User talk:Keflavich

Updated Westerlund 1

Please look it over and see if anything needs to be changed? Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 2/19/07

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]

I'd interpreted it more broadly when the category was set up. But that's fine. — RJH (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Moves

I've replied in more depth on my talk page, but I thought I'd point you to the right page here as well-WP:MOVE. Hope it helps.--Rossheth | Talk to me 16:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposed: Photometric telescope → Apache Point Observatory

It has been proposed to merge the content of Photometric telescope into Apache Point Observatory. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nalgene

Hi. My comment is twofold. First of all, I came here to congratulate you for the fact that your subpage on Nalgene bottles as a pressure cooker is the number-one search result on Google for Nalgene microwave. You're famous now; yay.

Secondly, I just now went and wandered around your userpage and looked at some of your astronomy things, and it's all really interesting. I went and read over a few of your presentations or lectures (though the "actual" big-time publication looked far too complicated), and though I did not understand as much as I'd like, I just wanted to tell you that it is all very neat. I'm just a college freshman and I haven't gotten far at all, but I'm thinking of majoring in astronomy, so this was a really cool read. Thank you for having a web page. ~ magbatz 02:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with the Nalgene, I was looking to boil some soup, and it definitely did well. As for astronomy, I am nowhere close to considering what I'm doing after these four years, or what it takes after college to get into research or whatever it is I am going to do with myself. In the meanwhile, astro doesn't seem too tough in school, though in the first week we've only covered naked-eye astronomy... I'm sure it will pick up. ~ magbatz 02:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Square Nebula and List of protoplanetary nebulae

Hi, I see that you added the Red Square Nebula to the list of protoplanetary nebulae. It would be nice if you could explain you rationale behind that action, as I am unable to find any source that lists it as one. An article referenced in the Red Square Nebula article suggest the opposite:

Towards the end of their lives, many low-mass stars, like the Sun, slough off their outer layers to produce striking 'planetary' nebulae. But the hot star at the heart of the Red Square nebula, called MWC 922, appears to be relatively massive, suggesting another process formed its signature shape.

Best regards, --Harald Khan Ճ 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I was thinking that perhaps you had read a paper that I didn't know about, so that's why I wanted to ask first. --Harald Khan Ճ 17:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alfvén wings

I see that you created the Alfvén waves page. I found a reference to Alfvén wings in describing Io's movement through plasma in Jupiter's aurora. I don't quite have the math to understand Alfvén waves but was wondering if you could add a brief not about Alfvén wings to the Alfvén waves page so that I could like to it. Thanks. Canuck100 (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Snowden (physics)

The article Snowden (physics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This can be recreated if there are references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Snowden (physics), Keflavich!

Wikipedia editor Niado just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Already proposed for deletion. Needs sources defining the concept - also keep in mind WP:not a dictionary

To reply, leave a comment on Niado's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding Invite

You have been invited to become a member of Skiing and Snowboarding, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to skiing/snowboarding, athletes, resorts, events, brands, media, and mountains on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, add yourself to the participants list, where you can join the project and view an overview of available tasks.

VarietyEditor (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]