User talk:Astrocog/Archive 1

Talk Page
Welcome to my talk page.Astrocog (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome
You are very welcome - glad to know my comments are useful, and thanks for the thanks. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!


This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape ( directions ) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Amateur X-ray astronomy
If you want to get this page or others like it deleted then I suggest using the proposed deletion or articles for deletion processes. Original research and being created by an indef-blocked editor are not reasons to speedily delete a page. Nonsense is, but for that to apply the page has to have no meaningful content at all. Hut 8.5 20:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A number of articles by this editor are speedy-delete targets because of copyvio. PROD rather than AfD might also be a better idea, because you risk flooding AfD. Just my 2c. -- 202.124.75.77 (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed.AstroCog (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I notice you put tags on Astronomical X-ray sources. Could you have another look, as I think that article needs to be deleted or started from scratch? It is clearly part of the walled garden created on X-rays and astronomy, and even more clearly it is complete gibberish. It should be talking about black holes and other such things, but it looks to have been automatically generated following some algorithm. I would suggest PROD. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but as you can probably now see, that page is gone. Huzzah!AstroCog (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fraser Cain
As a courtesy note, I quoted your comment about Fraser Cain at Articles for deletion/Fraser Cain. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Exoplanet Nominations
Hi, Astrocog. Thank you for taking on the WASP-24 review. I appreciate your input, especially regarding the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia. The most honest way is the best way to build the encyclopedia, especially with regards to the articles on which I have been working. :)

I will withdraw my remaining nominations from GAN and am likely to submit one to PR for additional input. Thanks, --Starstriker7(Talk) 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your offer, and I'm glad you'll be here to help me. I'll let you know if I'd like some assistance! :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 22:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

History of The Simpsons
Thanks for passing the article. I needed some feedback to improve the article and yours were quite helpful. --Maitch (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit Request
Regarding this request, it seems to me like the process would be more effective to do things the other way around — have the peer review first (to handle structural changes and large-scale additions), and then have a copyedit to iron out grammar, syntax, and punctuation as needed. Just a thought! Good luck with it.. Scartol •  Tok  20:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, could be done that way. I think the main sections and structure are pretty good and that came from the last peer review earlier this year. I just wanted to get some fresh eyes on things to see little mistakes that I have missed.AstroCog (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Suraj T  08:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

GoldenEye 007
Thank you for reviewing the article and for your great copy-edits. You were very helpful. --Niwi3 (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the fact that you don't edit many video game pages is a good thing, because the article received a broader perspective (e.g. you perceive some informal language among video game articles). Anyway, I would really like to review The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., but I'm not very familiar with the Manual of Style/Television and I may overlook something that's important. All I can say to you is the basic rule of Wikipedia: Patience, dear boy, patience, and you'll be fine :) --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It helps to get an outsider's perspective sometimes. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Valeri Polyakov
Thank you for your GA review of the Valeri Polyakov article! In accordance with your suggestions there, I have expanded the article a bit and added an image. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Tyrol5   [Talk]  18:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Mark Siegler
I'm thinking it is fairly obvious the guy would meet either WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. Are you unconvinced? If not, maybe you could say something at the AfD that indicates you've changed your mind. Jesanj (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, specifically #5 of PROF. His bio includes that as the first thing under his name. Definitely notable. Jesanj (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Contested speedy
I contested your speedy deletion nomination at Kelmscott Senior High School because schools are specifically excluded from WP:CSD. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

New Pages
Hi Astrocog. Tagging pages for maintenance or deletion is crucial to  controlling the quality  of the encyclopedia. I've noticed that you  occasionally help  out  with  this, so in  case you  don't  know the page already, I  just  thought  I  would point  you  to  WP:NPP. Keep up  the good work! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: Article creations
You said on Sp33dy's talk page that even you think they don't have general notability, so I'm puzzled why you are creating more article for them.
 * That's my own personal opinion... which cannot be any substitute for policy. Actually, to expand on what I think, I believe that the less significant minor planets still qualify for an article.  As noted on Sp33dyphil's talk page, I quoted the policy.  It is vague but I believe it is sufficient to justify my work.

I think the best alternative would be to merge the information into appropriate lists.
 * Those already exist, grouping the minor planets a thousand at a time. Unfortunately, some of them are out of date and contributors have not made any new ones recently.  The later thousands pages look like construction sites where higher-number minor planets are just put there.  I already have a user subpage for that.

Wikipedia cannot possibly be a catalog of every astronomical object discovered.
 * Cannot, or should not? On what basis are you making that judgment?  See Wikipedia is not paper.

''I have sent other such objects to AfD before, and they were deleted. I will do the same with these, unless evidence of significant coverage is provided for them''
 * The Minor Planet Center and Small Body Browser appear to treat all objects alike. They're all listed next to each other, after all.

I've said elsewhere that some small minor planets have been named despite being completely run-of-the-mill. Deleting some while keeping others which are essentially the same is irrational. So far nobody has provided a credible argument against their inclusion outside of vague notability complaints. I have been working on Wikipedia's minor planet coverage for a couple of years now and have not had one deleted. Why start now? I'm just trying to complete this project.

Notability is moot in space. We have articles for far-off main-sequence stars around which are zero habitable planets. Why keep them and delete articles about minor planets in our own star system? --Merovingian (T, C, L) 05:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Cerulean Crayons
Hi there Astrocog,

Sorry to bother you but I'm wondering if you could go into a bit more detail regarding your decision to flag the page Cerulean Crayons for speedy deletion?

I realize independent artists have trouble claiming notability but I figure since they've circulated a bit by now and have gotten plays on Swedish national radio etc. the article should be permitted to exist.

Again, sorry to bother you. Hope you don't mind!

Feedbackeater (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Feedbackeater


 * No bother at all. I have nothing against independent bands, but being played on the radio is different from receiving significant coverage in reliable third party sources, which is the requirement for notability on wikipedia. When the band gets significant media coverage, then somebody will make a page for them. Because the article was created without establishing notability under this condition, I proposed the CSD. AstroCog (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

CSD A7 on Jamie Hood
Hi, I wanted to let you know that I have challenged your WP:CSD A7 on Jamie Hood. In my opinion the article clearly makes claims of importance sufficient to survive criteria A7. Further I think the article in its current form passes the basic notability guidelines. If it is to be deleted, I think a WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS argument would need to be made, and those clearly deserve a proper deletion discussion. Monty 845  03:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been rewritten since I patrolled it. When I looked at it, it read like someone's barely literate summary of a news article.AstroCog (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * At the time you patrolled it, the article was not  a CSD candidate.  It  would be a candidate for discussion  at  WP:AfD.AS Monty845 describes, or for uncontroversial  deletion at  (WP:PROD. Please be sure to review WP:NPP. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Always learning. I recently updated the page with a WP:PROD. AstroCog (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

About speedy deletion of Ungetc
We are working on a project under the wp:INDIAEDU. The content of the page is differnt from the one before and does not violate any copyright.It has been understood and then rephrased by me.So please suggest any improvements on its talk page. cheerz..!!Kmsarda (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Valeri Polyakov/GA1
Thanks again for your GA review of Valeri Polyakov. I'm just dropping by to remind you to look over my changes to the article per your suggestions and let me know what you think whenever you get the chance. Regards, Tyrol5   [Talk]  19:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't watching the page itself and nobody responded to the GA review. Thanks for the update. I passed the article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I usually write something on the GA review. It must have slipped my mind this time around; my apologies. Thanks for your review and promotion of the article! Regards, Tyrol5   [Talk]  20:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Actually, it looks like you did respond on my talk page and I just forgot to look again...until today ;-) If you found the review helpful, consider reviewing some other GANs in need. For example, my own humble GAN here. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Brisco
I left some suggestions before a GAC. I don't know if I have time to do a full review of the article that is required for a GAC but I scanned it quickly and provided some suggestions on the talk page.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"Patof" article
The article is about the Character. A new section was added to explain the career of Patof. For the notability, I added a Charts section with references and a reference to the biography of Jacques Desrosiers. I also added several new categories. I hope the article is more clear this way! Thanks. --Bespin74 (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Disappearance of Edward and Austin Bryant
Per the proposed deletion policy, the subject article cannot be deleted via proposed deletion because it has previously been discussed at AfD. If you still wish to pursue deletion, you need to open another AfD. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 Hello Astrocog, GoldRock23 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Proposed deletion of Infosuicide


The article Infosuicide has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no sign so far of "reliable sources" using this neologism; see also NOTNEO

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 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 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. CWC 12:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just tagged it while patrolling new pages. I'd say it's deletion worthy. AstroCog (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

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

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Quantum non-equilibrium
Hi Atrocog, Could you give this article another look. After some re-working, I would tend to say that at least the cleanup and notability tags could be removed. Concerning understandability, the topic may be intrinsically hard to understand, however not more so than others in quantum physics. Please, another look from your side? --Chris Howard (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Removed notability and cleanup tags. I (mostly) get what's going on there, but that's only because I've got graduate degree in astrophysics. For non-scientists, this looks like traxoline. Good luck! AstroCog (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gee, would´t want to take that test on taxoline... ;-) I have added a formula box now, so at least the reader gets a snapshot of the main idea. And thanks for softening up those templates somewhat so far. Cheers, --Chris Howard (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Joint custody GA
The students still have till November 14 for the nomination, and they are working on it; currently they are expanding it for a DYK. You are more then welcome to drop by the article's talk now, introduce yourself and offer any suggestions! PS. Thanks for helping out! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 03:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
For taking on the St. Louis history article. poroubalous (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Joint Custody
Thank you for all the helpful criticism on the article. Believe it or not, the see also section is 1/2 what it used to be, but over the next few days I will implement your suggestions, and I'll be sure to post on your wall when I do this so you can look the changes over and make sure that I did not do something wrong (I am still not tremendously experienced w/ wiki, but I am getting better each day :) ) Thanks again! --Kgw2 (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have made edits to the references as mentioned by multiple reviewers. The adv./disadv. (now benefits/criticisms) has been reworded to be more objective in tone (as this was a mentioned issue) and the sections have been combined to make the subsections fewer in number (great idea there btw it looks much nicer that way!). I was a bit at a loss in terms of what to do for an image, as it is not like, for instance, a person or a think, but rather a concept. I don't know what really would be appropriate in terms of a picture, so I didn't know if you had any further ideas on that or in general what type of picture I should be looking for. I am speaking with the other authors and my professor tomorrow about merging, and we will have a unanimous response to it as of tomorrow (I am still rather torn on the topic as it is a subsection, in a way, but it really has some distinguishing features that set it apart as well, which makes it a difficult thing to do - did you have any opinion one way or the other on that topic?). I will probably not have time until this weekend with my work load to worry about the non-US info, but I have at least found some reliable citations to begin reading this week so that this weekend I can really make some decent headway on that issue. Anyhow, most of the more minor issues seem to have been taken care of, the real last issue (at least in my opinion) is going to be the non-US view of the topic, which should be close to done by the end of the weekend.  Thank you for all of your time on helping us with this article, I really appreciate it. --Kgw2 (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here !--Pharos (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just happened to notice that NYPL_LPA has clipping files on John De Lancie (not very much) and Legend (a good couple of things) - might be a way to get started. -- kosboot (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oooh! I'll see about reserving those. AstroCog (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The things I mentioned are clipping files, most of which are not in the online catalog. There is a card file index on the 2nd floor of the library in the Drama area.  But for most clippings in the Theatre Division, the call number is the same:  T-Clippings  (followed by the name of the person in reverse order, e.g. De Lancie, John; in the case of show names, you write the name of the show, with a qualifier as to the medium, e.g.:  Legend (Television) ).  The card file might reveal other stuff, or could be used as a place to browse people/titles that interest you. -- kosboot (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. AstroCog (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

About Your Silly Comment on Nemesis (hypothetical star)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nemesis_(hypothetical_star)#Tone_needs_work

74.205.145.75 (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Astrocog, you are not the only one getting comments left on your talk page. -- Kheider (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

prods
no citations have been added since 2007 is not a reason for deletion; the criterion you have in mind is unsourceable, which is not the same as unsourced.

However, for some of the people you've used this tag on, there might be a more valid reason, such as lack of notability. I've therefore not removed the tags (yet); it would probably be best to check wuickly if there are any sources, and then give a better reason. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In cases where I've said no sources since 2007, I've tried to add something else which is actually substantive, such as notability. It would be helpful to know specifically which articles could have a better prod. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Divorce
Perhaps you could readjust the location of your merge discussion. I see that Grounds for divorce has recently been moved to Grounds for divorce (United States law). If the move was reverted, and Grounds for divorce in other countries was merged into it as a new section, it would probably resolve the naming confusion. -- WikHead (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do note that this article is subject to an educational assignment, and let's try to keep it in mind that we don't want to confuse the new editors (students) too much. See my comment at User_talk:Nas132. I think we can have two articles, one global, and one US specific. But let's make sure we don't bite the students out of this project with too much splitting, moving and deleting :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 02:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No biting intended. The name "Grounds for divorce in other countries" suggests that the encyclopedia is actually based in some specific country, and is therefore a bit confusing. If separate articles are needed, I'd suggest overwriting the Grounds for divorce redirect with the contents of the newly created article. Copy and paste is probably not a good idea at this point though. -- WikHead (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Take it to that article's talk page, fellas ;-) AstroCog (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to imply that biting was ongoing, but that students may be wondering what's going on. And per Astro, the best way to avoid it is to explain all of our actions on the article's talk page (and on the talk pages of the students). Hoping to see you all there :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 03:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

File permission problem with File:Epsilon eridani dustring.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Epsilon eridani dustring.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 00:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (Blair Waldorf)
Thanks very much for taking the time to look over the article. The text you removed from the lead ("controversy and other matters") was referring to the "Controversy" and "Reaction to triangle" sections, which both cite notable media coverage. Just wanted to clarify that before I made a decision on returning it.

I appreciate your advice and improvements. I'm not familiar with all the tools you cited, but I'll see what I can do. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made some edits to the article. -- James26 (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Was there any other issue, or did you just need more time? -- James26 (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I asked questions in the GA review, regarding the links and the copy edit suggestion. I was basically asking for more specific information. I did a recent review in which several issues were identified. As you've read the entire Blair Waldorf article, do you feel that its issues are prevalent enough to warrant a copy edit? Just wondering, as I know they're two different articles. -- James26 (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like you identified many spelling/formatting issues in your GA review of that article, but I'm assuming you fixed them as you found them - so that article may not need a copy edit. As for Blair Waldorf, I'll take another look at it today. AstroCog (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate all that you did as part of your review. If my questions came across as antsy, I apologize. Thanks again. -- James26 (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No apologies necessary. It was my pleasure to help out. AstroCog (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

John Rowan
Thanks for your review. Haven't run anything through WP:GAC for a while since it takes so long to get a review these days. Getting an article promoted without it being put on hold for some fixes is a rare treat, especially for an article of this length. As you suggest, I probably will make an FA run with this article one day, although I'm trying to get enough Kentucky governors from good to featured to move the topic from a good topic to a featured topic right now, and we can only have one FAC at a time. I, too, found the bit about My Old Kentucky Home interesting, since I lived in the state for 25+ years without knowing there was any controversy about it! 19:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Steampunk resentment
Astro, I suppose future newcomers will find your suggestions and clarifications useful. I resent the fact that you used them in a certain sense to attempt to debase or humiliate me. False courtesy rings like a cracked bell. Well, you and Republican Joe have your playground all to yourselves now.75.21.113.40 (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No false courtesy at all. Since your user contributions began in Feb 2011, I assumed you were relatively new. I'm sorry if that offended you. Please assume good faith. AstroCog (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A. My work here did not begin in February. I haven't had this IP for more than about 13 days: my IP fluctuates because I have a very secure provider. I am not stupid enough to remain registered with a username here.

B. Apparently you do not understand what "courtesy" means. Lessons from the Jacobite?

C. You are a most distasteful lecturer about assuming good faith. Was that done for me when I first posted? Well?

Do you think me unreasonable? Well let me be very frank with you. This kind of American-style B.S. hurts me deeply. My parents were Victorians, and I have been writing probably since before you were born. Now I see something that pleases me, something new to me, yet so familiar. I make the error of coming here to look into it more, and what do I see but rabid abuses by Republican Jacobite and Orangemike, who only seems rational half the time.

To hell with this.75.21.113.40 (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Overwhelming gain paradox
When you propose a merge, would it be helpful in securing the outcome you seek by following the guidance at Help:Merging namely, "After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page."? Not to do so is depending on someone else to complete a job you've failed to finish. Exok (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Tackle this question at the RfC?
Hi RJH - I'm fielding questions and comments at the RfC for the AO notability guideline. A user is objecting to the language about including objects that were directly observed in the criteria. Since that was one of your additions, I'm hoping you could take stab at answering? The specific comment is here. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Astrocog. Sorry for the delay in responding; I've been pretty sick the past few days and I'm only just starting to get better. I'll take a look. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review of John Tyler
Hi, thanks for the review. At this point I've improved on everything, except the lists of children. Honestly I'm not sure if it's worth converting them into prose, most of them are non-notable and I'm not sure there's much to write about. Designate (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review of The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.
Hi there, I've finished my review of The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. I think it's pretty close to GA, I just have a few minor notes. Feel free to reply if you disagree with any of it. Otherwise take as much time as you need. Thanks, Designate (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I fixed up the issues you found. Let me know if there's anything left. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: The Adventures of...
Sure, when I've got a chance I'll take a look. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Joint custody
I had wanted to check, for the citation issue, would learning how to bundle them help, or is it more of an issue of spacing them through the sentence, etc.? I want to make sure I am making to correct steps to address this issue this week. Thank you! --Kgw2 (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I should have Wed. free so I will finish fixing the article Wed. if that is alright (lots of papers with my credit load are due monday and tuesday unfortunately). --Kgw2 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm a college prof so I know how it is for students. I'm leaving the hold in place and won't be closing it until the changes are made, so you've got no rush.AstroCog (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Steampunk lead photo
Astro, I wondered whether we might be able to use two photos: one representative of steampunks and another representing the technological aspect. I see no reason why we need to have a photo with both subjects in it. I can't tell you how much that present photo irks me. Those people look wrong. However, I am not conversant enough to try to dig for something. Usually I get infringement details quite wrong, and I do not believe in stealing. Djathink imacowboy  00:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Request Introduction
Hi, I'm new, I understand how to edit encyclopaedias, but Wiki is rather different to what I'm used to doing. Can you explain the differences between normal encyclopaedias and how Wiki operates and I should do just fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyonatu (talk • contribs) 02:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a menu of helpful links in the welcome posted on your talk page. Try those out. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your hard work and dedication to establishing celetial object notablity standards. Chrisrus (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, so now what's the next step? Are you planning to implement these?  There are thousands of asteroid articles still out there, no? Chrisrus (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no immediate plans to start going through asteroid stubs to make redirect to lists. However, anybody is welcome to go ahead and do that. If you do it, be sure to make a good-faith effort on each one to confirm it doesn't meet any of the WP:NASTRO criteria. AstroCog (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So, as far as you know, there is no plan to actually implement the standards. You should know that I'm not qualified to implement them, so I won't be doing it.  I would think that after all you and you all have done to formulate them, you'd wouldn't want your efforts to come to nothing. Chrisrus (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hamilton Fish
Thanks for initial review Astrocog. I have made changes to the Hamilton Fish article as suggested. Do you have any time estimate when your review can be finished? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been pretty busy IRL. Just got the review up. The article is very close to passing GA review. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I reverted the external links removal you did - thought it was vandalism.

I am a science teacher in Berkshire, UK and use these links as a reference for students, along with many other teachers from forums in the UK, US and around the world for homework assignments and suggested reading etc. I appreciate your point about the K-12 reference as that is what they are, but I (We) have this Wiki page published as a link on the internet and also in papers as a reference for students.

If you feel so strongly that they don't belong here, can you move them to a more appropriate page and let me know where - I did notice there is a K-12 page for science? (I suggest that it is you that move them as oppose to me as I don't have a wiki ID and would probably get interpreted as a spammer).

BTW - these are not just 'commercial sites' - they are the top in Google for 'science experiments' and variations of such, which have been vetted and added over several years.

Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.228.220 (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NASTRO
One month is about the right time to have an RFC open. Put your request for closure at Administrators' noticeboard/Request for closure. I cannot close this as I have commented. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, not sure how I missed the RfClosure page... Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!
I just wanted to say congratulations and well done on putting together WP:NASTRO and diplomatically steering it toward promotion. It's good to finally have some concrete guidelines we can use for judging the notability of astronomical object articles. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was about to offer you the same thanks and praise, since you did plenty of heavy lifting yourself on this proposal and RfC. I'm happy to have a guideline now. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:W. E. B. Du Bois/GA1 ready
I think all the tasks in Talk:W. E. B. Du Bois/GA1 have been accomplished. There were a couple of minor deviations, that are described in the comments on that page. --Noleander (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Star
You've only been here a year, and only really been active in the past five months, but you've done some impressive work. I'd like to keep you in mind for nominating for adminship in about six months. I think you're just the sort of person who would be a big asset to the community.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Much appreciated. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Joint custody (United States) needs a kick in the pants
I pinged the group leader. If nothing happens within 48h or so, well, it's your call, I understand. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI: . I am not sure where is the miscommunication issue; I'll try to find some time to look at the review myself this evening or the next one. I hope it's not a major issue... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 00:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Technology, Information Technology
there was some criticism on foundation-l about "wikipedia not beeing good in vital articles". could you improve Technology and Information Technology so it is better understandable and also a connection usable connection is made? btw, i do not care by whom and why these articles are considered vital, i only think the quality of both might be improved. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I reverted those edits mainly because information technology doesn't belong in the medieval section, and another addition altered a link that was already good. The best way to improve articles such as this is to expand the prose and support it with references to reliable sources.AstroCog (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * undid the revert, as currently the history is only parted in 3 time frames, all going for thousands of years. and IT should belong to the last timeframe i guess, and is important enough to be mentioned. what you think? your english and knowledge is probably a lot better to integrate it more seamlessly --ThurnerRupert (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, 1964/GA1
Thank you for your comprehensive and very helpful GA review. One question: which images specifically had insufficient fair-use rationales? Thanks, Tyrol5   [Talk]  20:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for your review of the article. I've now addressed the concerns at the GAN, pending your opinion. Let me know if there are any further issues. Thanks again, Tyrol5   [Talk]  20:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll take a look. AstroCog (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review for McGurk Effect
Thank you for reviewing this article. It is indeed the product of a Psychology class. Wikipedia provides the opportunity to write for a general audience. This is something that most students don't have a lot of opportunity to do. I appreciate your comments and your gentle critique. My assessment is similar. I am working on restructuring assignments so that I get to make my assessment before articles are submitted to GA. I hope this student is interested enough to pursue the required alterations to clean it up. Just for your info, this made the DYK page today. Thanks again for taking the time and showing sensitivity to the situation. Paula Marentette (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

List of colleges and universities in Minnesota FLC
Hi there! I noted you have an interest in Minnesota-related topics (and are a U of M grad to boot). Would you be interested in weighing in at the FL candidacy for List of colleges and universities in Minnesota? It's pretty close to passing, but still needs one or two more supports. You can find the review link here. Thanks!  Ruby  2010/  2013  19:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Bridgewater Associates GA Review
Dear Astrocog, Thanks for initiating a GA review at Bridgewater Associates. As a GA reviewer myself I know that often there are things that need fixing as seen through a fresh pair of eyes. So please let me know what you see and I will revise relevant items as needed. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been reading through this article, and it strikes me almost as an advertisement. One thing you could do to preempt my comments is to carefully work through the article to remove the kind of corporate-ese that makes some of the article read like it was generated by a PR person within the company. AstroCog (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to do that. I assume that when you say "corporate-ese" you mean the language or presentation. If you could you maybe cite a specific sentence or paragraph as an example than I'd have a clearer understanding of exactly how to proceed. Thanks for the feedback. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 00:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just posted my GA review. It's a decent article, and not too far from GA status. Good luck with the improvements. I'll be watching the review, so you can leave comments there and I'll answer them. AstroCog (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, thanks again.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 01:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've made all of the changes that you have requested. Can you take a look when you have time? Cheers!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Death panel
Thank you for your comment at Good article reassessment/Death panel/1. I replied and I have made some changes to the article. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Time Error in GA Review
Hi - I wonder if you could sort out a minor issue for me? I did the GA review on Shiloh (novel) recently which was passed. There seems to have been an issue which has left an "invalid time" error in the article history at Talk:Shiloh (novel). I've had a tinker with it, but can't get it to go: is there something I missed, or is it a Bot error? Thanks - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I just played around with it and can't see any obvious reasons for the error. Looking at the history for that page, it's also not obvious to me when the bot updated the history with the GA status, and perhaps that's the problem? I tried several different changes, but none of them stuck. You may need a tech person to look at it, and can probably find them through here. Good luck. AstroCog (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GAs
Hey! A friendly reminder to actually list articles you have passed through WP:GAN at one of the WP:GA subpages. I have just listed Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, 1964 at WP:GA/SSS. Thanks, —  Andrew s talk  04:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)