Jump to content

User talk:RJHall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RJHall (talk | contribs) at 14:25, 6 September 2007 (→Unblock please). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

These are archive links to copies of my talk page just prior to a cleanup.
float
float
Friendly messages are much appreciated! Please add new conversations below. Thanks! —RJH

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

Peer review TamilNet

Thanks for all your comments, I had incorportaed them all and more RaveenS 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I impose another one on you ?

Only if you had the timesee here Your input will be appreciated. Thanks RaveenS 02:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Planet

Agreed. I've enhanced my thesis (see also [1]) Alex Spade 18:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid belt GA on hold

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 23:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and Question

Thanks for posting some suggestions for the article Kentucky at WP:PR. Also, I noticed that you'd made a comment on the culture section. Well, now, the culture section somehow ended up towards the bottom of the page, below the references section, and it does not show up when you try to edit it. Could you try to see what's wrong with it, because I can't find the source of the problem. Thanks again for the suggestions, and good luck editing. Cool Bluetalk to me 00:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I didn't seem to have a problem opening that section for editing. Perhaps it was reverted? You might check the history tab on that page to find out. — RJH (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stub for Michael Fishbane

Thanks for looking at this. I added a few but sufficient sources. Also, put it in a specific category. I then removed the uncateg and unreferenced templates. Is that ok and proper procedure? thanks, HG 19:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Rsvp[reply]

That works for me. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Collaboration of the month

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

NCurse work 21:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky

Well, it doesn't appear to be there anymore, nor does it show it on any archived version of the page. But the whole thing was filled with software malfunctions when I read the page. It might have been my computer, or the software might have been malfunctioning. Anyways, thanks for reviewing the article, and reviewing the problem. Cool Bluetalk to me 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been a problem with Wikipedia's back-end MySQL database. Sometimes Wikipedia just gets a little flakey. Usually it gets cleared up, but I suspect a DBA is probably resetting (or restarting) something in the background. — RJH (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Miniatures

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Historical Miniatures, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. The original editor made no other contributions and you wikified it, so not sure if you want to try to save it. Ruhrfisch 20:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I have no particular heartburn about that page going away, since the topic is covered elsewhere. — RJH (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome - thanks for the quick reply. Ruhrfisch 21:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starbox

On this template's discussion page and others related says "Template is now described on the Starbox page instead of here". where is the Starbox page? Only that. (comu_nacho from spanish wiki)

Oh that just meant the template is described on {{Starbox catalog}} rather than Template_talk:Starbox_catalogSorry for the confusion. — RJH (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Night Sky - Time in astronomy?

What does the article Night Sky have to do with the category time in astronomy? --Keflavich 19:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, except it is discussing astronomy and an interval of time. But if that is objectionable then I guess category:Observational astronomy would be sufficient. — RJH (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Touché, I hadn't even considered night as being an interval of time. However, I do think observational astronomy is more appropriate, since time in astronomy generally refers to more precise measurements than night and day. --Keflavich 19:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Way

I apologize for stepping on your toes. —Viriditas | Talk 04:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies as well. We obviously differing viewpoints that I'm sure can be resolved. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock-auto

checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 66.230.200.146 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: heliosphere

Here is a very rough draft of how the combined heliosphere articles would look. I've left out bow shock because it doesn't only deal with the Solar System's bow shock, but with planetary bow shocks as well. This merge is potentially pretty contentious, so I'd like to get at least one other person on board before going ahead with it. Serendipodous 10:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately all I see is a red link. Could the bow shock material that is related to the Sun be included? I don't have any problem with retaining a separate Bow shock article, but it seems to make sense to also cover the topic in a merged article. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An admin moved it here: User:Serendipodous/Heliosphere draft Serendipodous 19:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems mostly okay as a working draft and as a starting point for an article. Good luck trying to get others on board. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microturbulence

Good work! Chrislintott 18:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Obviously lots of room for improvement... — RJH (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! I left some comments about microturbulence at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Starbox_detail ... I used to do the sort of stuff (stellar abundance determinations) that produced numbers like those as a by-product. An article about stellar abundance determinations should help clear that up ... I'll set to work on it. BSVulturis 22:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Question

Why are you in so many Debates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.163.71 (talk • contribs)

I'm not. Why are you tracking my activities? Why don't you sign your messages? — RJH (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Type Ia supernova GA on hold

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 18:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merged heliosphere

I realised, looking at the empty talk pages, that I was never going to get anyone else on board if I just posted my draft and hoped, so I decided to go and do it anyway. If people object, they can talk about it on the discussion page. I don't think they will. Serendipodous 11:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a logical merge so I can't imagine why anybody would object. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should we also merge it with heliospheric current sheet, or is that one merge too many? Serendipodous 18:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting idea. But you might want to pose it on the article's talk page for a week to see if anybody objects. — RJH (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centennial High School (Minnesota)

A couple of bugs turned this AFD into a mess. I blame changes to the template. Fixed now. Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Húsönd 19:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steenbok

Hi! Thanks for your feedback. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot more info out there on this beauty. However, I am looking into some journal references and will see how I can beef it up. Cheers—GRM 12:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I added some possible additional sources to the Talk:Steenbok page. Not sure whether you wanted to use them or not. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Non-free use disputed for Image:NWN showdown.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:NWN showdown.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how to watchlist an image for links to other pages; I'm not sure that can be done. I've withdrawn the disputed tag. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. I guess I'll just try to check it from time to time. — RJH (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"From trees"

I know it's a very small thing, but I can't recall reading an exact line describing an attack from a tree branch in the sources I've read, so I don't want to use those exact words. Trouble with little stuff like this is that a google search will turn up some semi-reliable thing, while google scholar will turn up nothing. Is cougar FA-worthy otherwise? Marskell 17:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I was basing my opinion on this work by the naturalist and author William Hamilton Gibson:
Gibson, William Hamilton (1880). Camp Life in the Woods and the Tricks of Trapping and Trap Making. pp. pp. 161-164. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
Quotes:
"The life of the puma is mostly in the trees. Crouching upon the branches it watches for, or steals, cat-like, upon its prey. Should a solitary animal pass within reach, the puma will not hesitate in pouncing upon the unfortunate creature;..."
"The puma loves to hide in the branches of trees, and from this eminence to launch itself upon the doomed animal that may pass within its reach."
But I'm not by any means intending to hold up the article FA on this issue. Thanks. —RJH (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging up the quote. Unfortunately, 1880 is likely too old to be considered reliable. If you want an interesting five minute read, check this.
As you wish. Of course modern quotes appear to suffer from a different type of bias. Thanks. — RJH (talk)
BTW, I have promised to get Neptune to FAC within a few months (unless a certain prolific astronomy editor named RJH gets there first...). I let you know if I start working on it. Marskell 12:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck on that project. I'm sure you'll do well. — RJH (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Type II supernova

The article Type II supernova 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:Type II supernova for things needed to be addressed. 

Esurnir 01:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IK Peg

Very cool article on IK Peg! I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of removing some information that I know to be wrong about the nearby supernova aspects. The article that appeared in New Scientist was some really terrible reporting on the part of that journalist. The credit for figuring out that IK Peg is a good candidate for a supernova goes to the folks that are now cited. Hope you don't mind! And thanks for putting this together, this is a very thorough page! --Karin (no wikipedia account) [128.32.92.133]

No I don't mind. Thank you for correcting the problem. — RJH (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karmichael Hunt

Will you peer review Karmichael Hunt. That would be much appreciated.

Article:Karmichael Hunt
Peer Review:Wikipedia:Peer review/Karmichael Hunt

Thanks

SpecialWindler 06:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Collaboration of the Month

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

NCurse work 19:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Type II supernova

The article Type II supernova you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Type II supernova for eventual comments about the article. Well done!

Esurnir 19:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution FAC

Hi there. Thank you for your comments, I have made some changes that should hopefully deal with your concerns. Thank you. TimVickers 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I was wondering if the new wording resolved the problem? Comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evolution. Thanks! TimVickers 15:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coonskin (film)

I've tried to address some of your concerns. Please take a look at my comments on the FAC nomination page. (Ibaranoff24 05:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your commitment

The E=mc² Barnstar
For your commitment to enlighten mankind through your hard work of improving Wikipedia in the field of Astronomy. By pushing forward until an article become the most enjoyable and memorable experience. For your contribution in Supernova, Earth, Type II supernova and all the other article that can't fit here, you are rewarded by this Barnstar. Esurnir 06:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improper revert

Your recent edit to List of stars in Hydra (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 17:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit to List of stars in Hydra (diff) was legitimate, but it was reverted by this bot. It is a link to the newly-created article HR 4458. — RJH (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the martinbot revert. As I don't know how to report the problem I left it "as is" - Esurnir 02:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we cool?

Sorry about that confusion over Oort cloud. If you'd like to see more info added I can have a go. What do you think it needs? Serendipodous 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're fine. I just misunderstood your intent is all. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on Uranus and would appreciate your thoughts on it, particularly on the unresolved issues. Serendipodous 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back in April I put some feedback on the talk page. I'll do an update of those notes. Hope that helps. — RJH (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Just rewored Uranus; see Talk:Uranus for details. Serendipodous 01:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RJ, I need your help with something. Right now I'm engaged in a very mild argument with User:Pharos about the section Definition of planet#Planets in antiquity. Ever since I discovered this weird "five planet"/"seven planet" dichotomy in the older sources, I've been struggling to find a way to reconcile it with the commonly stated fact that the ancients believed in seven planets. I'm in no way territorial about this, and am perfectly willing to be corrected for any OR, but without any secondary sources to back this up, it seems any claims either of us makes will be OR. Perhaps there's a way to word it so that it reflects NPOV? Thanks. Serendipodous 08:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wali Khan

Thanks for the feed back on the article. Can you give me some more details on places that need imrpovement? --Zak 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Alternity_box_cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Alternity_box_cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 13:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Prior to policy, Sorry , ShakespeareFan00 14:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Dungeons and Dragons

Sorry, I'm new at reviewing articles for Good Article Criteria. The fancruft for the image is located in the last image. I don't quite remember why. -Flubeca (t) 19:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, feel free to contact me if anything comes up again.-Flubeca (t) 22:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar magnetic field

Hi RJHall. I nominated Stellar magnetic field to appear on the Main Page under the Did you know... section. The nomination hook appears here. There is a five day from creation window for DYK nominations, so I wanted to make sure it was in the queue. Please revise the nomination hook as you see fit as it may not be entirely correct. Great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 05:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jreferee,
The wording on that hook is incorrect, so please do not use it. The stellar magnetic field is what causes plasma to be ejected at the surface via stellar flares. It does not eject "magnetic fields" as such. I'm sorry if the article created confusion and I'll try to reword it. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that my understanding of the topic was off. I still would like to see you get the recognition for the hard work you put into the article. After 19:13, 26 June 2007, the Stellar magnetic field article will be five days old and outside of the DYK 5 day window. If you have time, please revise the wording of the DYK hook. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some modified text. If there's room the blurb could also mention that the stellar magnetic fields also cause stellar flares, which produce space weather. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thrud

Glad to refresh your memory of that great comic character! Thanks for the kind words, too. I will get an FA under my belt, I will, I will :) GDallimore (Talk) 10:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar magnetic field

Updated DYK query On 26 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stellar magnetic field, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 18:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar rotation

Hi RJHall. You are off to such a great start on the article Stellar rotation that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page would help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination ofDungeons and Dragons

The article you nominated as a good article (Dungeons and Dragons) has passed! See the talk page of the article to see a short summary of the article. Great work on the article! --Hdt83 Chat 07:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Collaboration of the Month

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

NCurse work 05:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 1 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article rotation of a star, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 09:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Regarding the Latin names of our 'Sol'ar system and beyond; you do know that earths proper name is Terra dont you, your interests et cetera seem to suggest this. Thanks, D.

I'm familiar with the latin name. However, this is an English-language page. Your assertion about IAU standardizing on Terra needs a citation. Otherwise it does not appear to be a valid modification. I added a comment to the Talk:Earth page for discussion. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Manual_planes_v3_cover.jpg

I have tagged Image:Manual_planes_v3_cover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a fair-use rationale to the Image:Manual_planes_v3_cover.jpg page. Do you consider that acceptible? — RJH (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine, although you might want to look at other examples in the same category, if you wanted to go into more depth :) ShakespeareFan00 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fiend_folio_v35_cover.jpg

I have tagged Image:Fiend_folio_v35_cover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 19:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Epic_level_hndbk_v3_cover.jpg

I have tagged Image:Epic_level_hndbk_v3_cover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 19:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:En_psionics_hndbk_v35_cover.jpg

I have tagged Image:En_psionics_hndbk_v35_cover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 19:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Fair Use rationales

Above struck thru, Thanks :)

BTW any chance of going through the relevant categories and attempting to add rationales for uploads by others? ShakespeareFan00 12:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry, I don't think I'd find that task at all interesting. — RJH (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of astronomical topics/temp

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article List of astronomical topics/temp, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.150.188.38 16:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I tried to get rid of it once already. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn Peer Review

Hi, I replied to most of your comments. I would appreciate it if you could come and clarify if the new versions of your suggested changes are fine or not. Thanks. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 10:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circus metal (again)

Hello. I am messaging you about the recreation (I believe for the fifth time) of the article Circus metal. I have seen you have participated in a previous AfD procedure for the article, and I would think you would be interested to give your opinion in the most recent one. Thanks in advance.

ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 10:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes

I have reformatted the links to use the cite web template. Since you are the only person to have responded to the Wikipedia:Peer review/Archimedes, could I ask if you can think of anything else that might be raised during the FAC process? Thanks, --Ianmacm 21:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

Thanks. Overall the article seems fine to me. The only issue that really stands out is the bulleted nature of the "Additional information" section. Could that be converted to a prose section describing posthumous honors? — RJH (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid belt mass

Hi, sure, your edit was a good way out, since the mass is so uncertain anyway. Deuar 14:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary

Regarding this edit summary at Supernova, please note that you posted to my talk page at 17:36, July 29, 2007 (UTC), I responded at within minutes, at 17:41, July 29, 2007 (UTC), and I archived my talk page at the end of the month, 18:23, July 31, 2007. I responded immediately, you had two days to read my response and you can still read it in my archives, and further, I raised the comma question at WP:MOSNUM and was informed that I was correct. Please take care with how you discuss other editors; I don't "blank" comments. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know what happened. In nearly every case people post a reply to my talk page, which I know from experience can take a few days. As no reply was forthcoming I checked back after that time had elapsed, only to find the message removed from your talk page. Please pardon for my incorrect assumption; I wasn't aware you followed a variant procedure. — RJH (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for getting back to me. I suspect that some of your confusion about the comma issue may be stemming from user preferences. Even if we leave off the commas, Wiki inserts them. It's certainly not a big deal to leave them in, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Collaboration of the month

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

NCurse work 12:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Light years cover.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be deleted. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fulke Greville (diambiguation)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Fulke Greville (diambiguation), by JohnI (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Fulke Greville (diambiguation) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance task performing a non-controversial page move like reversing a redirect.


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Fulke Greville (diambiguation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earth

You recently reverted my improvements (specifically changes to misleading statements about geomagnetic reversals, and the fact that the length of the seasonal cycle is 1 tropical year) to the Earth article as "unhelpful and contradictory". I have reinstated the changes. Please discuss before reverting again. Rracecarr 14:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High schools

Hi there. I approve of your standards for notability for high schools. Henceforth, I will use that standard "RJHall Test" at WP:AFD. Bearian 21:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia Activism Articles

I am new at nominating so could use your advice. The reason I nominated these articles is that there is a constant struggle going on between two sides of the article. One side wants to make pedophiles seem like victims of societies Victorian ideas about sexuality the other side wants to sensationalize pedophilia. Although I find sex with children reprehensible in all forms I think that these articles can be written in a similar vein to say holocaust denial. I think both topics speak for themselves without any need to exaggerate. (I'm mean come on sex with children doesn't effect them and that Hitler didn't want to kill Jews.) I'm rambling but any advice would be appreciated. Jmm6f488 20:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I try to avoid controversial topics like the plague, for the very reason you've brought up. Even if the article is brought into alignment with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, it still needs constant tending to maintain that perspective. Sorry, I don't have a better suggestion for you. — RJH (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the Dungeons & Dragons work

Thanks for all the work on Dungeons & Dragons and your efforts to make it a Featured Article! — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earth

What do you mean, you had to revert my changes?? And what do you mean deletions?? I did not delete a single thing from the article, only moved information around to improve flow. The introduction after my changes definitely reads more smoothly. There are some recent mostly good but awkward changes by 142.103.63.17 which I am working on improving. Please do not revert obvious improvements just because they are not discussed on the talk page. Rracecarr 16:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earth&diff=151886690&oldid=151844896 :
The statement that "Home to millions of species including humans" has been much discussed, and the preference was to retain it in the first paragraph. You also quite clearly removed the statement that "Earth is the only planet known to have liquid water on its surface." — RJH (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't move "Home to millions of species including humans" from the first paragraph, and I also didn't remove the statement about liquid water. Go and look. Rracecarr 17:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake on the second one then; too many changes make it difficult to track. But "Home to millions of species[3] including humans" is not in the first paragraph. But I guess I can live with that. — RJH (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I did move the phrase to the second paragraph (though the first paragraph isn't hardly a paragraph). I was trying to make one cohesive paragraph on life on Earth. It has gotten a bit bloated with the accurate but quite in-depth recent additions. Rracecarr 17:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That page gets trashed an awful lot, so sometimes I get a little trigger-happy. My apologies. — RJH (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for barking so loudly. Rracecarr 17:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Gutenberg

Hi Bob,

I'm Mike, the PG Newsletter Editor. I liked the graph you did for the PG ebook releases. I actually have quite a detailed spreadsheet for all the PG stats that you might find interesting. This could help you make more detailed an acurate graphs.

If you would like me to send you a copy please drop me an email using the PG-News.org website email form. --Mikecook 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of GURPs books

You might be interested to know that it's being implied that you are likely part of a large advertising campaign at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of GURPS books, an article you created. Just thought you might like the opportunity to respond. -Chunky Rice 21:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. — RJH (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Zonk on Slashdot is a reliable source

Just a heads up: I disagreed with your assessment of Zonk on Slashdot as being anonymous, and that the entry being an anecdote is a poor addition. My full argument is up at D&D Talk. (Also, good luck with the FAC nomination!) — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Collaboration of the Month

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

NCurse work 07:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons & Dragons

Thanks for letting me know! I'll take your word for it, and cross it off of my followup list. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter

Sorry, that's my first time using AWB (nope, it wasn't a bot). I didn't notice the space was removed and the "C" capitalized. I think I'll go through the eight other edits I made using the tool again, just in case I missed something like this somewhere else. Thanks for pointing that out! · AndonicO Talk 16:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else is okay (phew!): wikipedia is safe. ;) You're welcome, and sorry. · AndonicO Talk 16:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double Star

After this version of the Double Star article [2], somebody took it upon themselves to rewrite the whole thing, replacing it with disinformation. Then someone else changed it and it is now only two sentences long. I was wondering if you could possibly help with this? Thanks -- Vsst 17:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to guess that you actually meant Double star, since that is the history page you were referencing. Anyway I did a deep revert to what looks like a pre-vandalized version. Thanks for the tip! — RJH (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock please

I don't think I been vandalizing any articles, so this seems odd. Please unblock, thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: If you were blocked directly then you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed since you have not provided a reason for unblocking. Please use {{unblock|your reason here}} instead.

This user is asking that his or her autoblock or shared IP address block be lifted:

  • Block message:

repeated vandalism to various articles

Administrator use only: Replace this template with one of the following as notification. Users should note that they CANNOT unblock themselves.
{{subst:Request accepted|[[Wikipedia:Autoblock|Autoblock]] of [[User talk:130.76.32.167|130.76.32.167]] lifted or expired.}}
{{unblock-auto reviewed|130.76.32.167|repeated vandalism to various articles|Can't sleep, clown will eat me|decline=reason — ~~~~}}
{{unblock-auto reviewed|130.76.32.167|repeated vandalism to various articles|Can't sleep, clown will eat me|sig=~~~~}}
Note: If the "decline=" is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.
You are right, you have not vandalized. Can someone please fix this? Burntsauce 22:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found an admin your block is fixed now I think. Burntsauce 23:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd that; I seemed to get blocked every once in a great while for no apparent reason. No warnings are given or anything. I wonder if it's ip spoofing, or some such thing.
Thanks for your help, Burntsauce. — RJH (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RJHall&oldid=156056145"