User talk:RJHall

Hello, RJHall. You have new messages at Zodiac's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{umbox}} template.

These are archive links to copies of my talk page just prior to a cleanup. 03/18/05 07/03/05 12/14/05 05/14/06 07/13/06 10/21/06 04/05/07 09/06/07 11/11/07 07/03/08 10/02/08 01/31/09 10/09/09 03/19/10 02/07/11 12/23/11 06/26/12

float

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

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

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Star template

Hi, RJHall. I'm wondering why you reverted my edit. I separated Failed stars from Theoretical stars because there did not seem to be any logic behind lumping them together in one group. Qurq (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well you made the change with no comment, it did not seem to be an improvement, and I believe you dropped one of the links. With a suitable explanation I probably would have let it be and just added in the dropped link. Since you didn't comment, I didn't see the need to post an explanation. Sorry. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks so much for taking time to make suggestions which made Grand Teton National Park even better...your support is most appreciated. It is now a featured article.--MONGO 01:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's great, I'm glad to hear you got it promoted. Good work! Regards, RJH (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

I see that you responded to the peer review of the article "Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact. I greatly appreciate your contributions to improving the article. I will implement your recommendations after I add a section and information from other sources, as part of a broader copyedit and verification process which will be completed prior to an FA nomination of the article. Once again, thank you!

		The Space Barnstar
		For your diligence in improving articles related to astronomy and ensuring that Wikipedia remains a reliable source for such information. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 19:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Regards, RJH (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Michelson–Morley experiment/archive1‎

I didn't know if you were still keeping a watch on this review, but I've placed an animation on the Peer Review page that I'd like your opinion on. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"The Wild Girl"

(Subtitle: no good deed goes unpunished)
   I agree with you (and doubtless with everyone) that the title "The Wild Girl" needs disambiguation, and i also think i'll agree with the colleague who tagged the page you provided it on w/ {{Disambig-CU}} about some reasons that it needs that. You're of course welcome in a discussion that i'm about to initiate on its talk page about the direction of the pending cleanup. But if you don't end up participating in that way, would you be more annoyed if...

1. i ask you my long-winded questions about your views on some issues perhaps affecting the clean-up?
2. i leave you alone, but discuss with interested parties my attempts to read your mind?

Thanks for your attention, whether with or without a reply.
--Jerzy•t 04:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm kind of thoroughly burned out on these types of arguments discussions, as they so often seem to devolve into hand bag duels unresolvable discord. No offense intended, but I'm going to have to take a pass. Sorry. Good luck resolving your concerns. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

   I understand completely, no offense taken, and i don't feel you owe the discussion anything. Au contraire, you deserve thanks for running down the links you found, and my concern was more to respect that contribution and any continuing interest you might have, than to suck out your gray matter.
   And BTW, thanks for your sense of humor in the face of my paralyzing attention to detail.
--Jerzy•t 04:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've gotta ask...

'Cause if I don't my curiosity will always get the better of me. So here goes: Is there a rhyme or reason to the star articles you're creating/expanding? They're all over the place, except for the block in Andromeda. Don't get me wrong, though, as I'm not criticizing. As one who created a bunch of star articles on random locations because they were redlinked I'm merely curious. :) Also, very nice work on Observational history of Mars. I enjoying following large articles such as that one. Is there another project you're starting on? SkarmCA (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello SkarmCA,

Well yes there is. At present I'm working my way through the existing Bayer designated stars in the constellations list, although sometimes I'll come across a random star article that needs some refinement. I guess I do tend to jump around a bit. I've actually only created a handful of new star articles, and those I try to make sure satisfy WP:NASTRO. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of the far future

So do you think FL is a go? Or should we wait until we've sorted out the Pointcare recurrence issue? Serendi^podous 18:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I think it's fine. You've made a good faith effort to address the concerns, so they can't complain about that. A horizontal graphical timeline would probably be too crowded to be useful, while a vertical graph would just duplicate the list. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

Hi. When you recently edited Zeta Aquarii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orbital plane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Shadis issue 48.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Shadis issue 48.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Added. I tried the File option above but got an error from our firewall server. RJH (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

For adding the sub-lists to the WikiProject directory under Wikipedia Assistance! I appreciate the help!--Amadscientist (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

:)

I just saw this - and wanted to thank you for marking it off - does this mean we might be able to get up to support with a bit more work? Fayedizard (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Fayedizard. At the moment my sense is that the article is not quite detailed enough, when compared to other FA biography articles for well-known public figures. That is, it doesn't quite satisfy FA criteria 1b yet. For that reason I'm going to hold off for a bit. Sorry. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No - problem, will continue improving the article - hopefully will move it to a point where you feel you can support it soon. :) Fayedizard (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

No problem! Glad to help! Haon 2.0 (talk)

An incomplete list of redirects with content in the histories

I saw your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, and I wanted to make sure my response wasn't overlooked, but I've been working on compiling such a list (and though I'd imagine it's far from complete, I'm still looking). The list can be found at User:SudoGhost/Sandboxes/Orange. Hope this helps. - SudoGhost 01:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be great, SudoGhost. Thank you for your help. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Except for the most recent AfD, I tried to sort them by redirect target. There's a good bit of entires there now, but I don't think for a second that I've got even half of them. Hope this helps, and I'll try to find some more at some point, but I need a break from that for a moment; it wasn't complicated, just tedious. - SudoGhost 01:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I think I've already tracked down many of the previous redirects; it's just knowing the new ones that would be helpful. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

I have closed your move request at Talk:Zeta1 Antliae#Requested move and am in the process of moving the affected pages. I assume you will add {{DISPLAYTITLE}} as needed to all affected articles. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For unleashing a trout as an appropriate riposte, then adding a reference to the riposte article, have this. You absolutely made my day. —Torchiest talkedits 22:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

DISPLAYTITLE

Just a reminder that DISPLAYTITLE is a magic word, not a template, and uses a colon instead of a pipe. For example, {{DISPLAYTITLE:Omicron<sup>2</sup> Cancri}}, not {{DISPLAYTITLE|Omicron<sup>2</sup> Cancri}}. — Paul A (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's right. Sorry about that. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Crazy17wer

You might want to check out User:Crazy17wer's user page. He mentions me and you a couple of times. Just thought I'd let you know. StringTheory¹¹ 03:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks StringTheory11. Yes, that's a little odd. His English skills aren't very good, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Oh well. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at this editor's contributions, it's clear to me that something is wrong here. I'll continue to monitor his contributions, and see what happens. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but civility precludes me from saying anything stronger. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		or The We May Not Agree But Your Editing and Discussions Are Appreciated (and Also Sorry For Being Curmudgeonly Lately) Barnstar. Although we seem to have diametrically opposed viewpoints on certain discussions, I think disagreement about content/sourcing results in a critical analysis of that content/sourcing, which results in, ultimately, better content/sourcing (even if that content/sourcing is moved to another article). So thank you for disagreeing with me in a thoughtful and civil way, and not coming off like a jerk like a certain editor that shall not be named. :) - SudoGhost 08:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks SudoGhost. Yes, it's always appreciated when disagreements can be worked through in a civil and rational manner. Some of those discussions can become way too conflicted. I don't disagree that reliable citations are essential, such as for stamping out OR and subtle vandalism. OTOH, I'm not fully convinced that WP:GNG is the optimal approach for building an encyclopedia, even though I can see the need for a stable criteria of that sort. Shrug. It is what it is, I guess. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Main page redesign

Hey RJH - after seeing your great point about reducing clutter on the Community Portal, I thought it would be great to hear your feedback on my rough draft for a main page redesign - if you get a moment. The discussion is here :) thanks! — Pretzels ^Hii! 12:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be glad to take a look. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments on the Olmec colossal heads FAC, and for your support - it was promoted yesterday. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's good news. I'm glad to hear you got the article promoted. Well done! Regards, RJH (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you so much for your detailed reviews on all three constellation FACs! I can't tell you how much I appreciate the feedback and careful fact-checking. After all, Capella would still have a common envelope if it weren't for you. ;) Thank you again, and if there's anything I can do to repay you, just give me a ping. Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 20:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; glad to help. You're doing a great job of bringing these constellation jobs up to snuff and I appreciate that. I'll try to have another look this weekend. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Finally!

We finally got it. Five years. Five frickin' years.

		The entire known universe
		Because sometimes one star just isn't enough. Serendipodous 16:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hooray! Regards, RJH (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited 55 Arietis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Epsilon Aurigae

When you recently edited Epislon Aur, did you add the right citation for the luminosity? I see a paper called Masses and luminosities of O- and B- stars and red supergiants, but I can't find any mention of Epsilon Aurigae. Lithopsian (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I used the online data and entered the HIP number. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Got it now. That database is just one more set of contradictory data for this star, inconsistent with everything else in the article. For example it assumes an even closer distance than other sources but still quotes a bright supergiant luminosity class and then a "typical" mass for that type of star. Nice data for a large database but we probably shouldn't be quoting it for a single star against specific studies of that star with much more robust methods. There has been a rash of papers since the latest eclipse, but still a basic disagreement between the low mass and high mass models. I'm sifting and will edit soon. Lithopsian (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it likely does need a good data scrubbing. I just didn't like the use of the uncited data that was in there previously. If you can clarify matters then that would be great. My primary goal is just to clean up and cite some of the OR and poorly sourced data that has been filtering into the star articles over the years. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Deltasim#"Spacing fixes"

Hi. I saw the same problem and have commented there. That user is doing this to hundreds of articles and not just re citations, they are systematically scrunching-up infoboxes. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what all the fuss is about. I've only had a two complaints so far. This scrunching-up infoboxes as you call it is actually optimising the length of text so that scanning and reading it from left to right is easier. I don't see the point of all that tabbing. Also in various articles there is pointless double line spacing, large gaps between full stops and new sentences. Too many articles are messed up and I am NOT messing them up, just polishing their "dilapidated" structures. The majority requirements various articles do include adding external links. Perhaps you should discuss more on this spacing fixes in the community centre and then we can come to some agreement. Deltasim (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• nice reply

Various users added all those spaces that you're ripping out for good reasons. The template doc pages offer examples using the spaces. You're being disruptive by removing them. See the sentences in the section? (unlike the ones you removed from your talk.) They have spaces between the words, near the punctuation. The diffs I've looked at show articles that were not messed up, but that you now have messed up. Fortunately many of them appear to be to utterly unimportant topics, but I'll take an interest in some of the important ones. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the content from my page, because I do not want ganging up to be encouraged on my talk page. I have no complaint nor massive editing on citations any more. Calling the process "messed up" can only be described as YOUR personal opinion, since you have recently expressed it. Check out Earthworm Jim as an example. Not once in the whole article history have I edited it, yet the style in which the infobox without tabbed spaces and citations in a straight line is perfectly accepted. Deltasim (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you removed it to sweep criticism under the rug, which is why we're on this talk page. Earthworm Jim would be one of those unimportant topics I mentioned. I saw you damaging infoboxes, but whitespace and newlines are very good practise in citations, too; best practise, even. I see you've edit warred over these spaces before, too: diff of From Hare to Eternity, diff of From Hare to Eternity. Have another think on this, please. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Sweep criticism under the rug?", not true at all. I did not damage the infobox on the Earthworm Jim article. Once again you are using words like "damaging" as your personal opinion on your preference. Regarding Hare to Eternity, the matter has been resolved, if of course you did not bother to check that. You are becoming increasing difficult and disagreeable to discuss with. I will resume discussion once RJHall has a say on the subject of infobox style. You too think hard about this, if you don't mind. Deltasim (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Also in various articles there is pointless double line spacing, large gaps between full stops and new sentences": Double-line spacing is specifically covered in the MoS, so you're okay with fixing that. I'm also fine with removing double spaces between sentences, even though it's really a useless activity. But I agree with Br'er Rabbit regarding your compacting the templates; it's unhelpful and disruptive. Please just let this one go. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have taken a look at Br'er Rabbit's recent edits and his infobox style is even worse and puts the pages into even more disarray not to mention take up more vertical scrolling length. How many users are likely to use the plain box template and how much more does it help editing than your first optimum style? I cannot trust his sense of judgement not to mention aggressive sounding replies. Your suggestion was a fine one and I am now prepared to edit infoboxes, citations and succession boxes to precisely the way you put it. May we reach a consensus with ease and happy editing. Deltasim (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I know what I'm doing with infoboxes ;) {{plainlist}}, for example, is about proper list structure. I do not care if you trust my judgement, but I do care if you're going around removing clarity. You stop that, and I will pay you less mind. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No you don't know what clarity is, your only contribution is clutter. You are using the plainlists far too lightly, they are supposed to be for long lists to avoid the overuse of brs, but you insist on using them on nearly every line. For example in From Hare to Eternity you made plainlists for 'musician', 'director' and 'producer' when there only two individuals mention in each of those. Two items (or in this case people) do not qualify for a proper list (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Bulleted and numbered lists). Deltasim (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If this is a concern then it may be helpful to mention it on the template documentation page. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a concern; lists may have a single item, and should if an adjacent column has a multi-item list. Funny that I'm know for the edit summary "de-clutter" ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it makes things clearer for future editors. But it's hard to say really. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Not in the case of this specific editor, but it has met with favourable acceptance on articles on serious topics. fyi, I believe you'll have noticed some of my prior work as User:Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 on articles concerning the outer solar system. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GJ_1062

I sincerely apologize for implying that the the nominator and/or supporters of deletion were "myopic". That was a poor choice of words on my part. Words like "myopic" cut deeply, particularly when they express meaning like Lack of perspective in thinking. Is there any more hurtful thing for one human to say to another than that? I think not. Yes, I will read WP:CIVIL. Again and again, as my penance. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

...And then he goes and posts nonsense on my talk page about "star racism" and how I made the beings living on that star feel bad, implying that his current words here are an act. Just wow. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, pretty quirky indeed. Yet more Wikipedia goofiness. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Betty and Barney Hill abduction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sol

Zeta Aurigae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Orbital plane

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Space manufacturing 5.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Space manufacturing 5.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Arcturus.....

I reorganised it like Vega as this seemed to suit the info thus far the best. I feel somewhat daunted by the physics star articles so with group hugs all round I feel more secure with multi-collaborations for these articles. Feel welcome to jump in the sandpit and buff it for GA/FA..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Russian campaign box cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Russian campaign box cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:S and T 68.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:S and T 68.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Divine divinity cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Divine divinity cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Orion Nebula

   It appears that your contrib that i've sub-headed Orion_Nebula#Coloration has stood the test of 6 years' time pretty well! Nevertheless, i've added two tags, after a recent reversion that i discussed on the talk page. Hopefully (i'm a physicist, but only a sparse dabbler in astronomy) i can help draw attention to points whose difficulty for non-specialists may not be obvious.
   I understand of course that the coin that is OWN has as its other side your control of how much post-Save responsibility you have for your contribs, but it seemed to me both a CIVIL amenity, and a potential opportunity for efficient collaboration, to make you aware of my budding interest in the topic. And if you think this page is a less distracting forum for our teaming up on this, i'd be happy to give that a try.
--Jerzy•t 07:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

   Rereading with my tags in place, it came back to me that i was uncertain about, and i expect less technically prepared readers to be blindly misled by, the lack of distinction between visually-perceived patches of color and the spectral distributions arriving along given lines of sight. That's one of the issues implicitly relevant to my tag about areas and regions.
--Jerzy•t 07:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment of Star trail (photography)

Hi RJH, this article was percolating in my user space since last year, and I just "created" it in mainspace recently. Would you consider providing an assessment, and perhaps even provide some perspective/advice on improving it. I would like it settle a bit before sending to GAN, and I think it needs more in the way of comprehensiveness anyway. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Are you OK? I noticed your sudden absence. Regards, Rothorpe (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Just as a little aside ...

I couldn't help being amused by your innocent reply here. At least this variation on the theme was subtle enough for you and apparently many (most?) other readers to misinterpret it as a serious inquiry, as it slipped through the cracks. Well played, IP. (When I just remembered the comment and revisited it to finally reply to it, it was already archived. Dang! Oh well.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

WP Astronomy in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Astronomy for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Indeed, but as I noted above, RJHall has been absent since August. Rothorpe (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Where have you been?

Hi RJH - I'm just wondering where you've been all season? Your absence is conspicuous, and I just hope you're ok. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, four months is quite the Wikibreak. Please give us a headsup to know if all is well.Serendi^podous 18:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I echo these sentiments; I really hope you're OK. I've also added your name to Wikipedia:Missing wikipedians, although I hope its stay there is short. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: history of Mars observation

This is a note to let the main editors of history of Mars observation know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 8, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 8, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The recorded history of Mars observation dates back to the era of the ancient Egyptian astronomers in the 2nd millennium BCE. Detailed observations of the position of Mars were made by Babylonian astronomers, and ancient Greek philosophers and Hellenistic astronomers developed a geocentric model to explain the planet's motions. Indian and Islamic astronomers estimated its size and distance from Earth. The first telescopic observation of Mars was by Galileo Galilei in 1610. The first crude map of Mars was published in 1840. When astronomers mistakenly thought they had detected the spectroscopic signature of water in the Martian atmosphere, the idea of life on Mars became popular. During the 1920s, the range of Martian surface temperature was measured; it ranged from −85 °C (−121 °F) to 7 °C (45 °F). The planetary atmosphere was found to be arid with only trace amounts of oxygen and water. Since the 1960s, multiple robotic spacecraft have been sent to explore Mars. The planet has remained under observation by ground and space-based instruments and the discovery of meteorites on Earth that originated on Mars has allowed laboratory examination of the chemical conditions on the planet. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Precious

space exploration
Thank you for quality articles on astronomy and its history, such as History of Mars observation, and for pointing out the Seven Deadly Stereotypes, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (9 October 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)