User talk:Metebelis

Hello, Metebelis. Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you'd nominated Prelude In G Major for deletion here. You should sign your comment there with four tildes like this: ~~~~, which produces your signature and date stamp: Flower party■ 00:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing! Here's some more information you may find useful:

When posting on talk pages you can sign your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~
Have a look at the conventions for naming, style and uploading pictures
Follow the simplified ruleset
You might want to try the tutorial for advice on editing
If you need help, see the help pages and feel free to ask a question at the help desk
Eventually you might want to look through Wikipedia:Topical index
Remember to be bold in editing pages
Most importantly, have fun!

Flower party■ 00:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daleks in Manhattan

Yes, as you've correctly noted, there is a distinction in the use of quotation marks and italics in Doctor Who stories. In case you're not aware of the project, WP:WHO provides several other style guidelines for editing Doctor Who stories. Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! Metebelis 05:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Marlith ^T/C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith ^T/C 16:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Otori Grass.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Otori Grass.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 non-free media 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 23:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Otori Heron.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Otori Heron.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 non-free media 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 23:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Otori Moon.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Otori Moon.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 non-free media 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 23:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Gould designations

I noticed that you have renamed a number of star articles from their frequently used designations to the Gould designation. Per WP:UCN, the convention is to employ the name that is most commonly used to refer to the subject in the reliable sources. Thus, for example, HR 5568 gets 51 scholar ghits, Gliese 570 gets 14, GJ 570 gets 28, but 33 G. Librae gets only 1. Please could you carefully reconsider before you proceed with more name changes? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RJH, thanks for your advice. I shall, but I think this case is ambiguous. Scholarly articles will always tend to use catalogue numbers, but popular publications use star names or simple designations where possible. So when I turn to my Millenium Star Atlas, I don't see HR 5568 or Gliese 570, but I see 33 G Lib. This designation was also given in Star Catalogue 2000.0 (at least in the 1st edition that I have). I would say that popular names trump catalogue numbers for a venue such as this, but I'll leave it as it is, and your edit is a reasonable compromise. Thanks for your note. Metebelis (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, we shouldn't rely on just one source to determine frequency of use of a name. The Gould designation isn't even listed in SIMBAD, and as I mentioned, it is virtually unused elsewhere. I'm not seeing any ambiguity here; the Gould designation is clearly little used and so is inappropriate. If you can refute my assertion by showing more sources, then I'd be glad to reconsider. But, as it stands, I think the previous name should be used instead.

I took the liberty of reverting most of your changes to the List of nearest bright stars article because it is more appropriate to use the star's common name for the links. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've added the Gould designations to the southern constellations in the "List of stars in..." articles. I think, for consistency, we should add in the appropriate column for those mid-latitude constellations also. Several oonstellations can benefit from this (which I think would work better than putting the Gould designation in the name or notes column). I've already done Crater, so you can see what I mean. Orion, Pisces, Sagittarius, Scorpius, etc., I'm looking at you! --Imzogelmo (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm still recovering from all that :) I probably won't be able to get on to it in a big way, so feel free to continue your good work :)

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) 18:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Otori HNIW.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Otori HNIW.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. J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Doctor Who (season 3) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to The Ark, Michael Ferguson, Gerry Davis, The Savages and Jackie Lane

Doctor Who (season 4) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Davies, The Highlanders and Gerry Davis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, bot. It was deliberate, following the format used in other seasons. Metebelis (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who (season's 3 & 4)

Hello there, I noticed that you haven't put in any references or cite sources your articles. To let other Wikipedia users know that both of your articles are genuine, it is very important to include references and sources from located websites so that they are proved to be believable. Please use any methods as necessary. If you need help, you can talk to other users in the talk section and they can help you with it. Thanks. DoctorWhoFan94.197.220.225 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Daleks

Hi DonQuixote (talk). Thanks for your reply to my msg. I'll answer your question here shortly: Metebelis (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine. DonQuixote (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to close the loop on this one, though I've moved on well & truly from the above (figuratively & literally). "What happened", as I worked out, was that somehow meaning was imputed to my words that is simply not there. I responded to a stupid comment, and people preferred the stupidity, apparently. My point was always that if he bothered to put links to support his view, he should actually click on it to check it *does* support his view. In this case he hadn't bothered, & the page was no longer as he remembered it. So I made a simple dig and responded to that particular person and his comment. Why others thought it needed any comment from them at all, I'm still at a loss to understand. Disappointing, but Wikipedia's a big place, and there's plenty of other places I can be. Metebelis (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of Star Articles (Gliese)

Hi Metebelis. To me, GJ is far more frequently used in the modern journal articles than Gl or Gliese. For this reason, moving the articles to Gliese or Gl just looks, well... odd. I'd ask that you take this discussion point to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects and gain a consensus from the astronomical community. They are a pretty sensible bunch. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean--I was the same, but I have to say I got used to it. The need for consistency won me over, and at that time Gliese was already by far the most common usage in Wikipedia. The general consensus seemed already there. Metebelis (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese designations are only appropriate for stars in the Catalogue of Nearby Stars with numbers <1000, which were published in the first edition and first update to the catalogue, which were published by Gliese only. Above this number the GJ designation should be used as these were in the extensions published by Gliese and Jahreiß (or in the case of numbers >9000 by Woolley, although the Wo designation is no longer used). The Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars article explains the history behind this catalogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.76.193 (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gould designations

Please stop adding Gould designations back to the "List of stars in X" articles. They are basically never used by either amateurs nor professionals, and thus do not belong on a summary article. The reason we have Bayer, Flamsteed, Variable, HD, and HIP designations listed are because they are all commonly-used. Gould, on the other hand, is not, so has no reason to be listed. In fact, out of the many astronomy field-guides, books, and papers I have read, WP remains the first and only time I have ever heard of Gould designations. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G Canis Minoris listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect G Canis Minoris. Since you had some involvement with the G Canis Minoris redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]