Jump to content

User talk:ST11/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!

Hello StringTheory11, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 10 Persei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emission-line star (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) 09:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Think we oughtta have a new category of WP:ELEM participants

We should have a special section for those that have been with the project for under a month. Currently they get dumped into "Inactive within the project", which while literally is certainly correct, somehow doesn't seem quite right... Double sharp (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I like the idea of "periodic activity" (ba dum tsss) for those who have demonstrated a pattern of sporadic activity but don't really disappear completely. Thoughts? StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Metal

Hello, I'm StringTheory11. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Metal because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The sentence I changed didn't (and doesn't) make sense to me. I thought there had been a mistake editing it and made a guess about the intended meaning. Can you think of another wording that makes the meaning clearer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.173.6 (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is, the sentence doesn't really have anything to do with food, and instead is a general demonstration saying that metals are useful for a variety of tasks. There's not a specific reason to mention only food when we can mention a much broader variety of tools with "their". StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you think you could rephrase the sentence in another way? Not necessarily in the article but just so I can understand what it is supposed to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.227.94 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I personally think it's fine as is, but if you want to, you can add a referenced sentence that states how metals were used for food production. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm rather indiffirent or don't have the knowledge to vote on most of the later proposals, but I will oppose #4. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Request: peer review

Could you please help me out? I need someone who is an expert in chemistry and physics to help review an article on xenon monochloride?. I do appreciate your kindest help. Thanks. Emekadavid (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not really an expert, but I'll try to remember to give it a look when I get a chance. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Perseus (constellation) to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,324 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 10:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Nova Ophiuchi 1993 name

Hi, V2295 is called Nova Ophiuchi 1993 indeed, but so is called V2293 in some papers. Then, V2293 is also frequently called X-Ray Nova Ophiuchi 1993. Thus, I added "X-Ray Nova Ophiuchi 1993" as an alternate name to V2293, with the "X-Ray" prefix to distinguish it from V2295. Also, I added "This article is about" to both V2293 and V2295, given that in some places the name of V2295 refers in fact to to V2293. Keleste (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea, thank you for doing that! StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Perseus (constellation)

This is a note to let the main editors of Perseus (constellation) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 11, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 11, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Perseus

Perseus is a constellation in the northern sky named after the Greek mythological hero Perseus. It was one of 48 listed by the 2nd-century astronomer Ptolemy and is among the 88 modern constellations defined by the International Astronomical Union. It is located in the northern celestial hemisphere near several other constellations named after legends surrounding Perseus, including Andromeda and Cassiopeia. The galactic plane of the Milky Way passes through Perseus but is mostly obscured by molecular clouds. The constellation's brightest star is the yellow-white supergiant Alpha Persei, which shines at magnitude 1.79. It and many surrounding stars are members of the Alpha Persei Cluster. The best-known star is Algol, an eclipsing binary linked with ominous legends because of its variability, which is noticeable to the naked eye. Other notable features in Perseus include X Persei (a binary system containing a neutron star), GK Persei (a nova that peaked at magnitude 0.2 in 1901), the Double Cluster (comprised of two open clusters near each other in the sky), and the Perseus Cluster (a massive galaxy cluster). Perseus also hosts the radiant of the annual Perseids meteor shower. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

American yellow mustard
I admire your commitment to scientifically oriented articles. Thanks Stringtheory11. Aurora (talk | contribs) 05:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Now where's the mustard to go with this...a burger is nothing without it! StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 Done :-) Double sharp (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Caelum

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Caelum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ТимофейЛееСуда -- ТимофейЛееСуда (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Caelum

The article Caelum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Caelum for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ТимофейЛееСуда -- ТимофейЛееСуда (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


DYK for Caelum

Orlady (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Precious

elements and constellations
Thank you for quality articles in astronomy and chemistry, from elements such as Periodic table to constellations such as faint Caelum and Perseus, often done in collaboration, for gnomish work in the field as an article guardian with caution, and for listing "to do" before achievements on your user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HD 895, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andromeda (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) 09:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

  1. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
  2. Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
  3. United States WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of stars in Norma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emission-line star (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) 08:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

FA review?

Hello StringTheory11,

I wanted to let you know that the article mirror symmetry (string theory) is currently a featured article candidate. Back in October, you gave a very helpful review of the article on the AdS/CFT correspondence, so I thought you might be interested in reviewing this one as well.

Thanks for your time,

Polytope24 (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have quite a few tasks I'm currently working on right now on wiki, so it may be a while before I get around to it, but I'll try to give some feedback. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest. I really appreciate it. Polytope24 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad someone did this....

Was thinking of doing this myself at some point given the rarity I see them referenced or discussed....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure I've actually ever seen one (apart from 82 G. Eridani) used in literature. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Another great thing about removing Gould from the list is that it makes the designations go in roughly order of precedence (Bayer > Flamsteed > variable > Draper > Hipparcos). StringTheory11 (t • c)
Would have appreciated some discussion before you removed the Gould numbers. That you don't use them doesn't mean other people don't. -- Elphion (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks

Well, if that's the case, I'll start doing what you just did using the WP:NASTRO reason. Qzxpqbp (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated. We had a few incidents where a bot and a few users created a huge number of non-notable asteroid stubs, and the cleanup of redirecting all of them is a very long process that requires the help of lots of users. The cleanup's been going on since 2011 in on and off spurts mostly. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I have a question, though. I noticed that the entry in the list (e.g. List of minor planets: 2001–3000) links to the stub, and since I am redirecting the stub to the list, I will be creating a loop. Should I remove the link to the stub to avoid this loop? Qzxpqbp (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It's fine to have the link...no need to make extra work. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

R136a1

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_dwarf_(red_dwarf_stage), a blue dwarf star is the hypothesized remnant of a red dwarf star. The universe is currently too young to have any. I changed the text to match the size of the image in the picture and to match the description on the image's page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_sizes_of_stars.jpg). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F4F0:8:925:A17A:AB0C:5B3D:3DCD (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There's two different meanings of the word "blue dwarf" in astronomy. One is the hypothetical stage you mention. However, hot B- and O-type main sequence stars are also referred to as "blue dwarfs", which is what the image is referring to. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Then the description on the image's page was wrong. I just corrected it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F4F0:8:925:A17A:AB0C:5B3D:3DCD (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be more permanent if you changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F4F0:8:925:A17A:AB0C:5B3D:3DCD (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. On another note, to link to various articles, you don't have to type in the entire URL as I see you've been doing; instead, you can use notation such as [[User talk:StringTheory11]] to link to various pages onwiki. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry....

For this - I think this one is notable - weird spectrum variations and some of the refs might talk of it in some detail. Corvus was a small constellation I thought of buffing for GA/FA as well...so would be definitely including it there. (I wonder how many of the 88 constellations have an R- star that is a Mira variable....)Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it is certainly borderline; there's no doubting that (of course, I'm generally more deletionist than you, so yeah). I don't think I'll pursue it any farther. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking rhe Mira variables are often mentioned in astronomy guidebooks as they vary so much in magnitude so make good objects of interest for beginner astronomers Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the support on the cleanup of dubious/disproven exoplanet articles. Much appreciated! 77.56.99.23 (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. If you need any more help with this type of thing, just let me know. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note to self...

Comment on Jakec's FAC. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's United States ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Washington, D.C. Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Canada Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Minas Gerais Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Nepal Czar (submissions) and Indiana Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Fishing Creek FAC

Hi. Just wondering if you were still planning on reviewing WP:Featured article candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive3? --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 01:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry; I've been really busy lately; I'll get to it later today! StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Enquirer → Inquirer

Just ran into one of your edits and looked to see who had the clever name. Then saw your Sagan quote at the top and wanted to let you know that per Wikiquote the magazine name was Skeptical Inquirer. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 03:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note! StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Reminder

Add RS Caeli to Caelum. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-05-21/Featured content

I'm just the slightest bit worried about my description of Caelum and Grus, so I thought I'd best ask you and Casliber to review my descriptions. The praise of you two stays, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing - is the Urania's Mirror illustration any use for illustrating Caelum in the Signpost, d'ye think? If the Grus historical image was a bit better photographed, I'd use that, but I kind of like to use slightly better images. I suppose there's the spare tire nebula, but that's maybe too tangental. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Your blurb looks fine to me, although admittedly I'm not a regular reader of The Signpost so I don't really know the norm. I think that the Urania's Mirror image is more focused on the other constellations on the card and thus isn't really the best for this purpose, although I think that File:Constellation Caelum.jpg would do quite well for this purpose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. If we didn't have all the other articles, I'd say yes, but as it is... Mind you, I do have a scan of the Uraniometria. Might just grab an image from that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

...Yeah, I cheated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations (again)

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Caelum to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,307 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 18:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm not proposing Caelum for TFA because it's really not that important of a constellation, and I think there's other things that are more worthy of being on the main page, although I don't mind at all if you just choose it. However, once I finish Serpens (and when I finally get started on Cygnus), I'll definitely propose it for TFA. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: MACHO-LMC-5

Hello StringTheory11. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of MACHO-LMC-5, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe that in this case, pointing to the rules to decline the nomination is not within the best interests of WP. The article is 100% wrong, plain and simple; see the discussion on WT:ASTRO for the background. I believe that in this case WP:IAR tells us to just delete the article as soon as possible, because all it is doing is misinforming people. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't entirely understand the discussion at WT:ASTRO, but I can follow enough to see that it should be gone. Would you like me to leave it as a redirect, or delete it altogether? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that deleting it all would make more sense. I'm not a fan of redirecting to pages when an article should exist on the subject (and it should in this case), since seeing a bluelink instead of a redlink discourages article creation, I've found. In addition, if a simple redirect is created, the wrong content can still be seen in the page history. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 Done — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Brighter than the maximum

I'm writing a program that catches more errors that a quick eyeball check.

Is there a good reason for variable stars to be brighter than the maximum? I could mark them all with {{Contradiction-inline}}, but it happens so often that I wonder if Vmax means what I think it means. For instance in List of stars in Vulpecula, BS Vul has a visual magnitude of 10.08 and a Vmax of 10.9 (and it can't mean maximum magnitude number, because Vmin is 11.6.) Art LaPella (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The discrepancies come from when the V-magnitude listed in SIMBAD is not in the range of the V-magnitude listed on AAVSO. In general, what I do in such cases is if the listed magnitude is below or above the range, I adjust it to the closest value in the range. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I was about to edit the listed magnitude accordingly in a case like that one, but then I realized I would be exchanging one inconsistency for another.
When absolute magnitude and distance are specified, consistency with visual magnitude is among the problems I test for, and it would become wrong if I changed the visual magnitude only. Since I'm doing that calculation anyway, it would be easy to change the absolute magnitude or distance to match, but which one? If the absolute magnitude is calculated from the distance and parallax, then I should change the absolute magnitude. But if it's a Cepheid variable for instance, the distance can be calculated from the absolute magnitude not vice versa, so the distance and not the absolute magnitude should be adjusted - or are there any stars on the list far enough to be measured that way?
Or I could just leave them marked as inconsistent ... Art LaPella (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that it would be best to calculate distance from absolute magnitude. The measured period is extremely unlikely to be wrong, while it is definitely possible for the measured parallax to be inaccurate, as seen by the multitude of stars with negative parallaxes. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Done, and will be repeated on similar pages. Art LaPella (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Sigh - the other time-consuming way to clarify discrepancies is read a helluva lot of arXiv material.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Although arXiv is unfamiliar to me, it doesn't keep asking my non-existent university for money, and thus I followed it far enough to conclude that it does explain WR 46. The answer is: Change both absolute magnitude and distance in List of stars in Crux, which are unreferenced – and the WR 46 article's absolute magnitude -7.05 is also wrong. It's referenced, but the reference doesn't say -7.05. It does say DM (which apparently stands for distance modulus) is 13.05, so absolute magnitude is 10.8-13.05=-2.25. That figure is consistent with 4070 parsecs and apparent magnitude 10.8. Nothing else matches, so that must be it. Art LaPella (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I was too bold. Art LaPella (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I just finished prepping the Carina list for the major edit over the next few days...wow WP sure had a lot of stuff at wrong titles. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
One of the details of that edit was changing the V386 Car magnitude from 5.14 to 5.64. I reverted to 5.14 because it must have been some kind of typo (SIMBAD for instance says 5.17). Judging by where you moved it in the sort sequence, you intended 5.15 or 5.16 which would be fine. Art LaPella (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh yeah, meant 5.15, I think. Stupid 4 key being next to the 5 key! StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Re. Your post on Casliber's talk page

I was just checking to see if a discussion had been initiated with Cas Liber about his full protection of Sigmund Freud, and I noticed that you had asked him if you would fare well at RfA. Now keep in mind, I have only performed a cursory review of your contributions — editing stats, activity levels, block log (which of course is empty), and your talk page (excluding the archives) — so I can't really describe this as a thorough assessment. Nevertheless, based on what I've seen, I think you would stand an excellent chance of being granted the sysop toolset. You've been here for about four years now, have over 10,000 edits to your name, a large chunk of mainspace contributions, you seem to know your way around the place, and you come across as a very approachable editor. I'd say go for it! You'll definitely have my support. Kurtis (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
...and we're off! StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Merge

Thanks! If you wouldn't mind also doing Gliese 667 Ch as well, would be much appreciated. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I also question the utility of even having a Gliese 667 C article in the first place. The Gliese 667 article is completely adequate for presenting all of the information that is currently there. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I tend to agree. It's a bit weird to see objects like Gliese 667 C getting their own articles when arguably more-important objects like Sirius B or UV Ceti are consigned to sections. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
But OMG it has exoplanets, it must be the most important thing ever!!!!!11!!11ONE!1!!! Well yeah, I agree, and will probably start a merge discussion tomorrow when I have more time. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and no planet claim is too tenuous to get its own mention because OMG PLANETS... I've found that going through the list of {{OrbitboxPlanet hypothetical}} transclusions is a wonderful way to find extremely dubious articles. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I've started a merge discussion for Gliese 667 C. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to Florida 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Your request for adminship

Hello StringTheory11, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations for this result.

As you know, you had a significant amount of non-trivial opposition. While your request reached consensus, my advice to you in response to the concerns is that you take things slowly at first and never hesitate to ask for help, be it from people you highly respect and trust or even from people who opposed your candidacy. As per usual, the administrators' reading list is worth a read and the new admin school is most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere.

Now that all that is out of the way, good luck with your adminship! Acalamari 02:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Your new uniform - wear it with pride!

Appreciate the answers to my numerous questions. I apologize for not asking them earlier. Gryllida (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • See? What did I tell you? ;-)
Congratulations on your successful request for adminship! Kurtis (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

VA/E question

Hi! Do we need to list celestial equator, declination and right ascension separately, or could we replace them all with equatorial coordinate system, which isn't currently listed? Cobblet (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think equatorial coordinate system by itself would be fine; it leaves room for more articles. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I opened the proposal. Cobblet (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Slowly pulsating B star

Gatoclass (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

AFD Mentoring

Curious if you had given any thought to starting. I believe Secret offered to help with that, which is an excellent choice as he has a tremendous amount of experience at AFD, and in my opinion, a very balanced perspective. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be willing to start next week, if that's fine with @Secret:. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I would be happy to ride shotgun with Secret in the driver's seat, although my hours are hit and miss. As I've said before, I've been here before, so pretty familiar. Just as with myself and CSD, it is all about getting a comfortable groove around where community consensus lies, nothing major. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
My hours has also been hit or miss lately because of promotions at work, though Monday I should close an entire day worth of AFDs with rationales to start you off, and you could follow along. I recommend starting with the obvious deletes/keep closures (five plus comments of keep/delete without an opposite rebuttal). Let me know when you want to start. Thanks Secret account 00:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with starting Monday or Tuesday of next week, if that's fine with you. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm guessing Secret has gotten busy, so I will step up for now. As a point of reference, my own CSD mentoring was at User talk:Dennis Brown/CSD. It has never been done, so I had to design it myself. It is more about setting an example for the community that you got the message, and putting forth a good faith effort. I suggest creating a similar page to allow future examination and just to work as a dedicated work sheet. I would suggest taking one AFD per day, at day 6 or 7, create a permalink to its current state in the header, and faux close it by simply adding the close on your worksheet and the link to it in the header. Obviously, you should find one that has split voting, half keep and half delete. Under each, other admin can comment as to the applicability of the close. I suggest one a day average for at least 60 days, although you can always do a few in one day, skip a few days. It should be self directed as you are admin, and can be expected to do this on your own via the discussion. Just ping me for feedback. I may ping others. If it feels awkward, remember that I do understand, and I'm the only other admin to do this. Of course, you aren't bound by policy to do any of this, just by honor. When I did it, I took it more as a demonstration of character than of my CSD skills. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I've started a list at User:StringTheory11/AfD. If I counted correctly, I did 44 today. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, not exactly what I was looking for but it's a start. Not looking for the relists or the easy stuff that non-admin take care of, instead looking for the hard ones where you would have to close against the count, and you have to provide a solid rationale because the close isn't obvious just looking at the votes. More difficult ones. These aren't every day type closes, which is why it takes a while to find enough of them. For example, my last AFD close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari Teman was tricky. Somehow, I managed to close that without my talk page being vandalized and without someone appealing it. That is our goal as admin, closing so it sticks and doesn't cause yet more process in appeals. Not all of what you need to post is stuff like this but much of it needs to be, and all of it should be non-SNOW or ultra obvious stuff. Another example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roller sport in India that I nom'ed. I disagree with that close, but of course, I won't make a big deal of it as the close was reasonable enough, but I don't think it reflected consensus, which would be to merge and redirect. If you find a closed one that you disagree with, list it with your rationale. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Power Rangers Super Megaforce episodes

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello, stringtheory. The page in question has been warred over several times. We attempted to add the title of next season but user:Ryulong reverted them. I have cited three sources on the talk page, but I'm sure that RL will be tempted to revert that as well. Looking at the page's edit history. It seems that RL reverts virtually every edit he doesn't agree with (Like here and here) -- especially from IPs like us. Therefore We requested a pending changes protection so the the IP edits that are vandalism can be rejected and the ones in good faith can be accepted without an edit war breaking out. 174.236.74.25 (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's see what happens after talk page discussion before any action is taken. Hopefully a resolution can be amicably reached there. Basically, you made a bold edit, it was reverted, so now discussion is the next step for now. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I hope a resolution can be reached peacefully. RL has a long history of accusing IPs of trolling and harassing him when he deal with edits to pages he thinks are his. I'm sure he'll respond here as well, but feel free to discuss on the talk page if it's too much on your own talk page. 174.236.74.25 (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The next season's title is not relevant to the article at this time. And the new episode that had been added is not properly sourced. There is no entry for it on the citation that was provided. I explained this in edit summaries on the article and on the talk page of one of the IPs used by this individual in this dispute. I don't see why he's referring to himself as a plural "we" here either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
You know what? This is all just the guy who operated User:Dragonron/User:Don't Feed the Zords (I have a lot of people who like edit warring with me for the sake of edit warring with me, but the latter is more likely in this case seeing as he added new material to a Power Rangers page) come back to cause more disruption and generally revert me to try to get me in trouble. This range been blocked in the past. There's probably a narrower one but I haven't re-discovered it yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for all that you're experiencing on your talk page with this bullshit. This banned user has dynamic IP assignment and also an unblocked sockpuppet that went unnoticed for a year.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Blue men of the Minch

Hi StringTheory--please see the talk page, and consider unprotecting the article. I have faith that disruption will halt. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

After reading through the talk page, I feel comfortable with this. Will do. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

14825 Fieber-Beyer

Please do not redirect the 14825 Fieber-Beyer asteroid page to the list of minor planets. The asteroid was officially given the Fieber-Beyer designation and rightfully should have its own page. If you would like them to be linked that would be justifiable if you were to label 14825 as 14825 Fieber-Beyer and have it direct back to the the notability page. The page is still under construction and the orbital elements will be added to the box shortly. thanks SKFB (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB

Please read WP:NASTRO, which quite explicitely states that the naming of an asteroid is not a reason for notability. The asteroid is clearly not visible to the naked eye, is not in any notable catalogue, has not been the subject of any significant studies, and was not discovered before 1850. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Asteroid 14825 is in many catalogs. The external links have been posted. SKFB (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB
It's in a single catalogue, that being the catalogue of all minor planets. Certainly not enough for notability. Read the guideline; there is clearly nothing notable about the asteroid. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of stars in Carina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emission-line star. 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) 09:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

small admin request

Would you mind restoring the old revisions of User:Double sharp/Mendelevium? (I just started work on Md again and noticed that I had requested deletion of the old revisions when I abandoned it earlier: I want to look through them and see if I left anything there for myself.) Double sharp (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Just passing by....14:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Casliber! Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD Query

I've been intermittently following your colloquy with Dennis on interesting AfDs (and learning quite a bit in the process). If you have time and inclination, I'd appreciate you taking at look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Ayo. I'm not asking you to participate; I'm just curious as to your thoughts on how WP:SYSTEMIC and WP:ACADEMIC interact. Thanks, Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look later today. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing quite a clear consensus to keep here. Honestly, Wikicology's arguments strike me as somebody with an agenda to delete is, such as the argument that even though it passes one criterion of the notability guideline it should still be deleted, and throwing around COI allegations. If this were an American or British university, I seriously doubt that there would even be debate about whether or not the guy is notable. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I was probably overthinking this one. Thanks for taking a look, I really appreciate it! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem! StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Why?

Well I was reverting vandalism, and saw what looked like you were saying you could see something in 5000 AD, pretty far in the future, and the grammar looks bad too. Sorry if I was wrong, but what does this even mean? BollyJeff | talk 02:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't make the edit, an IP did. It means that between 5000 BCE and 5000 CE (I prefer BCE/CE but the IP used BC/AD, so I'm not going to change it), this is the brightest star which this can happen to, although outside of this year range, the Earth's precession will take it far enough away that it can no longer be occulted, or Nunki itself will move, causing the same effect. Please don't revert edits without using an edit summary unless it is vandalism. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
(page lurker) Bollyjeff hasn't professed any knowledge of astronomy, so I believe him when he says he was reverting vandalism. But astronomers can predict orbits for thousands of years, using Newton's laws of motion, Newton's law of universal gravitation etc. So it isn't vandalism. Bollyjeff is correct about bad grammar (the prepositional phrase should be moved to the end of the sentence). Art LaPella (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that reverting new editors without providing a reason leads to the possible loss of a new productive contributor. So one should always be 99.9% sure that something is vandalism when not using a summary in the reversion. My advice to BollyJeff would be to be a little more careful when reverting edits that are not clear vandalism. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I got carried away using Huggle in a speedy manner; will be more careful in the future. I fixed the grammar in that sentence, but there is still a citation needed tag. BollyJeff | talk 12:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Great; this is about as ideal of a resolution as it gets. Keep up the work with Huggle! StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

48 Cam

In this edit, 48 Cam has a Flamsteed number of 46, but neither star was easy to find, so I don't know whether it should be 46 or 48. Art LaPella (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm working off of this paper, so it should be 48 Cam. I'll fix it now. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Please review this article

Hello! I have done a substantial rewrite of the Geiger-Marsden experiment article and would like to have it assessed. I submitted it for peer review but nobody took notice. Nobody ever takes notice. I am resorting to directly contacting Wikipedians with a background in physics. If you have the time, would you care to review this article, and tell me if it is worthy of being featured on the Main Page? Kurzon (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really have a background, so to speak, in physics, although it is one of my interests. However, to get articles featured on the main page, the article first has to become a featured article at WP:FAC, and then be nominated for today's featured article at WP:TFAR. I'll try to look over the article later today sometime, though. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Serpens

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Serpens you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parcly Taxel -- Parcly Taxel (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for 68 Cygni

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Serpens review

I've pointed out all errors in the article that need to be fixed. Do that and I'll list it on GA pronto. Parcly Taxel 10:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Serpens

The article Serpens you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Serpens for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parcly Taxel -- Parcly Taxel (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

  1. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
  2. Scotland Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
  3. Nepal Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
  4. Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
  5. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
  6. Florida 12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
  7. Colorado Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
  8. Canada Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Herm Matty.007 (submissions), Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions), United States WikiRedactor (submissions), Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), Portugal Prism (submissions) and Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

something that I never realized I needed until recently

See my edit summary. XD Although the idea first came to me about a year ago.

(How do 56Ni and its daughters get into this? Must be quite the bloody personification for pair-instability supernovae, no?)

P.S. I totally did not (read: yes, yes I did) get the idea from Planetary Moe. XD Elementary Moe, anyone? Gives PTM a whole new meaning: Periodic Table of Moe Double sharp (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

(P.P.S. From some comments on their art I gather I'm not the first to come up with this idea, although maybe I did realize how good a crossover the story of stellar nucleosynthesis would make! XD) Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
inb4 somebody with way too much free time actually writes that now! Who would be on the periodic table of Moe, Moe Howard? StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Was more thinking about element gijinka. Imagine a radium with shiny glowing silvery white hair that quickly turns black when nitrogen appears XD Double sharp (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Scotland Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsalting

I really am against wanting to ask for my user page to be unsalted. I don't really understand people being against such a thing. Sure it could probably make people feel uncomfortable seeing someone have a redlinked user page carrying a mop, but I also feel like there's a bit a bias towards red links in general. But that's just me. So if it must please others I would to have it be unsalted. As well as it being redirected to my talk page. I wouldn't know what to write on the user page proper anyway so might as well it being directed to the page I believe that matters. GamerPro64 16:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: I agree that there shouldn't be any stigma around redlinks; in fact, in the latest FA I wrote and in the one I am writing at the moment, I'm purposefully leaving redlinks all over the place, since they encourage article writing. I would hope that the closing bureaucrat would discount such opposes in your RfA. I'm a little confused as to whether or not you want me to unSALT it right now by this request, so if you could clarify, it would be greatly appreciated. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what I want to do with it. GamerPro64 19:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
User pages are not required (apparently two out of several hundred admins don't sport one), but they are extremely helpful when it comes to the prospective voters making up their minds about supporting or opposing. In the meanwhile, I like my admin candidates just a trifling little bit more decisive, GamerPro. Cheers Kraxler (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I did some more thinking. I would like to have my user page to be unsalted. I think I know what to do with my user page. GamerPro64 16:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Whelp. Its made now… Don't like it. But thanks for unsalting it. GamerPro64 19:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Galaxies

Can we do a rename for objects with Z > 5? The distinction is significant, and that is what the category is for, to distinguish between the ordinary run of the mill galaxies and the ones that are truly distant. Benkenobi18 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem with that is that Z = 5 is still an arbitrary distinction; there's nothing inherently special about Z = 5. One thing we could do is expand the system categories such as Category:Objects within 1 MLy of Earth to cover everything back until the Big Bang. However, that would involve categorizing every single astronomical object, which would get quite tedious. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited FO Aquarii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IPAC. 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) 09:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Westerlund 1-26

Take a look at the edit you re-instated. What I left there may have been imperfect (certainly "average size of 2000" is gross), but average size of 1530 is even worse. Stating a particular rank in the list of largest stars is certainly going to be a problem, as that list changes week by week. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup award

Awarded to StringTheory11 for participating in the 2014 WikiCup. J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 21:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results

The 2014 WikiCup champion is Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Scotland Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Eric Wordekemper for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eric Wordekemper is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Wordekemper (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Alex (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Request to review an article

Hi, I have created and developed a page on Clebsch-Gordan coefficient for SU(3). This is my first article. It will be really helpful if you take a look at the article and propose any improvements if necessary. Thank you. Arkadipta Sarkar (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Arkadipta Sarkar

I would help if I had time, but unfortunately these next two weeks are going to be incredibly busy for me, and I don't anticipate having any time at all for Wikipedia until late this month. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Theta Coronae Borealis

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Gemini

Look what showed up on my watchlist! I had to remind myself how things work over here, and write myself some more documentation.

After fixing the rest of the list, it says TU Geminorum has visual magnitude 9.4, way outside the variable range of 6.88 to 8.0, which I confirmed at AAVSO. One solution would be to use the GCVS variable range of 9.4 to 12.5. Art LaPella (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and when I correct coordinates, it doesn't mean I checked them all. My software just verifies that the coordinates are in the specified constellation. Art LaPella (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I finally found the time (and motivation) to finish it. I might be able to have the next one (Libra) done by Sunday, but if not, I probably won't be able to get to it until mid-December, since each one of them takes a substantial amount of time. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Epsilon Coronae Borealis has been nominated for Did You Know

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

  • We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
  • In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
  • The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm Drmies. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Gliese 693 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. "assess" is really not a polite thing to say. Also, it's spelled "asses", with one final s. :) Drmies (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Haha oops! You noticed my sneaky deviation from the word in order to do it without repercussions. My plot has failed! StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
...And while distracted by this, I actually just did typo here. (I actually didn't mean to do that, but this timing is perfect). StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
We're on to you, abusive admin. See you at ANI. And now that I see you're on call, I'm signing out, for lunch and nap. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
:(. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • giggles uncontrollably*
If I ever make this typo, I'll post a link. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Epsilon Coronae Borealis

Mike V • Talk 07:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serpens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury. 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) 09:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox galaxy color

Don't you think that green is too unrelated to Astronomy? Not to mention that green is too bright.

Galaxy articles receive notably more attention than nebula ones, so what if we switch? Galaxies will be purple and nebulae will be green. It'd be better because nebulae are more colorful and the color green might fit just fine. Tetra quark (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, but I'd bring the issue to WT:AST, since it would affect a lot of articles, and since there's no urgency here, more eyes on the subject can't hurt. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a greeting


SkyFlubbler (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. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! I don't really celebrate Christmas, but it's the thought that counts. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology

Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed carefully and you're among the few chosen to have a first access to a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers

Tetra quark (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ST11/Archive_5&oldid=1230203041"