User talk:Chrislintott/Archive 1

Re the Category
It is not. I will sort. You free for a drink soon? WJBscribe 17:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you want you can add to the top of the talkpage on your article. It notes that the subject of the article edits Wikipedia with the stated account name and adds you to the category Notable Wikipedians. Will 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Milky Way Diameter
Hi Chris,

The person who edited the diameter of the Milky Way to 75,000 light years is currently studying Astronomy as a freshmen at the University of Minnesota, so he felt that his editing the information was justified. However, he's new to editing articles :). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hypershadow647 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Re:
Ah, your first vandalism warning.... By the way, blatant username policy violations can be reported straight to WP:AIV for immediate blocking by an admin. Examples include profanity in the name but also: "Usernames that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers or of extended repetition of a particular character"), which I think covers this one. They've been blocked by Deskana in any event. As to your question on my talkpage, I'm still giving it some thought... Will ( WjBscribe ) 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Andy Murray
Hello!

I think your draft is excellent, and would make the article seem much more professional. Please add it to the article! --Flute138 16:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sky at Night updates
Sorry its taken me a while to get back to you on this but I wanted to have a think about WP:COI and a couple of recent Arbcom decisions before commiting myself. Given the reasoning of the proposed decision in the Derek Smart case, I would suggest that the best course of action to take where one wishes to see updates to an article but cannot properly edit due to a conflict of interest would be to use the talkpage. I would briefly explain the conflict of interest, mention what sort of updates you feel are necessary and provide reliable sources for others to work with. Usually the main bar to updating happening is lack of sources (or willingness to find them). I think if you list possible sources with brief summaries of what they refer to on the talkpage it should encourage the expansion and updating you seek. Will ( WjBscribe ) 17:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Project Galileo
This appears to be fairly unremarkable school project. But if you have a sec to take a look I'd be grateful. If I'm wrong, could you weigh in at Articles for deletion/Project Galileo (2nd nomination). Thanks, WjBscribe 02:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just wanted you to tell me if it was in fact majorly important and just badly written. Cheers for the imput. WjBscribe 12:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Galaxy

 * Don't be too negative - hopefully people will be interested in your hard work and appreciate it. The vandals are just the price to pay for that, and we'll all clear up after the party. Chrislintott 17:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well my negativity comes from experience, and I'll likely be doing most of the clean up. But thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Andromeda-Milky Way collision
The two links at Talk:Milky_Way should have been and. Sorry about that, let me know if I missed any.--mikeu 23:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Large pathetic galaxy
To be quite honest, I have no idea if the article content is "correct" or not. If you'd like to make a redirect of the article (even just to Galaxy, or to any other location), or anywhere else, or to correct its content, you're certainly welcome to do any of that. All I do is look at the AFD and determine whether there is a consensus as to what to do with the article. In this case, it appeared that there was not. If you disagree that my reading of the AFD was correct, you're certainly welcome to take it to a deletion review. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

milky way
There is a ref at the first mention of magnitude at the top of the article, so I removed the cite needed tag at the second mention.--mikeu 02:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Elliot McGucken
I don't think its worth nominating that one for deletion- likely to end in no concensus. I'd be tempted to ignore it unless you have strong feelings about it. See what you think of my efforts to clean it up- its still a bit of a mess. WjBscribe 21:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Phobos (Moon)
I was about to add it before you deleted it. I would request that you restore the article so that I can add my reference Material.

Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesRandom (talk • contribs) 14:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Thankyou for your correspondance. I have taken the books veracity based on the fact that the accounts within the book were gathered by accounts of that day from various other sources including CCCP Mission Controllers themselves. (In fact i believe names are mentioned too). Have you read the book yourself? I shall review it when I return from work and make the changes you have suggested. James Random 15:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Gravity Probe B data analysis
I appreciate your concern. I'm new to wikipedia, do I come here to discuss it with you, or reply on my talk where you started it? see my talk.

OK, I would have preferred the planned end date of the analysis up there as well, but it still retains most of the intention of my edit. Never mind 4~'s, sometimes I cannot be bothered to log in at all, and then maybe have to conduct a discussion as 123.45.67.8 NeilUK 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cricket Records
I cant understand what u r talkin abt. The version that was erroneous is the latest one -Ravichandar84 07:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cricket_World_Cup_records

Categorization of people by religion
Actually, Galileo Galilei was in Category:Roman Catholic scientists before it was deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Alpha centauri
It's not entirely clear whether Proxima Centauri is definitely not part of the Alpha Centauri system. As Wikipedia's article claims, the association seems unlikely to be accidental. If you feel that it would be better to describe Proxima as independent, you might want to explain that in the article, since "Alpha Centauri" is the most commonly known term to the layman. Serendipodous 17:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, for me the issue is whether or not Proxima is part of the Alpha Centauri system. As far as I can tell, it hasn't been proven not to be. Serendipodous 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Troublesome IP
Interesting, take a look at the WHOIS link for that IP -. Unfortunately the MediaWiki software is pretty blunt as far as blocking goes. It has no ability to only block at certain times or to only block people from certain pages. I'll keep an eye on it - if the vandalism continues it may be necessary to block it anyway. If I don't disable account creation, hopefully whoever is making the good edits will decide to create an account... WjBscribe 11:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe a bit much at this point but its good to have that option. You around for a drink sometime this week? WjBscribe 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Microturbulence

 * Good work! Chrislintott 18:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Obviously lots of room for improvement... &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Landmark
Hi Chris

Just wanted to say thanks for taking on the Landmark Education mediation and I hope it doesn't drive you nuts! I know what you mean by the talk page making your head spin. Best regards. DaveApter 13:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have gone very quiet there, now that the actual mediation process is under way! Is this usual?

btw, I was at Cambridge too (Caius) - reading Natural Sciences initially, then Philosophy. Do I take it you were a NatSci, with Astronomy in part II? Best wishes. DaveApter 16:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

checking in
How are things with the Landmark case? Cheers! Vassyana 05:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 122
Sorry about that and thanks for dropping me a line – at the time you clicked on that link there was no Category:1957 United Nations Security Council Resolutions because I hadn’t made it yet. In the future if you want to put one up what I usually do is copy and past the code from the previous year’s category and all that needs to be changed are the dates. Also, I figure there only really needs to be one reference to the text of resolutions, I like to keep it inhouse and reference wikisource but whichever you pick the other becomes more or less irrelevent. Furthermore! I was looking at the 1957 Cat and the article you wrote for Resolution 126 is listed under U while all the other reolutions are listed under 0. It doesn’t really matter but I have no idea why that would happen – any theories? - Schrandit 19:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It has to do with the lack of category sorting for 126 which is  compared to 125 which is  .  Click a few pages in the category Category:United Nations Security Council Resolutions to see how people use the pipe trick.--Fisherjs 11:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of those bot tags, see you around. - Schrandit 20:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikihermit's RfA
Yep I did. Thanks for catching the typo! Matthew 13:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Touching base
How are things going with Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-21 Landmark Education? Do you have any questions or concerns? Cheers! Vassyana 22:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Do you feel your "voice" is represented by other parties in the mediation? Vassyana 13:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Thanks for your comment. I am at a loss. See my reply on my talk page. Regards, Bessel Dekker (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing at Line of succession to the British Throne regarding Viscount Severn
✅.

I have placed the in-line reference for you. I have done the same over at Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. Thanks for finding the source.

Jake the Editor Man ( talk  ) 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British throne
''Hi; I've reverted your edit removing the details about Peter Phillips' engagment. As this is a verifiable fact which affects his position in the line of succession, I think it deserves its place in the article. If you prefer a compromise, how about moving it to a footnote to make it less prominent? Chrislintott (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)'' (copied from User talk:Doops)
 * No, it doesn't affect his position in the succession! It may do so in future, of course; but it doesn't at present. I just think it makes us look unencyclopedic to be full of speculation about the future. (But a lot of things about that page are unencyclopedic, frankly.) Anyway, yeah, maybe a footnote would be better. Cheers, Doops | talk 17:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

James Windsor
The edit you mentioned on my talk page is fine. If you read what I wrote again, you will see that it says "judging by" the press release and explains that it uses "Lady Louise Windsor" rather than "Mountbatten-Windsor". I am showing that the the Palace is acting as though the children of the Earl and Countess are legally princes. If you want to clean up the presentation, have at it, but there is nothing wrong with the substance of the edit. In short, no, I will not provide a better reference or revert. -Rrius (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

General relativity up for peer review
General relativity is now up for peer review here; I saw your name on the peer review volunteer list and would like to invite you to contribute. Many thanks in advance, Markus Poessel (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review help
Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Diffusion damping's Peer Review
Hello. I noticed you sometimes like to perform peer reviews of scientific articles in need. Would you mind checking out Diffusion damping? -- rmrfstar (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request
Thanks for signing up at Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add. Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Benyon
I would advise leaving it until he has made an appearance in the Football League, as until then, he still fails WP:ATHLETE. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  22:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Torquay's status is irrelevant - WP:ATHLETE states that he must play at a fully professional level, which the Conference is not. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  12:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Help Me tag
Hi, I just thought I'd let you know why I closed the  you placed at Talk:Planet Hunters. The tag is for people who are unsure of how to edit wikipedia, have editing questions, and other such issues. They are not for gathering support for a particular position on how an article is written. That being said, your question is still perfectly valid (so I left it on the page), and for something as relatively minor as what you're proposing I'd suggest just editing the article yourself. Cheers. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Article Edits
I've recently edited your article to update links and clarify references. It would be helpful if you could look it over and perhaps point towards a source for some of the biographical information that is sought. Rgds Richard Nowell (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

English South Coast Meetup
Hi Chris, you are hereby invited to the South Coast Meetup.

Kind Regards -- Marek  . 69  talk 23:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia decision making
(In response to Special:Diff/753215271/753320081) Our basic decision procedure is discussion until WP:CONSENSUS is established. WP:Policies and guidelines document our prior discussions, so that is the first stop when not sure. Nothing wrong with asking first, but one of our guidelines is WP:BOLD, so going ahead is fine, too. If someone objects, discussion begins. If something is unclear, feel free to ask anyone, including me. I'm only a minor contributor, but I've been around long enough to know how to find the right wizards in this asylum. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: Never forget WP:IAR. WP:WIARM provides some exposition. Paradoctor (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I've been around a long while, so know the basics. A reminder is always appreciated though. Chrislintott (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Popups showed just 700+ edits and I then kind of assumed you were as raw as I was at that count. Just saw your user page. Oops. This post never happened. Happy editing. Paradoctor (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That's ok - sorry for my slightly grumpy reply! It's a good reminder to do more. I've now added a note to the article's talk page suggesting a move - is there anything else I should do? Otherwise I shall be WP:BOLD and move if no discussion ensues. Chrislintott (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If that was you being grumpy, you should work for the UN.
 * I suggest waiting a week or so after the last substantial comment to your proposal, it gives the less active editors a chance to get involved. Not expecting serious opposition, but I've been known to be in error before. :P Paradoctor (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)