial is doomed to defeat: instead of being helpful, may only misguide somebody. I know, pictures are nice and make the article good looking but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid. :-) The same holds for Template:Infobox hydrogen, of course. Regards, Michał Sobkowski (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already tried to ask chemists in the Wikiproject but without any response. Recently, a similar picture of vial has been removed from the helium infobox, and I followed this direction. See also Talk:Helium#The picture of helium (and other gases). Regards, Michał Sobkowski (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So, it seems nobody cares. Think over my arguments above, please. Regards, Michał Sobkowski (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jovian moons

Thanks for all your work on the Jovian moons template. However, I removed the images of Themisto, Lysithea, & Elara, as they appear to have no substance to them apart from being an artist's conceptions. kwami (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hygiea

I will probably review it tomorrow or on Thursday, but I am traveling now and may not have access to internet. Ruslik (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

removing mass info

Was there a reason you want to remove the information on atomic mass from the introduction section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxdormiens (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to add that you should add Magnesium to your Watchlist, since it has the atomic weight information that I did not add. That page was the basis for my adding the atomic weight info to the three pages you reverted. You may want to remove the atomic mass from the intro page for magnesium as well. --Light (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons GANs

Hi, I see that you added The Simpsons season 1 topic to your page, passed two of the GANs in the topic, then tried to nominate another – which was quickly reverted. Please don't rush these nominations yet again, especially Scorpion0422's, who I know gives a lot of hard work into his GANs and FACs. Gary King (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, but you are doing it to complete topics. I am pointing this out to you again because more than one person has pointed this out about you. Scorpion reverted your GAN within a minute, and this discussion has already come up questioning why you passed the article's GAN so quickly. Gary King (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate that you have such confidence in my work, but the two articles you submitted aren't wuite ready yet. The plot section on both (and reception on one) need overhauls, and I just started school this week, so I would prefer to not be rushed to finish them. While it is true that everyone can nominate GAs, it is strongly suggested that you consult with the page's normal editors before doing so. If you could do this in the future, it would be much appreciated. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

100 metres reverts

Nergaal - sorry about that, but your changes have had the effect of putting a lot of erroneous information onto a page that was accurate as it stood. "Manual" vs "electronic" timing is, simply put, not accurate (see the discussion page). And Charlie Paddock's time never stood as a record, nor was it ever considered a record, which is why mention of it was in the footnote, not within the progression. This "destruction" you speak of is in fact reverting to what a bunch of us, myself included, had before your changes were put in. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Leda2(moon).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Leda2(moon).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put Moons of Jupiter and its FLC on my watchlist

now that Scattered disc's FAC and the Solar System nightmare are finally winding down. I'm not sure what's been handled and what hasn't, but I'll keep an eye out for any new additions. Serendi^podous 09:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've asked kwami if he'd have a go. He says he can see a sliver at 50x, but at that point he loses the curvature of the pie, so the comparison becomes meaningless. Serendi^podous 19:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

looks like Moons of Jupiter is going to get promoted. Even better, Ruslik should be back tomorrow, which means we can get rolling again on Atmosphere of Jupiter. Serendi^podous 20:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I would advise having a look at Ruslik's atmosphere articles. Atmosphere of Uranus, Atmosphere of Neptune, Atmosphere of Venus. He's really the atmosphere guy. Trojan's isn't GA-able yet; it needs to be doubled in size, but it can be done. Serendi^podous 22:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure. Not a problem. There's plenty of material on the Trojans. Serendi^podous 23:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I get some help?

Hey Nergaal, I've just noticed that Yttrium has been submitted for FAC. I wish to co-nominate it. Can you please explain to me how this is done? Thanks! Wii Wiki (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

re:FLC?

Stability issues. The page is still not quite stable, and it's looking likely that there will be at least two changes in the standings at the end of the month, so I'm going to wait until October before going for it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And would like I apologize if I stepped on your toes by nominating season three. I figured it was ready for a nomination so I decided to do it myself. You are more than welcome to co-nominate it if you wish. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to email you

But you have not specified a valid e-mail address or have chosen not to receive e-mail from other users. Could you send me an email so I have your address. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:EmailUser&target=Matthewedwards -- link to email me.

No personal attacks please

Hi, please stop with the personal attacks at User:Matthewedwards/blank against me, per WP:NPA. Thanks. I will say that I was aware of the page, but it was written by Matthew. Perhaps consider the fact that there are others with their own opinions? Gary King (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I was aware of the page and am watching it. None of those words are mine, however. Gary King (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that you've seen it I've deleted it. None of it was intended to be an attack on anybody. I was going to leave it on your talk page, then I changed my mind and was going to email it to you. As Gary said, it was all written by me, be he was aware of it because I noticed that what I was talking about had some interaction with Gary and asked him if any of it was wrong. I'm not saying one is more right than the other. Just that from an outside perspective, on the first appearances, it could be seen as a bit gung-ho. Anyway, as I said, you are a good editor, so hopefully we can draw a line under it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

... is completely incomprehensible. I've been rolling back "speedy" nominations that had no rationale. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Talk pages of redirects should themselves be redirected. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nergaal

Hope everything is going well. I was thinking of nominating Planets beyond Neptune and Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons for the Solar System FT but before I did I wanted to clear up an issue I've had with PBN since I expanded it after it was featured. The essence of my issue can be read at Talk:Planets beyond Neptune#Reorganisation. Please let me know what you think. Serendi^podous 11:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Moons of Jupiter

Hi Nergaal. Would you please explain your reversion of my edits? Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you replied on my talk page, I will continue the conversation there. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tyrannosauridae

Hello, Nergaal;

I had no idea I was the second most active contributor to Tyrannosauridae - I'm actually much more interested in their prey items. I'll see what I can do as far as gathering appropriate refs. J. Spencer (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The person who did the most work by volume was Sheep81. Sheep hasn't been around much lately, but he is in and out, so it would be worth it to ask him, too. J. Spencer (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Tyrannosauridae are greatly appreciated, Nergaal. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

On Cultural Depictions: I'd be happy to submit it, except I was waiting to see what others had to say, and then it fell by the wayside (we had concerns raised on the talk page, but aside from the citation templates, they were never specified). J. Spencer (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I did it - worse thing that can happen is that it doesn't pass. J. Spencer (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Featured Topic

Yeah, me and Bellhalla and MBK004 and Malaria (and others) are gunning for an FT on the topic, but we are short two critical articles for the FT attempt. The first article, USS Iowa turret explosion, is an important part of the planned FT attempt, but at the moment is woefully inadequate for any FT attempt. Cla68 is in the process of overhauling the article to bring it up to FA standards. The other article deals with the various proposals for the conversions of the Iowa class battleships, one that MBK has been researching off site and hipes to add soon. We think another two monthes before we will be ready for an FT shot, we should give us enough time to get everything up to FA. Glady to so that the effort hasn't fallen on blind eyes though, the more people that take an interst the better :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Germanium

Yes, all done. I tend to give your articles a fair grilling at GA because we both know that they will go on to FAC. I've left a couple of pointers for that, regarding the lead and inconsistency in ref formatting. I don't know if you can find an image to illustrate the uses in optics? The forced thumbnail size for nucleophilic addition might have to go, I normally remove these because they override my preference settings, but left for you to consider. Good luck jimfbleak (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Romania

I'd like to know how I was "vandalizing" the Romania article. You reversed three hours of work I put into the article. I understand removing some of the images, but to remove all of them is just ridiculous. I resized a few images to make the article more orderly and less bulky. How is that vandalism?? Samantha555 (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dacian Wars

Hey there. Due to an error with an external program I use, I inadvertently reverted your edits to Dacian Wars. I apologize for any inconvenience. - PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me | 00:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Your talk is awfully long. May I suggest remedying this? - PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me | 00:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha? I reverted the edits myself since I realized they were better placed in one of the linked articles. Nergaal (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review limits

The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I just try and point it out to everyone I notice doing it - no one has done it again after the initial reminder. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to model yourself after me, though, feel free :) Gary King (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reassessing the quality of the article Marge in Chains to B-quality status. I have been doing some work on sourcing related to that and the next thing I want to do is work through and incorporate the sources listed in the "Further reading" section as actual sources in the article, and then expand the WP:LEAD and that's pretty much it before I think it could be ready for a GA Review. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

For getting Moons of Jupiter to FL!!! Serendi^podous 20:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I'll need to start brushing up on it. I hope Ruslik shows up soon. Serendi^podous 20:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Bounty for Germanium paid

See Wikipedia:Bounty_board/Expired_and_claimed_bounties#Claimed_bounties

Dear Daniel Mayer,

This email confirms that you have paid Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. $25.00 USD using PayPal.

It may take a few moments for this transaction to appear in the Recent Activity list on your Account Overview. This credit card transaction will appear on your bill as "PAYPAL *WIKIMEDIA".

Payment Details

Item Price: $25.00 USD

Total: $25.00 USD

Order Description: One-time donation

Item/Product Number: DONATE

The following options were included with this payment: Anonymity: public

Comment: Bounty: paid for making Germanium GA ; en.wiki WikiProject Elements' users Nergaal, Stone, Cryptic C62

Buyer: Daniel Mayer

Your GA nomination of Adrastea (moon)

The article Adrastea (moon) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Adrastea (moon) for things needed to be addressed. Wronkiew (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you for commenting about our positive interactions during featured processes. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman articles

Which of my Roman articles do you think might be of GA-quality? I don't mind at all if you submit them. After I got Constitution of the Roman Republic and Roman Republic promoted to GA status, I started focusing on other things, and never got around to working on other GA nominations. RomanHistorian (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I only deleted one or two references, and neither of these references included page numbers. I added the references from the actual book and page where I got the information from. I have added all requested references for History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic and Senate of the Roman Republic. I will address Legislative Assemblies of the Roman Republic shortly. RomanHistorian (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[1]

I personally don't consider that a breach of wp:civil, I think a bit of well humoured banter lightens the atmosphere! Fasach Nua (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Metis (moon)

I am reviewing your article, Metis (moon), for GA. It seems to be a good little article. I have left a few comments on the review page and may be leaving more. Please feel free to contact me with comments or questions. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons

Are you trying to create a 6th season topic drive? CTJF83Talk 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, Qst and I just started doing some episodes from season 10, so we decided to finish that off. For 6, if you want, just paste all the episode names, like I did for 10, and put them in the categories, either GA, FA (if any), or articles in need of work. You can pick to do some if you want too. If you don't want to do the paste, I'll get to it tomorrow I'm sure :) CTJF83Talk 01:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good too! CTJF83Talk 01:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello - please stop making FT boxes in the WP:FT namespace

I have told you before, please don't make boxes such as Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/The Simpsons (season 6), Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/The Simpsons episodes and Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/The Simpsons (season 4). You can instead make it in your Wikiproject space (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/The Simpsons (season 6)) or your own namespace (e.g. User:Nergaal/The Simpsons (season 6)). You shouldn't make boxes in the FTC namespace until you are ready to bring them, as in the meantime, if someone stumbles across them, it is likely to cause confusion, and also there is no guarantee that you will end up bringing the topic to FTC at all - rst20xx (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Can you point to where else this is being done? Because it's a tricky thing to spot - rst20xx (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also I think it would help if you moved any you created to other namespaces for the timebeing - rst20xx (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, I went through the candidates pages and found every single page that was there but shouldn't have been. There were 14, and they all belonged to you. I moved them all to your userspace, and blanked the pages I moved them from. I fixed any links this broke. I now consider this matter closed - rst20xx (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to ones I missed? Gary King made a few too, but he has since blanked them - rst20xx (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Haumea (dwarf planet)

Hope you're up to another dwarf planet. We've got a mountain to climb. Serendi^podous 21:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey; you seem to have retreated to ancient Rome. No biggy, but it's not like you to miss out on a dwarf planet. :) Serendi^podous 21:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jupiter FT

"Jupiter mass" is a pointless article and should be merged with Jupiter. "Galilean moons" probably doesn't need to be in the topic if we're already including all the moons individually. "Trojan asteroid" is interesting because it could become part of the Jupiter subtopic, the asteroid belt subtopic, or even the Solar System topic itself. I think you can leave it out for now. I suppose, realistically, "Exploration of Jupiter" will have to be included, but it's a close thing for me. shoemaker-Levy 9 I can take or leave. Serendi^podous 09:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How about Jupiter (mythology) ? Ruslik (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe it fits into the same category as the exploration: nice to have, but not actually necessary to be included in the initial nom. Nergaal (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Victoria of the United Kingdom

Hey, just to let you know that I won't be able to address any other issues with this article for the next few days, probably more. I've no doubt that you'll be able to, you've done great work to it over the past couple of months. Best, – Toon^(talk) 22:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured topic drives

I appreciate that you have taken an interest in WP:SIMPSONS, but could you please start creating pages for FT drives? The point of a drive is so that you have a group of editors focusing their energy on a group of articles, and when you have four going at once (especially considering that we are a small project) it takes away the focus. Let us finish with season 4, then we'll figure out where to go from there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: GAN: reviews

My primary concern is that I shouldn't have to bring up any of the menial comments in the first place. I post a lot of the same comments across multiple GANs; it shouldn't be that way. Gary King (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I have speedy failed many GANs in the past, as I'm sure you're aware. I don't speedy fail any of yours in order to give you a chance to work on them as I know you will do so, but I do hope that you learn from each one. Gary King (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I will get to your GANs probably tomorrow. I haven't taken a look at them recently because I've been busy – I have indeed been editing in the past few days, but they are all minor edits. I'd like to take one final look at the articles before passing them, which takes time, so that will probably be tomorrow. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

ITN

On 16 September, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item involving the article(s) Haumea (dwarf planet), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently updated or created article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 00:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam

Hi, I reverted your change to Jeffpw's memorial page because it seemed disrespectful. In looking at your long contribution history after I had reverted, I'm guessing you didn't intend it to be disrespectful.. I won't revert you again if you decide to put it back, but you should keep in mind that without some sort of explanation in an edit summary or other comment on the page.. adding a {{fact}} tag, well.. seems disrespectful. --Versageek 01:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeff's death was confirmed as much as can be by checkuser evidence and off-wiki conversations in Real Life. Just so you are aware. Pedro :  Chat  11:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen molecular ion

I did not choose that name lightly, but rather preferred to use the name that is most commonly used in the literature. Search and you'll see that it outnumbers "dihydrogen cation" by a factor of 100. --Itub (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of List of elements by atomic properties

A tag has been placed on List of elements by atomic properties requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mission Fleg (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnston's archive

I don't trust it. It seems to be just one lone postgrad with too much time on his hands. We might as well be citing Wikipedia. Serendi^podous 17:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

FLC - List of Office episodes

Nergaal, I hope you didn't think I was being stubborn. The point I was trying to make is that the future episodes were unsourced. Ones already aired are easily verified but there is usually plenty of speculation as to names/dates/etc. of those yet to air. For this reason I saw it necessary to require reliable sources to verify any future episodes in the list. Anyway I have spent some time on the NBC website and have found some news release to verify these episodes. I have added them as references to the Season 5 page (which transcludes to the episode list), I hope you don't mind. I am now satisfied with a very good list and have offered my support accordingly. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A new FL contest

Wikipedia's epic FL directors Matthewedwards and Scorpion0422 have decided to try another FL contest as a follow up to the one held last June. As you are a regular at WP:FLC, you may be interested in taking a look at the new one, which will have different rules. Although they are still being fiddled with, three FLs in different topics will be required this time around. For more information, see here. A start date has not yet been determined, but it will likely begin some time next week. Thanks for the time, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for entering. You can now start choosing your topics and lists. However, you will not be able to submit contest related FLCs until October 10 at 20:00 GMT. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Tyrannosauridae GA review

Hi,Nergaal. I've posted my initial comments at Talk:Tyrannosauridae/GA1, also accessible via Talk:Tyrannosauridae. -- Philcha (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Gliese 581 c: Good Article Reassessment

Hi, no sarcasm from me this time I'm afraid. I regret to inform you that due to ongoing problems I put Gliese 581 c up for a Good Article Reassessment as I feel it has failed the stability criterion (Good Article criterion #5) and possibly a couple of others as well. Icalanise (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Nergaal, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, Spencer^T♦C 02:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Haumea GA

Congrats on all your hard work. Note my comments at GA page. Thanks. — ceranthor ^(strike) 23:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have one quick suggestion — Haumea is exceptional among the known trans-Neptunian objects because of its extreme elongation.=??? Needs work. — ceranthor ^(strike) 00:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

FLC template

The {{FLC}} and {{FAC}} and to be transcluded on talk pages, not substituted. If it is substituted then someone has to fix them for the bot to work, as it has been done for the previous FLCs. Gary King (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder, you need to pick a third list for the FLCon. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:2003 EL61.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Nergaal!
We thank you for uploading Image:2003 EL61.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot.

--John Bot III (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

GA nominations

Hello, I noticed that you have a few articles nominated at WP:GAN. If you could review one or more good article nominations to help reduce the backlog and waiting time, it would be greatly appreciated. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

List of elements

Hi, several of the periodic table related FLs have merge tags and I found this discussion, where there appears to be consensus for a merge, but nobody has done it for whatever reason. If you want to merge the pages, that would be fine, but the FLs would have to be formally delisted first (which shouldn't be a problem, it has been done before). Is there someone within the chemistry project who would be willing to do this? I would, but I don't have a lot of expertise with the periodic table (I barely passed the last chemistry class I took) so it would probably be better for someone familiar with the subject to do it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of elements by atomic properties & User:JPG-GR/Sandbox3

Hey - I see you started working on your own sortable list, and so far so good. I finally got around to data dumping everything into my table generator and have created a very basic version of my own at User:JPG-GR/Sandbox3. I've still gotta add some more of the more "advanced" data, such as what you have, but have got to get that all copied into my database before I can whip it up quickly. Let me know what you think. JPG-GR (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A Gentle Request...

Hi there. I noticed that when editing So It's Come to This: A Simpsons Clip Show, that you tend to make a series of many small edits, rather than using the preview button and then continuing to the next edit. This results in a very, very long history for the article; clutters up watchlists; and (not sure if you ever plan to run for administrator, but in case you do plan to run) can be seen by some as an attempt to run up your count of mainspace edits. Mostly I'm concerned about the second issue; for the past couple of days now, over half of the edits on my watchlist are by you, to this article. Could you please try to combine smaller edits in the future? It's kinda one of those "unwritten customs" on WP--nobody will block you for what you're doing, but it would be helpful if you didn't. Thanks!Gladys J Cortez 06:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone basins

I responded to your comment left on my/the top of the article's top page. A lack of information about the topic within wikipedia should not be an excuse for lack of expansion, since MoS states that wikipedia articles cannot be used as references. If the southwest Pacific section, for example, is extremely short and confounding the formatting, then do some googling or visit the library and see if they have any info that could expand the related sections. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So It's Come to This: A Simpsons Clip Show

I've sourced the Production and Cultural references sections in the "So It's Come to This: A Simpsons Clip Show" article you are working on. It may need some copyediting and the Links section should be like this. Otherwise it's close the GA quality. Good luck! :) --TheLeftorium 15:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

what do you mean

by wikifying the External links section? Serendi^podous 15:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

List of elements by symbol

You know, I did ask you what you thought of a merge long before I started the FLRC. Anyway, it's one thing to oppose a merge, but there are some serious problems with both pages that I mentioned, so you really shouldn't vote "keep" until after those concerns are addressed. A FLRC isn't like a FLC, they will be delisted if issues aren't addressed, even if there is outstanding support for keeping it listed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but could you at least make that clear on the page, like "strongly oppose merge, undecided on delisting". It really doesn't matter to me if the pages are delisted, they showed up on the FL cleanup listing and there appeared to be a consensus, so I figured I'd give it a try. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Contest Invitation

Hello there!

You have been invited to enter C4v3m4n's Contest!.

The contest is designed to provide users with a challenge while still having fun! This month's contest is focused on Movember, a month designed to to raise awareness and funds for men's health issues, such as prostate cancer and depression in Australia and New Zealand.

Follow the link given above to find out more information. Hope to see you there!

${\mathfrak {C}}{\mathfrak {4}}{\mathfrak {v}}{\mathfrak {3}}{\mathfrak {m}}{\mathfrak {4}}{\mathfrak {n}}$ 04:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review Oxygen toxicity

I don't know if this the best place to respond but thanks for taking on the task of reviewing! I'll go search for a better top image: I should admit I have a degree which includes chemistry, but not biology (however that was 36 years ago). Technically, it actually seems the condition is initiated by the HO· radical, but I don't have an image of that either. Could you have a look at the refs I've provided for your fact-tags: on a couple of places I'm not sure which part of the sentence you wanted to be sourced. Finally, I can easily remove the refs from the lead (see Talk:Oxygen_toxicity#GA_suggestions) but reading WP:LEADCITE seems to suggest the opposite. Perhaps you can clarify that? Thanks --RexxS (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once more for the time you've given in helping this article reach GA status. This is the first time I've been through the process and without the patience and guidance of folks like yourself (not least my "collaborator", Gene Hobbs), I would have floundered long ago. Working in this way is surely the most satisfactory experience in Wikipedia. Best regards --RexxS (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review - Cultural depictions of dinosaurs

Hello! I have reviewed the article you nominated, Cultural depictions of dinosaurs, and have placed it on hold. See the review here. You have 7 days to edit it until it conforms to the Good Article criteria, but I am sure that it will be fine. Good luck! (is that a contradiction? never mind) - weebiloobil (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Office (US TV series) season 4

Hi, I left some comments on the above FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Tyrannosauridae

Do you intend to make any further improvements to this article? -- Philcha (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So It's Come to This: A Simpsons Clip Show

I am reviewing your article, So It's Come to This: A Simpsons Clip Show for GA and have left some comments on Talk:So It's Come to This: A Simpsons Clip Show/GA1 for you to address before I pass it. Basically the article is fine and close to GA. Please feel free to contact me with comments or questions. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

History of the Roman Constitution

Hi Nergaal! I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that I began the GA review of History of the Roman Constitution several days ago. I have some concerns with the referencing of the article, so before I complete a thorough prose review I'd like to make sure that there are editors still interested in working on the article. Could you drop me a note, either on my talk page or on the review page, to let me know? I'm also going to drop a note on the talk page of the main editor, to let him know of my concerns. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Jupiter FT

I've already begun prelim research on the Jupiter Trojans, so, if you want to target Exploration of Jupiter, just leave the Trojans to me and we'll have this FT up for consideration before the end of the year. Serendi^podous 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

do you have a ref for this statement?

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=55_Cancri_f&diff=226925523&oldid=226921166 Nergaal (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"FUNDAMENTALS OF ASTRONOMY" (QB43.3.B37 2006) by Dr.Cesare Barbieri, professor of Astronomy at the university of Pauda, Italy.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I was interested in your suggestions on a couple of things.

• I spend what time I can trying to improve this article, so I was wondering if you had suggestions on anything, including getting people who have more time to try to get it completed.
• I spend what time I can trying to improve this article , and I was wondering what you could say about these user's interpretation of Original Research here and here because I suspect there is some duplicity in the use of the interpetation.
• If OR does not include Know Formulas used with Known Data, and since there is a whole article on Insolation received by the Earth, then it would bring a lot to all the extrasolar planet articles to be able to add comparisons of Earth's Insolation or Solar constant and extra solar planet insolation.

GabrielVelasquez (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/2008 South Ossetia war

File:2008 South Ossetia war.svg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:2008 South Ossetia war.svg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Wronkiew (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

GA 2nd Opinion

Please don't change my formatting. I wanted a seperate heading for a reason. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of One Piece video games

Hi, thank you for reviewing my FLC. I responded to your comment. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the late award!

		Hello, Nergaal
		Congratulations for finding my hidden User page! ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Simpson family

I'm not going to withdraw this one, but I was planning on waiting before GACing it because I'm still not yet done with the 5 family members and once I finished with them I was planning on cleaning up the page a bit with facts from those pages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello there!

Hey, I'm not angry or anything in the least bit, but I would just like to say that it's usually nice to inform someone that you're nominating a FT/GT that has a majority, in some cases over 90%, of articles that they have worked to promote. Common courtesy, ya know? Like I said, I'm not angry or upset, not even a bit perturbed, but some people might be. Great job helping on the Season 4 article, and happy editing - Mastrchf (^t/_c) 02:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 02:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If I had any regards about co-nomming it, I would happily do it myself. I along with help from User:Mr.Crabby, worked to get the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd seasons to FL status, did major work with the 4th season, and got each of the 14 eps of the 4th season to GA status. All I'm saying is, after the work I did, it seemed like you came in, worked on a two articles, and once you got them to FL status, nominated others work. I'm not angry about it at all, and I sincerely hope that you do not take this as a "You came in and stole my work" message, which it isn't intended in the least to be, but I'm just saying that in the future, it's usually good to simply inform someone who put in the sheer amount of work on 18+ articles that are being nominated as I did about the nomination. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 02:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Alas, you perceive much more than is actually there. Please don't take my need to be verbose as that of a tone of anger. I'm just trying to help you so that a situation like this doesn't come up in which the other party is actually angry. But, if you don't want constructive criticism, that's fine with me too. I'm just trying to help. Happy editing, Mastrchf (^t/_c) 03:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

They never looked incorrect in the first place. You still fail to see my point, most likely because you are bent on the idea that I'm angry over this. It's Wikipedia bud, and I'm not the type to get upset over recognition or lack thereof. All I'm saying is, there are people out there who might truly get angry over something like this, and you might want to look at who has worked on the large group of articles that you're nominating and inform them of the nom. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 03:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

RT and Crabby both deserve their places on there, so yes. Mastrchf(^t/_c) 03:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Exploration of Jupiter

Hi. I am currently reviewing your article, Exploration of Jupiter, for GA and have left some comments at Talk:Exploration of Jupiter/GA1. I notice that you are doing a lot of editing today! Feel free to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, —Mattisse(Talk) 23:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you satisfied with this article? I made many changes in the wording and I want to make sure it is still correct. Otherwise, I am ready to pass the article as GA.—Mattisse (Talk) 02:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Niobium

Hi Nergaal, I wanted to nominate it for FA when I have time to do so. In the next time I am not available to help. The real world is forcing me to do work there. Would have been nice if the person written most of the article would be asked befor nominating it. But ... So good luck!--Stone (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your GA review

Your review of Peak uranium have been on hold for 32 days. Normal procedure is to fail the article after 7 days. Please finish the review. Thanks.--MrStalker ^(talk) 14:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review x 2

Hi. I started reviewing Executive Magistrates of the Roman Republic which you nominated. I also notified User:RomanHistorian as he was the main content editor. Fainites ^barley 21:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Seaborgium color

Hi, I have a nitpick on your otherwise excellent "Periodic Table by Radioactivity.PNG" image. Seaborgium is not a color that is listed in the referring legends. its a pink, while the legends go orange->red->dark-red. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hafnium

Hi. I have taken over the GA review of your article, Hafnium, as the first review does seem to be missing. I have done some copy editing and may do more, as it needs a good copy edit. You should check my editing for accuracy. Also, I have left some comments at Talk:Hafnium/GA1 and will probably add more. Please feel free to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work, good help, good article!--Stone (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Batman (film series)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Batman (film series) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Drilnoth (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work at FPC

Heh heh, now you can add the featured pictures you nominated to that sidebar on the side of your page. <In case you didn't know, use (edit page first to see) Image:name.format>. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to start working on Volcanism on Venus, and since we've seen each other around but never really gotten to work together I invite you to help me copy edit a little, and eventually expand. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Deep model Jupiter.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Deep model Jupiter.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shalow model Jupiter.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Shalow model Jupiter.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Batman (film series)

The article Batman (film series) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Batman (film series) for things needed to be addressed. Drilnoth (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder; the article has three days left on hold, and so far sufficient improvements haven't been made. You can see what I think still needs workhere. It's really close to passing, but a few improvements are still needed. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination passed

Batman (film series) has passed its GA review and is now a Good Article. Remember that you can also help with articles by reviewing other articleshere. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Jupiter

Further waiting does not make any sense, so I nominated it for featured article. You are a co-nominator. Ruslik (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Voyager approaching Jupiter

I won't put the thumbnail here, but the above nomination was successful. (Insert boilerplate text here). MER-C 03:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Belated Reply regarding HD 40307

Hey, Nergaal.

Thanks for giving me the heads up with the whole good topic thing; sorry I didn't get back to you earlier on the topic.

A possible GTN could end up floating around the instant after the passing of HD 40307 itself into GA status, so until then we'll just have to sit tight.

Thanks, --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 06:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool!

Well done on Exploration of Jupiter! Just one more article to get up, and I'm afraid it's a doozy. Getting Jupiter Trojan up to code will be a harder job thanScattered disc, which nearly broke me (that article should never have gotten a GA shield- it was never reviewed and didn't deserve one). I don't mean to be a party pooper; I know how hard you've worked to get the Jupiter topic off the ground, but the FT guys were pretty insistent that the Trojan article had to be included, either as part of the Jupiter subtopic or as part of the main topic. Serendi^podous 18:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Niobium

SandyGeorgia: but the article appears to be within criteria now. I think this means it is featured now.--Stone (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

FTC-icon template

I notice that you created {{FTC-icon}}. Would you be in favour of replacing its image with a candidate version I have just made? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Executive Magistrates of the Roman Republic

Slightly gone off my radar. Hope to get round to it in the course of the week. Looking better though. Fainites^barleyscribs 21:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Another Simpsons Clip Show

I think I've gotten all the production information available from the DVD. --TheLeftorium 22:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on the article! I have expanded the lead a bit, added ratings, and moved some stuff around. :) TheLeftorium 16:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination for Equestrian order

Hello. I've reviewed the article Equestrian order for its nomination for Good Article status. I have some major concerns about referencing along with others concerns, so I am placing the article on hold for seven days. My complete review may be found here. If you have any questions about the review or individual issues I have raised, please note them on the review page (which is on my watchlist) and I will answer them there. When you have addressed the issues I have mentioned, I will be happy to reevaluate the nomination. Thanks, and good editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Franklin-Nashville campaign map

Thanks a lot for your advices. I think I’m gonna expand the lower part of the map in order to have more space for the legend. What is wrong with the placement of "Nashville"? The state borders of the displyed area are the same today as in 1864. Why do I need to mention the year? Regards, Andrei nacu(talk) 19:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

EMRR

Review done. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Last few bits to do. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nergy, Nice to see you

You haven't been around my neck of the woods recently. I was wondering if you were interested in collaborating with me on Jupiter TrojanSerendi^podous 01:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been slaving over List of Solar System bodies in hydrostatic equilibrium. It's been an albatross around my neck for months. You wouldn't think, looking at it, that it tops 82 k. Even now there are still so many issues that I can't resolve that I don't really know where to go. Your change of format was fine; I only had a problem with the removal of the "other than minor planets", so I put it back in :-) Serendi^podous 02:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

GANs for ships

I just noticed that you nominated these two articles: USS Alaska (CB-1) and USS Hawaii (CB-3). I feel that these nominations might be premature since the primary author is not done and he is on a semi-wikibreak for the holidays. It may be best to withdraw these noms and let Ed complete the articles first. As an editor who focuses on these type of articles I am certain that the articles are incomplete and one of them even lacks some references and is not even close to GA status. Of course, you're free to do what you wish, and this is just a friendly heads-up. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wellll....that "semi-break" is kind of a lie. I didn't know that I was going to have access to Wi-fi here home from college. :) I'm using this alternate account to be sure that no one hacks into my account though - this isn't my wi-fi. =/

Anyway, on to the GAN's. Alaska is not even close...I kinda started it and never finished it. Feel free to improve it if you want, but it's not ready. On the other hand, Hawaii is getting there, though I don't think that it is finished either. Please, if you want, help me improve them! Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 03:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons 138th episode

You can work on it if you want to. I probably won't get anything done anyway. --Maitch (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Metallica band members.

Take a look at my review. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I "supported" the list now. Good job bro.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

All done

Congrats. Nice article. Fainites ^barleyscribs20:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The equation you added to List of Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium

Are you planning on solving it? Because I certainly can't, and the only person I know who could is Ruslik and he's too busy right now. Serendi^podous 00:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's OK; Ruslik solved it. :-) Serendi^podous 20:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone scales discussion on its talk page

Feel free to contribute to the conversation, since it will likely impact if/when the article gets reviewed for, let alone reaches, GA. Your input would be appreciated. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)